Hello:

If I ran a doughnut shop in Arizona, (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/arizona-senate-anti-gay-discrimination) and held a SINCERE religious belief that cops are IMMORAL, can I refuse to serve them?

excon

Can the cop force you to violate your beliefs?

Hello again, Steve:


Can the cop force you to violate your beliefs?No more than selling a hamburger to a gay person can. But in Arizona the hamburger store owner WILL be able to refuse to serve them.

Should it pass, apparently you're saying that I CAN refuse to serve the cop. At least you're being consistent (for NOW, but that's gonna change, isn't it?).

excon

PS> Baseball?

If your belief allows you to discriminate against other Americans, you shouldn't be in business, you should be in church doing business your religion allows. No church is above the law, and the "devil made me do it" is no excuse. Tax the church if you want to do BUSINESS.

>PS:Baseball. Can't wait!! <

I'd sell them the donuts, but then I think if we were a civilized society there could be room for compromise. But it isn't about selling donuts, it's about sincere people being forced to PARTICIPATE in things that violate their conscience or express messages contrary to their faith.

Baking a gay couple a cake is no big deal to me, forcing me to create a cake that reflects their orientation might cross the line for some. Does only the gay couple's rights matter? How about I make the cake and you buy your topper? Or why would you even want to do business with me knowing my heart isn't in it? Find another cake and everyone can be happy.

If your belief allows you to discriminate against other Americans, you shouldn't be in business, you should be in church doing business your religion allows. No church is above the law, and the "devil made me do it" is no excuse. Tax the church if you want to do BUSINESS.

>PS:Baseball. Can't wait!! <

We don't abandon our beliefs in the public square. I realize you lefties want to put Christians in the closet but sorry, the first amendment isn't void in my place of business and the church exists to worship and serve, not sell donuts.

P.S. Do y'all really think you stand a chance in baseball?

Hello again, Steve:

Look. I sympathize with your religious beliefs... But, when you practice them OUTSIDE of the church, you open yourself up to the discussion about WHO'S beliefs are we gonna make superior over others.. You think YOUR beliefs should be supreme. But, according to our beloved 1st Amendment, MY beliefs are equal to yours, even if I just formed a church. The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about older religions versus newer ones.

Who are you to tell ME that MY religious beliefs CAN'T be centered around a HATRED for cops??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Look. I sympathize with your religious beliefs... But, when you practice them OUTSIDE of the church, you open yourself up to the discussion about WHO'S beliefs are we gonna make superior over others.. You think YOUR beliefs should be supreme.

But, according to our beloved 1st Amendment, MY beliefs are equal to yours, even if I just formed a church. The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about older religions versus newer ones.

Who are you to tell ME that MY religious beliefs CAN'T be centered around a HATRED for cops??

excon

I made no such argument, I'm not challenging your beliefs or their equality. I said it's about forcing me to violate those beliefs. Who trumps who there?

We don't abandon our beliefs in the public square.
As a public librarian (with my own beliefs about things), I never asked anyone if he was alcoholic or gay or divorced or an immigrant or a different religion/political standing before I checked out books to him. All that mattered was that he had paid his property taxes and had a library card in good standing. As a counselor, I never have checked first and/or refused a client who was alcoholic or gay or divorced or an immigrant or a different religion/political standing either. If he couldn't pay what I asked, we bartered and worked it out.

Was I wrong? Should I have been pickier?

I said it's about forcing me to violate those beliefs.
Then why would you be in a business from which you would push away paying clients/customers?

If I was a cop, I would sue you for discrimination Ex. That's also in the law. Don't want to provide me a service, we go to court. See how many donuts you make for profit or a livelihood after my lawyers serves you with court papers. I don't care what you believe. Not my business. Screwing me over in the name of your god is my business, and it isn't going to happen.

Sue the government of Arizona. Let them pay for their religious belief that's all about bad behavior.

Personally, I take a dim view of lawmakers making it easy to discriminate. Much like the "Stand your ground" laws that allow for killing people you don't like because you FEEL threatened.

PS.>Looking to have a GREAT year<

Hello again, Steve:


forcing me to violate those beliefsWell, THAT'S the problem, because when you bring those beliefs into the PUBLIC sphere, the discussion becomes WHO'S beliefs does the state back? YOUR beliefs do not trump MINE.

If your beliefs are SOOOOO important to you, then WHY are you doing business with the secular community AT ALL? Doesn't a LOT of what they do OFFEND you??? Should you be required to bake a cake for a jaywalker, a wife beater, or an adulterer??

What if some black guy who's NOT gay, but swishes a little bit, is refused service? Can he sue?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Well, THAT'S the proble, because when you bring those beliefs into the PUBLIC sphere, the discussion becomes WHO'S beliefs does the state back? YOUR beliefs do not trump MINE.

I believe that's what I said, your beliefs don't trump mine so how can you force me to violate mine???????


If your beliefs are SOOOOO important to you, then WHY are you doing business with the secular community AT ALL? Doesn't a LOT of what they do OFFEND you??? Should you be required to bake a cake for a jaywalker, a wife beater, or an adulterer??

So I was right, you think Christians should only practice their religion in the home or church. Sorry, ain't happening buster and I'm damned offended you think so.

So the Christians who don't discriminate against their fellow man is WRONG? What if he will sell a cop a donut? Is it okay for him to do a gay wedding cake too?

Hey, I tried to be reasonable and rational but there is obviously no point in arguing with two people who think it's OK top force nuns to buy birth control and expect us to keep our beliefs at home. Keep your own damn beliefs at home.

I wonder what would happen if a Black deli owner refused to cater a local KKK chapter event ? ....or a gay owner forced to cater to an American Family Association meeting ? Last year there was a band that pulled out of performing at a Boy Scout Jamboree because of the groups position on allowing gay scouts. Wonder why they should have such discriminatory rights ?

So the Christians who don't discriminate against their fellow man is WRONG? Is it okay for him to do a gay wedding cake too?
After studying the Bible all my life, my guess is that Jesus would have not only baked the cake, but decorated it too and also happily attended the gay wedding.

After studying the Bible all my life, my guess is that Jesus would have not only baked the cake, but decorated it too and also happily attended the gay wedding.

It's your right to believe that but I think you'd be sorely disappointed.

there is obviously no point in arguing with two people who think it's OK top force nuns to buy birth control
No nun is forced to buy birth control. Have you done a survey as to how many nuns have been prescribed birth control pills because of "female problems" or acne?

There you go again, getting all excited instead of debating the issues. I wouldn't make nuns buy BC. Nor does the law, but the nuns don't want anyone buying BC, not even separately aside from the their own healthcare coverage. I mean what's wrong with their female employees having a separate rider that they want?

And some nuns doesn't object and offer a full range of female health concerns as part of their ministry. Right here in Texas. Are they wrong too?

It's your right to believe that but I think you'd be sorely disappointed.
You don't remember reading about all the lowlife types Jesus used to hang around with -- and even EAT with?

I wonder what would happen if a Black deli owner refused to cater a local KKK chapter event ? ....or a gay owner forced to cater to an American Family Association meeting ? Last year there was a band that pulled out of performing at a Boy Scout Jamboree because of the groups position on allowing gay scouts. Wonder why they should have such discriminatory rights ?

Train no less.

Train Drops Out to Protest Boy Scouts’ Anti-Gay Policy - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/03/train-pulls-out-to-protest-boy-scouts-anti-gay-policy)

Seems they got a lot of support for backing out of their booking, no disconnect there, eh?

You don't remember reading about all the lowlife types Jesus used to hang around with -- and even EAT with?

We're supposed to do that, but you'll be hard pressed to find where he ever participated in, encouraged or approved of their sins.

Train no less.
That's a private business, not a bakery on Main Street.

That's a private business, not a bakery on Main Street.

I fail to see how that matters, Train earns its profits from the public, they booked the gig and THEN backed out.

We're supposed to do that, but you'll be hard pressed to find where he ever participated in, encouraged or approved of their sins.
First of all, the sin you are talking about is not a sin. The OT passage in Lev. has been mistranslated and misunderstood for centuries. The same goes for what St. Paul wrote. There are Bible historians who believe Paul himself was gay.

So Jesus talking with and even eating a meal with sinners says what about Jesus and how he felt about them?

Hello again, Steve:

If Christians can discriminate, so can my church. Clearly, you don't deny that that's the law.

But, if my church discriminated in the workplace, and yours did too, and then tals did, and WG's did, and NK's atheists weighed in, and then EVERYBODY did, would YOU like to live in a place like that?

excon

and WG's did
Gosh darn! If I discriminated, I wouldn't have any counseling clients! After all, there is no one as perfect as I am.

First of all, the sin you are talking about is not a sin. The OT passage in Lev. has been mistranslated and misunderstood for centuries. The same goes for what St. Paul wrote. There are Bible historians who believe Paul himself was gay.

So Jesus talking with and even eating a meal with sinners says what about Jesus and how he felt about them?

Okie dokie, you run with that.

Okie dokie, you run with that.
I have -- and it makes total sense.

Hello again, Steve:

If Christians can discriminate, so can my church. Clearly, you don't deny that that's the law.

But, if my church discriminated in the workplace, and yours did too, and then tals did, and WG's did, and NK's atheists weighed in, and then EVERYBODY did, would YOU like to live in a place like that?

excon

Train discriminated and was cheered. Like I said, you want Christians to keep their beliefs to themselves, at home, or at church while forcing us to violate them. Sorry bud, I tried to be reasonable and rational but we won't be silenced.

we won't be silenced.
I'm a lifelong Christian -- a conservative Lutheran preacher's kid -- and vehemently disagree with you. Who's the "we"?

Who's the "we"?

Obviously those Christians they want silenced who refuse to be silenced.

Obviously those Christians they want silenced who refuse to be silenced.
So there are different kinds of Christianity? Which one is the correct version?

So there are different kinds of Christianity? Which one is the correct version?

You tell me, I make no such claim. Obviously you and I disagree on dogma so I guess that makes at least two different kinds.

You tell me, I make no such claim.
Yes, you do. Your "we" is trying to change the public marketplace, women's rights and place in society, education and what is being taught, who can marry, and also turn the U.S. into a theocracy.

Yes, you do. Your "we" is trying to change the public marketplace, women's rights and place in society, education and what is being taught, who can marry, and also turn the U.S. into a theocracy.

horsesh*t. Argue honestly, a REAL Christian would.

Well hell, how the freak do you tell a REAL Christian from a fake one?

Hello again, Steve:

If Christians can discriminate, so can my church. Clearly, you don't deny that that's the law.

But, if my church discriminated in the workplace, and yours did too, and then tals did, and WG's did, and NK's atheists weighed in, and then EVERYBODY did, would YOU like to live in a place like that?

excon

I guess either you believe in freedom of association or you don't . By your own argument ,such discrimination comes at a cost and a competitive disadvantage to the business owner as opposed to those that provide services to all.

horsesh*t. Argue honestly, a REAL Christian would.
How am I dishonest?

Well hell, how the freak do you tell a REAL Christian from a fake one?

Don't know, but don't you think they should argue honestly? That was either horsesh*t or I've just missed all the he-man woman hater, gay bashing, education hating, theocracy 101 meetings. I'm going with it's horsesh*T.

Since you can't tell, and neither can I then I sue the Christian that discriminates against me. How about that, let the court sort it out.

PS>Baseball?
If y'all want me to be the commish again , I'll try to set up a league over the weekend .

If y'all want me to be the commish again , I'll try to set up a league over the weekend .

Go for it boss.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by talaniman https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/religious-beliefs-different-than-yours-785063-post3622752.html#post3622752)
Well hell, how the freak do you tell a REAL Christian from a fake one?


Now Tal I thought you might at least know the answer to that one, the real Christians arn't the ones with guns in their hands

Really... if real Christians were pacifist pansies... the Romans would have killed them all off in the 1st century AD.

Really... if real Christians were pacifist pansies... the Romans would have killed them all off in the 1st century AD.
Check your history book to find out what 1st century Christians did (hint they didn't carry weapons). Why didn't the Romans kill them all off? Why were the Greek word ΙΧΘΥΣ and the profile of a fish so important to Christians?

Read up on Nero and what was happening with Christians in 64 A.D.

Really... if real Christians were pacifist pansies... the Romans would have killed them all off in the 1st century AD.

let us examine your thesis for a moment smoothy, how many battles did the Christians fight with the Roman's in the first century or any century for that matter? and yet, christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman empire and throughtout the world. Unlike Islam, christianity doesn't rely on conquest to spread the truth. It seems pacifist or at least christian views were important and scripture tells us the might of our arm will fail

the Christians didn't rely on military might to survive and prosper.

How did Christianity get to Europe? I guess it had nothing to do with conquering it by the Romans.

As I recall Tal it spread by word of mouth and the efforts of Peter and Paul who both went to Rome and died there, but there were others since it began in Judea and the population of Judea was dispersed by the Romans. Yes it did follow the Romans but they had already conquered a large part of Europe before the Christians came along. Christianity spread to places like India and Ethiopia without benefit of armies and even people like the Vikings eventually became christian without being conquered

Back to the donuts. Any LEO would have to be kinda stupid to eat one of Ex's product if he felt that way. Same thing about the guys with the wedding cake. If he HAS to make it by court order, I REALLY don't want to taste it.

Tried to make that point earlier (#39) . The point is that this law Arizona is contemplating supports the right of freedom of association. That makes it the opposite of Jim Crow laws which codified a prevention of freedom of association. By statute ,whites and blacks were denied the right to associate in the market place. Laws forcing people to associate are just as perverse.

Back to the donuts. Any LEO would have to be kinda stupid to eat one of Ex's product if he felt that way. Same thing about the guys with the wedding cake. If he HAS to make it by court order, I REALLY don't want to taste it.

That makes 3 of us who tried to make that point. I'd much rather just go somewhere that wants my business and we can all be happy.

In that vein, I believe Kevin Williamson hit the nail squarely on the head.

Until the Whole Is Leavened | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371633/until-whole-leavened-kevin-d-williamson)



Try turning the moral math around as a thought experiment: Imagine you are the gay owner of a restaurant in Chelsea, a member in good standing of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, rainbow flag flying out front — and the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church decide that they want to rent your party room for their annual “God Hates Fags” Sunday brunch. Shouldn’t you have the right to refuse? There is in this sad world such a thing as a Ku Klux Klan wedding — should the management of Harlem’s famous Sylvia’s Restaurant be prosecuted under civil-rights law if the establishment should decline to cater such a wedding? It is impossible for me to imagine that that should be the case.

Be careful what you wish for.

Hello again,

If I were IN the doughnut business, I wouldn't name it, "I Hate Cops Doughnut Shoppe".

Interestingly, I was IN the security business, though. I worked closely with cops every day. They had NO idea who I was, and they LOVED my product. No, I didn't tell them what I thought of them.

I did DO do one of them. She could only get off if she was wearing her gun. It was just kinky enough for me.

Here's another cop story... Some of you know that I did some "extra" work on a couple movies. In one, I played a cop. They gave us REAL cop uniforms, and we were filming AT their headquarters... Well, I had to use the facilities, so I went inside. As I'm walking down the hall, a prisoner started WHACKING the cop who was escorting him someplace... This cop kept looking at me and YELLING for me to jump in. But, I just watched. What?

excon

Changing the subject, eh?

Hello again, Steve:
Changing the subject, eh?Will I EVER convince you that discrimination is ANTITHETICAL to the American way? That it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL? That it's MEAN spirited?? That it's the OPPOSITE of freedom??

Nahhhh... Might as well talk about fun stuff.

excon

PS> (edited) In terms of toms hope and dream that we go back to a world where one was FREE to associate with whom one chose, it resulted ME being discriminated against. I didn't LIKE it. More than likely, YOU wingers, are WHITE, and haven't ever felt the pain of somebody NOT liking you because of who you are...

Now, I KNOW you don't understand any of this, and THAT is the major problem we suffer as a country... And, it's getting WORSE.

I'm DONE!

Ok, NO I'm not, because I KNOW you'll bring up how much Christians and white people are discriminated against... If that wasn't so outrageous, it would be funny... But, that's what you believe, isn't it???

Hello again, Steve:Will I EVER convince you that discrimination is ANTITHETICAL to the American way? That it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL? That it's MEAN spirited?? That it's the OPPOSITE of freedom?? That it WILL be overturned??
Actually, discrimination is the very antithesis of Christianity too. Jesus said in the Beatitudes to turn the other cheek and St. Paul said your kindness will heap coals of fire on an enemy's head. If I'm a Christian gay and own a restaurant that the Westboro Baptist Church wants to party in, I'd do so (and not even pollute their food). They've got the problem, not me. Maybe, just maybe, it would be the beginning of opening a heart or two and changing a mind.

P.S. Added in response to ex's P.S. Try being female in a conservative white (Christian) patriarchal society.

Hello again,

If I were IN the doughnut business, I wouldn't name it, "I Hate Cops Doughnut Shoppe".

Interestingly, I was IN the security business, though. I worked closely with cops every day. They had NO idea who I was, and they LOVED my product. No, I didn't tell them what I thought of them.

...

excon

So you would deceive them. That's expected. Most Lefty Bigots are really really good at lying.

Its not deception when you keep personal BS to yourself and act like a decent human being.

Hello again, Cats:

So you would deceive them. That's expected. Most Lefty Bigots are really really good at lying.Are you telling me that by NOT advertising that I'd been in prison is DECEPTION????

You're a fuking idiot.

excon

Doesn't matter about the other stuff its just treating people the way YOU want to be treated, left, right, bigot or whatever, doesn't matter. Why is that so hard for some Christians in America to understand? You want the people to understand where you are coming from don't you?

Share the love not the hate. Love the sinner even if you hate the sin. Or do you guys think you're better than gay guys? That's it isn't it?

Why is that so hard for some Christians in America to understand?

Not being Christian, I have to turn that question around. Why does a group that claims to be seeking equal treatment demand special privileges? I don't refer to just Gays: Affirmative action for people of African descent, Taxpayer funded abortions for college student Congressional candidates, bypassing the Citizenship Naturalization process for illegal immigrants, and printed forms in half a dozen languages but excluding other languages for people that refuse to use the most common.

PS
> (edited) In terms of toms hope and dream that we go back to a world where one was FREE to associate with whom one chose, it resulted ME being discriminated against. I didn't LIKE it. More than likely, YOU wingers, are WHITE, and haven't ever felt the pain of somebody NOT liking you because of who you are... well you can make laws all you want and that won't do a damn thing to change people's hearts. Title II was government changing government enforced segregation .Segregation, was enforced by law, which meant that those who wanted to associate or integrate could not do so. What you are talking about is forcing associations ,and that is just as repressive as the former. Freedom of associations is an implied right in the 1st Amendment . But it doesn't surprise me that the left is big on compromising a variety of 1st amendment rights.

If there could be one rule and one policy that would be great, but the standard has 50 components and some work better than others. Some are more equal than others, and some have more loopholes than others. Even the applications are different in 50 states. In the case of the current OP, the ones with power make rules to exclude the few, on the basis they can. So under what circumstances can the few be included in the big picture?

For sure picking your customers in a public setting is the same discrimination we have seen with many groups through out history but many have fallen by the wayside as wrong. Its simple cause and effect really and I argue that there would be no need for any affirmative action if there were NO discrimination. But we know there is, even without the winks and nods and religious beliefs.

You don't have to turn the question around because you are not a Christian. They too can be as wrong as anyone. It's their right. But like most works in progress, as a country we still have to keep working at forming a more perfect union. Religious beliefs not withstanding.

Civil rights has been an issue since the founders said only land holding white men counted as men. Now the gay people have to go through the same crap all other groups have been through. Wonder what group is next, and where it ends?

Not being Christian, I have to turn that question around. Why does a group that claims to be seeking equal treatment demand special privileges?
I'm a Christian and agree with you -- equal treatment, but no special privileges. I've worked my butt off for what I have, and so should anyone else. No handouts, or the value of the thing and one's self reliance get lost.

I agree but working hard and going nowhere may not be a thing you can control. Qualified can be a very subjective thing to those that do have control of opportunity. Or those with the power to create obstacles and distraction from ones own goals.

Arizona is a good example of creating obstacles for a group of it's constituents. Others are less obvious, or blatant, but nonetheless there. You can't ignore it sometimes doesn't matter how hard YOU worked. Or if it happens to other groups besides the one you belong too. To be fair, I don't think as many Christian will discriminate but its obvious cover for those that will. They deserve no religious cover in my opinion, but a stern lecture in practice what you preach is more appropriate.

It's absurd to think hate and its cousin discrimination no longer exists, but hiding behind religious belief in the name of a just god is dishonest. I see no difference between those so called Christians and the Ayatollahs they hate so much. Like a klansman with no hood who gets elected to make laws. Arizona has those too.

Hello again, Steve:


Look. I sympathize with your religious beliefs... But, when you practice them OUTSIDE of the church, you open yourself up to the discussion about WHO'S beliefs are we gonna make superior over others.. You think YOUR beliefs should be supreme. But, according to our beloved 1st Amendment, MY beliefs are equal to yours, even if I just formed a church. The 1st Amendment says NOTHING about older religions versus newer ones.

Who are you to tell ME that MY religious beliefs CAN'T be centered around a HATRED for cops??

Ex the premise that religious beliefs should be confined to inside the walls of a building is rediculous. The church is a group of people not a building and that group transends the physical boundries you try to impose on it. A religious belief such as you suggest had better be practiced in secret because anything more than that is illegal on so many levels, so yes society has spoken and said such "religious" belief is unacceptable

So you are against Arizona passing a law that says its okay to discriminate against gay people Clete?

I didn't read all the posts, just too much fighting back and forth for my taste.

Here's my opinion on the original question.

Yes, as a business owner you can refuse service to anyone you want. Voicing why you're refusing service isn't smart. Refusing service because of your beliefs, isn't smart. Are you in business to spout your beliefs, or to make money?

So go ahead, start refusing service because you hate cops, or you hate gays, or you hate blacks, or you hate single mothers... you won't be in business very long if you do that. So why even bother starting a business? Better to stay at home and post online about all the things you hate or discriminate against. At least online you may find a few people that believe what you do.

I'm reminded of my dad. Three things he told me when I got my first job. When you're working you never discuss religion, sex, or politics. Keep your mouth shut, do your job, make money. If you want to discuss the three no no's you don't ever do it at work.

Hello again, Steve:Will I EVER convince you that discrimination is ANTITHETICAL to the American way? That it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL? That it's MEAN spirited?? That it's the OPPOSITE of freedom??

Nahhhh... Might as well talk about fun stuff.

excon

PS> (edited) In terms of toms hope and dream that we go back to a world where one was FREE to associate with whom one chose, it resulted ME being discriminated against. I didn't LIKE it. More than likely, YOU wingers, are WHITE, and haven't ever felt the pain of somebody NOT liking you because of who you are...

Now, I KNOW you don't understand any of this, and THAT is the major problem we suffer as a country... And, it's getting WORSE.

I'm DONE!

Ok, NO I'm not, because I KNOW you'll bring up how much Christians and white people are discriminated against... If that wasn't so outrageous, it would be funny... But, that's what you believe, isn't it???

I understand fine, are you willing to force the gay guys to host the God hates fags banquet?

I understand fine, are you willing to force the gay guys to host the God hates fags banquet?

This is my point exactly. If the gay guys own their business and are asked by the "God hates fags" to provide services for their banquet, they, as business owners, have the right to say no.

But it's business! You're not in business to stand on a soap box for your beliefs. You're not in business to convert people to your beliefs. You're in business for one reason and one reason only, to make money!

So ya, say no to the banquet if you want to lose money because they don't follow your beliefs. Be prepared to go out of business unless every customer meets your moral standards, your exact beliefs. In fact, don't even bother going into business at all if you can't separate business from your beliefs.

Religion, sex and politics! My dad was a genius. Those three things don't mix if you want to survive in business.

I understand fine, are you willing to force the gay guys to host the God hates fags banquet?
What Alty said.

do you actually do those things over there always thought you were a bit insensitive under the veneer

do you actually do those things over there always thought you were a bit insensitive under the veneer

Who are you talking to Paraclete?

those people who advocate holding god hates fags banquets far as I know god doesn't hate anyone but he does hate the consequences of their actions

I don't think he's too fond of child molesters.

once agin smoothy same applies but we do know he thinks that it would be better for such people if they had a millstone around their neck and they jumped in the ocean

So they should be able to say no to the "God hates fags banquet" and live their decision. That's all I wanted to know.

In Florida a gay guy can just shoot 'em if he FEELS threatened by hate speech, and keeps the non refundable deposit.

In Florida a gay guy can just shoot 'em if he FEELS threatened by hate speech, and keeps the non refundable deposit.

That's extreme. Again, turn the tables around and what's your answer?

Hello again,

Do you right wingers know that you sound very Talibanish when you speak of your religion and women's rights??? You FORCE your religion on us in school. You FORCE your religion on us in the workplace. You FORCE your religion on us in the public square.

Why would you wanna do that?? Isn't freedom GOOD?

excon

Hello again,

Do you right wingers know that you sound very Talibanish when you speak of your religion and women's rights??? You FORCE your religion on us in school. You FORCE your religion on us in the workplace. You FORCE your religion on us in the public square.

Why would you wanna do that?? Isn't freedom GOOD?

excon

I've never forced my religion on anyone, it goes against everything MOST Christians believe contrary to popular liberal opinion.

So should the "God hates fags" group be allowed to celebrate in the gay place or not, or does your rule only apply to gays forcing a baker to make a cake? And why do you keep changing the subject?

should a Black caterer be forced to cater a local KKK rally ? NAH ;you know that aint happening . The courts would kick that case out before any serious argument was made .

Hello again,

I don't mumble... Leave your religion in church. If you open your doors to the PUBLIC, that means the PUBLIC. If SOME of the activities of your customers DISTURBS you to the point where you REFUSE to do business with them, then you SHOULDN'T BE in business.

Lemme ask you this.. If this bakery, or that hobby shop can REFUSE to serve people based on their DEEPLY held religious beliefs, can a COP? Can the drivers license bureau? Can his legislator? Can an election worker? Can a fireman? Why should THEIR religious freedom be compromised?

I've tried to point out to you what kind of country we'd have if you COULD discriminate like you WANT to... I suspect you can find religious reasons for slavery.

Nope. This is ANTI American. It's ANTI freedom. It's VERY Russian. In fact, it's very TALIBANISH!

excon

none of your examples are private businesses. The Civil Rights laws correctly addressed government discrimination. It goes too far when forcing private individuals or businesses to give up their right of free association .

So should the "God hates fags" group be allowed to celebrate in the gay place or not, or does your rule only apply to gays forcing a baker to make a cake? And why do you keep changing the subject?
The gay restaurant owner can say no but he will lose money -- LOTS of money. He's in business to make money. He doesn't have to say he's gay. And if the group knows that, it would be to his ADVANTAGE -- for business and political and social reasons -- to host the group. Actually, it would be a pie in the face of the "hate fags" group -- or as the Bible says, it would heap coals of fire on their heads.

***ADDED*** When I started dating, my very conservative Lutheran parents refused to allow me to date Catholic boys. They believed there was something sinister about them and that they would lure me into the back seat of the car and have their way with me. (Think Reformation and Martin Luther and the Catholic Church as the historical basis for this concern.) Yes, I know -- silly, senseless discrimination. (P.S. I found out teen Baptist and Jewish and atheist AND Lutheran boys were just as interested in the back seat of a car.)

Of course the gay haters have as much right to service and products as anyone right? Or to build a church too!!

Hello again,

I don't mumble... Leave your religion in church. If you open your doors to the PUBLIC, that means the PUBLIC. If SOME of the activities of your customers DISTURBS you to the point where you REFUSE to do business with them, then you SHOULDN'T BE in business.

Lemme ask you this.. If this bakery, or that hobby shop can REFUSE to serve people based on their DEEPLY held religious beliefs, can a COP? Can the drivers license bureau? Can his legislator? Can an election worker? Can a fireman? Why should THEIR religious freedom be compromised?

I've tried to point out to you what kind of country we'd have if you COULD discriminate like you WANT to... I suspect you can find religious reasons for slavery.

Nope. This is ANTI American. It's ANTI freedom. It's VERY Russian. In fact, it's very TALIBANISH!

excon

I may be open to the public but it's still MY business, not a government agency. You don't have an unlimited right to force me to participate in things I find abhorrent. I realize you think you do, like forcing pharmacists to sell abortifacients, doctors to perform abortions, nuns to buy contraceptives or bakers to cater gay weddings, but that vision of your Country is much more terrifying than allowing reasonable people to set limits on accommodating everyone's demands in their private lives and "private" businesses. Your view is fascist.

The gay restaurant owner can say no but he will lose money -- LOTS of money. He's in business to make money. He doesn't have to say he's gay. And if the group knows that, it would be to his ADVANTAGE -- for business and political and social reasons -- to host the group. Actually, it would be a pie in the face of the "hate fags" group -- or as the Bible says, it would heap coals of fire on their heads.

***ADDED*** When I started dating, my very conservative Lutheran parents refused to allow me to date Catholic boys. They believed there was something sinister about them and that they would lure me into the back seat of the car and have their way with me. (Think Reformation and Martin Luther and the Catholic Church as the historical basis for this concern.) Yes, I know -- silly, senseless discrimination. (P.S. I found out teen Baptist and Jewish and atheist AND Lutheran boys were just as interested in the back seat of a car.)

it's called the business owner's choice. #39 I argued that it's against the business interest if it's strictly a financial decision. But obviously there is more involved in the decision than that . Does a restaurant lose business when they discriminate against men without shirts and shoes ? Yes ;but they are catering to a clientele of their choice.

Does a network discriminate when it refuses to air an ad for a Catholic hospital or a pro 2nd amendment ad? How about a doctor that refuses a Medicaid patient?

it's called the business owner's choice. #39 I argued that it's against the business interest if it's strictly a financial decision. But obviously there is more involved in the decision than that . Does a restaurant lose business when they discriminate against men without shirts and shoes ? Yes ;but they are catering to a clientele of their choice.

No shoes, No shirt, No service", Now No GAYS? Well it use to be NO blacks, or whites only.


Does a network discriminate when it refuses to air an ad for a Catholic hospital or a pro 2nd amendment ad? How about a doctor that refuses a Medicaid patient?

Is that discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs?

Does a restaurant lose business when they discriminate against men without shirts and shoes ? Yes ;but they are catering to a clientele of their choice.

I have to call you on this one. The discrimination is in the Health Code. Bare feet are prohibited from restaurants for sanitation reasons. This is why you often see beach-side restaurants with racks of flip-flops by the door. It's cheaper to provide the flip-flops than make beach goers change.

ok then I'll take it up a notch .. There are restaurants here that will not serve men unless they are wearing a suit jacket . No sanitation issues there .

ok then I'll take it up a notch .. There are restaurants here that will not serve men unless they are wearing a suit jacket . No sanitation issues there .
And schools that demand their students wear uniforms. And sports teams that demand the players wear protective pads and helmets or uniforms that look like underwear.

ok then I'll take it up a notch .. There are restaurants here that will not serve men unless they are wearing a suit jacket . No sanitation issues there .

A better example by far. Another would be more historical: "No Irish" signs on numerous businesses up until the 50s.

This ties in with the thread I started about the Bank manager carrying a gun. What rights does a business owner have? Whether exercising those rights is profitable is a distraction.

A better example by far. Another would be more historical: "No Irish" signs on numerous businesses up until the 50s.

This ties in with the thread I started about the Bank manager carrying a gun. What rights does a business owner have? Whether exercising those rights is profitable is a distraction.

Exactly.

my right trumps your right is a useless debate

Clete,

How many useless debates have you or I or the both of us participated in on this one forum?

part 1 ... too long to put in one response :

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:

1. If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.
3. Even though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so. Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of "Jim Crow for gays," in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could already be doing it. The bill does not make that more or less likely. Business owners do not want to deny service to gays. This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive - turning away customers is no way to run a business.

4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone's religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right.
5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right
6. Even if a business wanted to claim the right to not serve gays under RFRA, their claim would be even harder to defend under S.B. 1062. So, anyone who is concerned that someone may one day try to use RFRA to discriminate against gays should prefer the bill that was just passed over current law.

part 2

To understand these points, it first helps to understand the history of RFRA.
RFRA was first a federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Employment Division vs. Smith (1989). In that case, the Court did not protect the religious freedom of a member of the Native American Church who used peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. The state did not violate Smith's religious freedom, the Court concluded in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, because the law making illegal the use of the hallucinogenic applied to people of all faiths, not just the Native American Church.
Many were deeply concerned about what that decision would mean for religious freedom in the United States. In practice the decision meant that if a government policy interferes with a person's right to freely practice their religion, that is acceptable as long as the policy was not specifically designed to do so.
A broad coalition of both conservatives and liberals came together, therefore, in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law would tell the courts that the state may only violate someone's religious freedom under certain conditions (more on these later), and it is up to the government to show those conditions are met. Plus, having a law that is generally applicable (applies to all faiths and those with no faith), is not sufficient reason to deny someone religious freedom.
The law was passed by an overwhelming majority, a unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to three vote in the Senate, and signed by a Democratic president - Bill Clinton.
Later, though, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule, in Boerne vs. Flores (1996), that RFRA cannot be applied to state laws. States would have to pass their own RFRA if they wanted it to apply to their state and local laws, the Court said. So, many states did exactly that. Arizona was one of those states.
The bill passed Thursday by the Arizona legislature modifies that existing law. More specifically, it more precisely spells out what RFRA was always understood to mean. Arizona legislators believed a few points needed to be clarified mainly for two reasons, according to Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/21/arizona-law-religious-freedom-or-license-to-discriminate/).
First, the Obama administration's birth control mandate raised the question of whether RFRA applies to a person's religious freedom when they own a business. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that question next Summer. Two Christian owned businesses, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties, sued the government over the mandate, saying it violated their religious freedom.
Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School, was instrumental in helping get the federal RFRA passed. He points out for a Feb. 19 ScotusBlog post (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/symposium-congress-answered-this-question-corporations-are-covered/#more-205364) that RFRA was always understood to protect corporations, including for-profit corporations. The birth control mandate cases, though, demonstrate the possibility that judges may not see it that way, even though that was the intent of the legislators who passed those laws.
Second, in a case involving a wedding photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding based upon her religious beliefs, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state's RFRA law only applies when the government is a party in the case. RFRA was never understood to mean that by the legislators who passed it, but that case demonstrated the need to make the Arizona state law more specific.
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:


Those covered by RFRA would include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization."
A religious freedom violation can be asserted "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."
The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: "1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."

.

part 3

In sum, the bill would essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
While the first two changes are designed to make sure that religious freedom is protected in the broadest way possible, the third change is to make sure that people are not concocting their own religion or religious belief in order to sue. If the bill is passed, those asserting a religious freedom violation would have to prove to the court that it is based upon an actual religious belief, and that they hold strongly to that religion.
While the bill clarifies the broad coverage of RFRA, it also makes it more difficult to sue under RFRA. Let us assume, though, the Arizona bill is signed and becomes law, and someone is able to pass those stricter tests and is allowed to sue under RFRA. Being allowed to sue does not mean they automatically win in court.
Under RFRA, government action may still violate one's religious beliefs. To do so, though, it must show there is a "compelling government interest" and the "least restrictive means" were used to further that government interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to take away someone's religious freedom.
This means RFRA is telling the court to balance the needs of government to accomplish its purposes against the religious freedom of its citizens. Religious freedom must be protected, unless there is an important government purpose that outweighs religious freedom and there is no other way to accomplish that purpose without violating someone's religious belief.
Recent cases involving Christian vendors refusing service for gay weddings has, understandably, been part of the debate over the Arizona bill. Those recent cases, though, involving wedding photographers and wedding cake bakers, are not about discrimination against gays. The photogaphers and bakers in those cases have made clear they would gladly serve gays outside the context of a same-sex wedding. They are not refusing to serve gays, they are refusing to serve a same-sex wedding.
Should the government be able to force them to violate their religious conscience? A court using RFRA would apply the balancing test: the answer is yes, only if there is a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest were used.
At this point, it should be clear why the Arizona bill would not usher in an era of "Jim Crow for gays" in that state. Even if there were a host of Arizona businesses hoping to turn away gay customers (there is not), this bill would not make that any more likely. In fact, just the opposite. Sueing under RFRA is made more difficult by the Arizona bill.
Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give Businesses License to Discriminate Against Gays (http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/)

This whole op is much ado about nothing

Hello again, tom:
This whole op is much ado about nothingHmmm.. So, says your right wing CHRISTIAN rag. But, I ain't buying it.

excon

You want everyone to give gays some space on marriage and such? Why then are you not willing to give others some space on their religious rights? Can you see no scenario in which a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, gay business owner is justified in refusing to violate their conscience?

Hello again, Steve:
Can you see no scenario in which a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, gay business owner is justified in refusing to violate their conscience?Uhhh, NO. If I inquired, MOST of the people I deal with in life, DO things in their life that VIOLATE my conscience, INCLUDING you. If I eliminated them all, I'd be ALONE. Is TALKING to you any different than SELLING you something??? NO! Why haven't you asked ME about stuff I do??? I'm SURE there's stuff that will OFFEND your conscience.. Why isn't THAT enough to END our relationship??? Why is what I do in bed your business anyway??? Nope. I'm IN business. I don't wanna know stuff about my customers. THEY don't wanna know stuff about me... Your friend, Catsmine, thinks that if I was HONEST, I'd wear SIGN around my neck saying that I'm an exconvict. Well, I think he should wear a sign around his neck saying he's an a$$hole.

excon

Apple Wants Arizona Governer To Veto Gay Discrimination Bill | Cult of Mac (http://www.cultofmac.com/267750/apple-wants-arizona-governer-veto-gay-discrimination-bill/)

Arizona lawmaker who voted for anti-gay bill now wants it vetoed or repealed | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/24/arizona-lawmaker-who-voted-for-anti-gay-bill-now-wants-it-vetoed-or-repealed/)

Giving lawmakers the benefit of a doubt, you cannot ignore the backlash on business and perception of citizens making their own lives more difficult, because one group thinks they can discriminate against another and be protected from legal redress in a court of law as Tom pointed out.

Hello again, Steve: Uhhh, NO. If I inquired, MOST of the people I deal with in life, DO things in their life that VIOLATE my conscience, INCLUDING you. If I eliminated them all, I'd be ALONE. Is TALKING to you any different than SELLING you something??? NO! Why haven't you asked ME about stuff I do??? I'm SURE there's stuff that will OFFEND your conscience.. Why isn't THAT enough to END our relationship??? Why is what I do in bed your business anyway??? Nope. I'm IN business. I don't wanna know stuff about my customers. THEY don't wanna know stuff about me... Your friend, Catsmine, thinks that if I was HONEST, I'd wear SIGN around my neck saying that I'm an exconvict. Well, I think he should wear a sign around his neck saying he's an a$$hole.

excon

It has nothing to do with what you do, it's about using the force of government to compel others to violate their religious beliefs.

You want everyone to give gays some space on marriage and such? Why then are you not willing to give others some space on their religious rights?
Gay marriage has to do with human rights, has nothing to do with religious rights.

Hello again, Steve: Uhhh, NO. If I inquired, MOST of the people I deal with in life, DO things in their life that VIOLATE my conscience, INCLUDING you. If I eliminated them all, I'd be ALONE. Is TALKING to you any different than SELLING you something??? NO! Why haven't you asked ME about stuff I do??? I'm SURE there's stuff that will OFFEND your conscience.. Why isn't THAT enough to END our relationship??? Why is what I do in bed your business anyway??? Nope. I'm IN business. I don't wanna know stuff about my customers. THEY don't wanna know stuff about me... Your friend, Catsmine, thinks that if I was HONEST, I'd wear SIGN around my neck saying that I'm an exconvict. Well, I think he should wear a sign around his neck saying he's an a$$hole.

excon

as with immigration ;Arizona is trying to adopt the FEDERAL law. RFRA was passed in 1993 by a unanimous vote in the House ;and, in the Senate, only three senators voted against it .It was signed into law by President Bill Clintoon. That is the law of the land . But SCOTUS ruled in 1997 that RFRA did not apply to the states (City of Boerne v. Flores ) .
Arizona 's SB 1062 is an attempt to make the State law the same as the Federal law already on the books for 20 years !

Its REPUBLICAN lawmakers in Arizona using state government to make it easier to violate the rights of its some of citizens based solely on the religious beliefs of others of its citizens. In fact even religious people of good conscious don't agree with this new law and feel its WRONG.

It should be pointed out that the law was vetoed the first time it came across the governors desk. Probably will again.

Gay marriage has to do with human rights, has nothing to do with religious rights.

This is not about gay marriage. It is not about what OTHERS do.

As I just said, it's about using the force of government to compel others to violate their religious beliefs and values, as in FORCING a bakery owner to cater a gay wedding. FORCING a Jewish caterer to serve pork. FORCING a gay caterer to cater a "God hates fags" banquet. FORCING the black caterer to serve the KKK banquet.

Its REPUBLICAN lawmakers in Arizona using state government to make it easier to violate the rights of its some of citizens based solely on the religious beliefs of others of its citizens. In fact even religious people of good conscious don't agree with this new law and feel its WRONG.

It should be pointed out that the law was vetoed the first time it came across the governors desk. Probably will again.

Nonsense, where do you have the right to a cake from a particular baker? FYI, I'm not arguing FOR the law, I say in a civilized society it should be unnecessary. I wouldn't force you to host the Westboro crowd, why would you force me to host the pregame party for the Folsom Street Fair?

As I just said, it's about using the force of government to compel others to violate their religious beliefs and values, as in FORCING a bakery owner to cater a gay wedding. FORCING a Jewish caterer to serve pork. FORCING a gay caterer to cater a "God hates fags" banquet. FORCING the black caterer to serve the KKK banquet.
The government forces me to stop at intersections. The government forces me to educate my children. The government forces me to pay taxes. Those may be against my religious beliefs or even my personal beliefs. And I'm okay with it. I know there is a greater good and that I will benefit from it. If I don't want to have to stop at intersections, I won't drive. If I had to educate my children, I just won't have any. If I don't want to pay taxes, I'll move somewhere where there is no requirement to pay taxes. If I own a bakery and don't want to sell my stuff to some people, I will find some other line of work.

Again, this is not about merely selling the product and traffic laws are irrelevant. It is about forced ACCEPTANCE and forced PARTICIPATION (as in the contraceptive mandate) in things that violate REASONABLE religious beliefs. The business owner is perfectly willing to accept the business consequences, so what's it to you and why would you want to use someone who is clearly uncomfortable anyway?

These people in Oregon aren't being unreasonable or rude, and in return they were harassed, intimidated and threatened and the benevolent state of Oregon was good enough to state their intent to reeducate and rehabilitate the business owners, not the militant LBGT community that shut them down. Sorry, but there's just something wrong with that picture.

You may have a point Speech if getting comfortable is the issue, and not just cover for denying the value of a group of people who are different than you are. I agree that something can be worked out but not a law that makes it okay to deny a group based on belief in the meantime.

That's a disturbing picture.

You may have a point Speech if getting comfortable is the issue, and not just cover for denying the value of a group of people who are different than you are. I agree that something can be worked out but not a law that makes it okay to deny a group based on belief in the meantime.

That's a disturbing picture.

Again and again, it is not about discriminating against gays, and we are not talking about denying their value. It is about compulsory participation, it is about official coercion and imposing values on others - something you whine about yourself.

If someone categorically refuses to sell to gays under any circumstance then we can talk, but it is not unreasonable for a PRIVATE business to decline to PARTICIPATE in or FACILITATE a gay wedding, a God hates fags banquet, a KKK wedding. Or say a Christian bookstore to decline to sell the Satanic Bible, a gay T-shirt company owner decline printing anti-gay marriage messages, a gay bar refusing to host a Duck Dynasty reunion. Is it?

Hello again, Steve:

Again and again, it is not about discriminating against gays,It's absolutely about discriminating against gays and you're using religion to do it.

excon

It's just as much discriminating against religious by forcing them to violate their beliefs, and you're using gay victimhood to do it. I really don't for a minute believe you can't find a scenario in which a PRIVATE business owner would be justified in declining to be a party to something that offends them.

Like I said, I don't think a law should be necessary, but apparently your side is unwilling to be reasonable, to live and let live, to respect my autonomy, choices and beliefs as you demand I not only respect yours but APPROVE. Put that shoe on the other foot as you have so many times here before, you don't like it one bit. Why should I?

a PRIVATE business owner
If he's opeating out of his home kitchen, I agree with you. If he has a sign and business on Main St., I don't. What if this business owner/baker takes the OT lterally and refuses to sell to women who don't have their heads covered? or to men who have cut their hair? Methinks he should find another line of work.

he could equally decide to not sell to women or men who have their heads covered, just opening a store doesn't mean he has to accept anyone

If he's opeating out of his home kitchen, I agree with you. If he has a sign and business on Main St., I don't. What if this business owner/baker takes the OT lterally and refuses to sell to women who don't have their heads covered? or to men who have cut their hair? Methinks he should find another line of work.

A business owner doesn't cede his rights because he opens his doors to the public and we aren't talking anything Sharia extreme. Businesses discriminate every day, they say no every day. It only perturbs liberals when a Christian says no because that goes against their beliefs and this is just the foot in the door to coercing pastors to perform gay weddings just as they're trying to coerce Christians to buy contraceptives.

you could be in business to serve a particular group of customers afterall isn't this what a church is

you could be in business to serve a particular group of customers afterall isn't this what a church is

Like a Christian bookstore (http://www.mardel.com/)? An LGBT bookstore (http://www.lgbtbookshop.com/)?

We agree on the point we don't need a law so why are they making one? And who is making it? You really should stop blaming liberals for making you do stuff since plenty of Christian use contraceptives, and a lot of pastors perform gay weddings freely and willingly.

It's all this anti-discrimination stuff, afterall the homosexuals think they shouldn't be made to come face to face with community attitudes towards their lifestyle. My attitude is I know they exist, I don't wish to come face to face with their attitudes

Tal, the point behind the law is to hold persons harmless for practicing their faith. We already have other laws like this in other catagories. One such law states that you can't sue someone that is doing there best to help you when in an accident. The good samaritan law.

Ref:

Good Samaritans Law & Legal Definition (http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/good-samaritans/)

We have that law here, so explain why this Arizona law helps gay people you refused service too? You cannot sue if you think you are discriminated against? First it was the blacks (MLK day), then the browns (papers please), now it's the gays. What's really up in Arizona?

We agree on the point we don't need a law so why are they making one? And who is making it? You really should stop blaming liberals for making you do stuff since plenty of Christian use contraceptives, and a lot of pastors perform gay weddings freely and willingly.

So because liberal Christians perform gay weddings they all should? Because some Christians use contraceptives we should force others to buy them? Btw, they're backing off from the law, so why can't you back off? As I said before I would probably bake the cake, but I wouldn't force sometime else to. What's the problem with that?

I must apologize for my recent statement about Arizona. They are not alone in trying to ram anti gay laws down the throats of its citizens, Georgia is trying the same crap.

Georgia legislature considering near-carbon copy of anti-gay Arizona bill (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/25/1280367/-Georgia-legislature-considering-near-carbon-copy-of-anti-gay-Arizona-bill)

So to respond about backing off I can only say that I will, if they will.

Oklahoma Restaurant: No Freaks, F*ggots, N*ggers, Disabled or Welfare "Freeloaders" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/09/1276212/-Oklahoma-Restaurant-No-Freaks-F-ggots-N-ggers-Disabled-or-Welfare-Freeloaders)

I like what the president of Uganda said the other day, you know Uganda, just passed some anti-gay laws. He said he didn't understand, afterall there are all these beautiful women................... for him it just didn't compute, he couldn't get his head around it, and I think that is where a lot of us are.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/25/world/africa/uganda-anti-gay-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

what we are starting to see is the pendulum swinging back, it is a case of been there, done that, and now we would just rather do the other thing

I must apologize for my recent statement about Arizona. They are not alone in trying to ram anti gay laws down the throats of its citizens, Georgia is trying the same crap.

Georgia legislature considering near-carbon copy of anti-gay Arizona bill (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/25/1280367/-Georgia-legislature-considering-near-carbon-copy-of-anti-gay-Arizona-bill)

So to respond about backing off I can only say that I will, if they will.

Oklahoma Restaurant: No Freaks, F*ggots, N*ggers, Disabled or Welfare "Freeloaders" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/09/1276212/-Oklahoma-Restaurant-No-Freaks-F-ggots-N-ggers-Disabled-or-Welfare-Freeloaders)

One idiot in Oklahoma no more represents the reasonable business owners adhering to their faith any more than Westboro represents Christianity. In fact you guys say that sort of thing every time I highlight one of your women haters.

One idiot in Oklahoma no more represents the reasonable business owners adhering to their faith any more than Westboro represents Christianity. In fact you guys say that sort of thing every time I highlight one of your women haters.So then, when you highlight a woman hater he by no means represents whatever party he's from. Is this correct?

So then, when you highlight a woman hater he by no means represents whatever party he's from. Is this correct?

I don't believe I've ever made the argument that all Dems are woman haters because of one moron.

Bipartisan group of legal scholars asks Brewer to sign the bill (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/no-this-is-not-jim-crow-for-gays-part-two.php).


As I explained here (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/no-this-is-not-jim-crow-for-gays-understanding-arizona-s-b-1062.php), Arizona S.B. 1062 would not subject gays to a regime of discrimination. The bill is simply an attempt (successful in my view) to balance the right to religious freedom and the right of non-discrimination.

Eleven leading scholars religious-liberty scholars have written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to provide her with a sorely needed rational analysis of S.B. 1062 as she considers whether to sign it. The professors include Stanford’s Michael McConnell, my go to source in these matters, and Douglas Laycock who supports same-sex marriage. The others are Mary Ann Glendon, Helen Alvaré, Thomas Berg, Carl Esbeck, Richard Garnett, Christopher Lund, Mark Scarberry, Gregory Sisk, and Robin Fretwell Wilson University.


SB1062, which amends Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is on your desk for signature. The bill has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics. We write because we believe that you should make your decision on the basis of accurate information.

Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.

The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections. These laws enact a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases by courts. They say that before the government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.


That standard makes sense. We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason. Arizona has had a RFRA for nearly fifteen years now; the federal government has had one since 1993; and RFRA’s standard was the constitutional standard for the entire country from 1963 to 1990.


There have been relatively few cases; if you knew little about the Arizona RFRA until the current controversy, that is because it has had no disruptive effect in Arizona. Few people had heard of the federal RFRA before the current litigation over contraception and the Affordable Care Act.


SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.


But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.


As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion. And as a business gets bigger, the government’s claim of compelling interest will become stronger....




Sounds perfectly reasonable and sound to me. Sign the bill.

There seems to be more support to veto the bill than sign it, and personally extending individual rights to businesses and the beliefs of the owners with no redress in the courts just doesn't seem fair plus it would rewrite existing laws that facilitate fair treatment.

https://www.azag.gov/discrimination/public-accommodation-discrimination

Boy you ultra conservatives and haters are always looking to screw somebody else's rights while maximizing your own.

This bill should be vetoed AGAIN!

There seems to be more support to veto the bill than sign it, and personally extending individual rights to businesses and the beliefs of the owners with no redress in the courts just doesn't seem fair plus it would rewrite existing laws that facilitate fair treatment.

https://www.azag.gov/discrimination/public-accommodation-discrimination

Boy you ultra conservatives and haters are always looking to screw somebody else's rights while maximizing your own.

This bill should be vetoed AGAIN!

I understand there is pressure to veto, but as the letter says it's based on misleading representation of the bill. And obviously you didn't even read it because it expressly states the courts would decide, so what is this "no redress in the courts" nonsense?


But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

So what's the problem? And why shouldn't the person who believes their religious rights have been violated have an opportunity for redress in the courts?

Tal, the link you posted has nothing on it regaurding sexual orientation. Isnt that what this whole argument is about?

Tal, the link you posted has nothing on it regaurding sexual orientation. Isnt that what this whole argument is about?

Yes it is. You can use religious belief as an excuse to discriminate against gay people because they are not specifically covered under current law. Everybody else is protected against using religious belief as an excuse to not be served. But this amends that protection for everybody, not just gay people. It rewrites the current law cdad.

So what's the problem? And why shouldn't the person who believes their religious rights have been violated have an opportunity for redress in the courts?

They already have that right. It's the consumer who loses a legal protection of non discrimination against business owners.

Here's an example more germane to the statute. A former client cancelled his service because I don't attend the same church he does. He can prove his sincerity, he's been a deacon for decades.

Tal, Ex, are you arguing that I should be allowed to demand service fees because he discriminated against me due to of his religious beliefs?

Wouldn't that be a matter for the legal contract he signed? Now if you canceled him for the same reason that would be a good case of discrimination, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't that be a matter for the legal contract he signed? Now if you canceled him for the same reason that would be a good case of discrimination, wouldn't it?

In this thread you and Ex seem to be trying to prohibit him from cancelling his service on strictly religious grounds. The Arizona law would prohibit me from suing for continued service fees.

Everybody discriminates ALL the time. Which of the four Starbucks on the same corner you go into discriminates against the other three. Eric Holder claims discriminatory enforcement authority over all of the U.S. Code. Lots of posts here argue about how he uses it.

That's the point to this thread. Discrimination in a private citizen is essential to every aspect of Western culture. Discrimination in a Public Official is necessary to the operation of government. Discrimination in a Statute or the Court prohibits the exercise of the necessary and essential discriminations by individuals. The Arizona bill limits the scope of discrimination by the Court.

They already have that right. It's the consumer who loses a legal protection of non discrimination against business owners.

Hogwash.

Not any more. Brewer just vetoes the bill citing creating more problems than it solves, and it was overly broad. Even Speech agreed that there was no need for this law. Brewer said the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/Brewer-arizona-gay-service-bill.html?_r=0

Even Fox News was against this bill.

seems to me before elected candidates are able to take their seat and enact legislation they should have to pass a course of instruction in constitutional law, thereby not wasting everyone's time, this might mean legislative simplification since there would be less attempts to violate the constitution and the various rights of the citizens

According to the left there is no constitution. There is only a dream document that can be spit on and torn up at any time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/texas-judge-strikes-down-state-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

seems to me before elected candidates are able to take their seat and enact legislation they should have to pass a course of instruction in constitutional law, thereby not wasting everyone's time, this might mean legislative simplification since there would be less attempts to violate the constitution and the various rights of the citizens

That will never happen... they don't even want people to prove they are legally entitled to vote before they can vote. Otherwise dead people and illegals will never get to cast theirs.

yes this dead people casting votes is a problem everywhere but they just keep whittlin them down, I give a A for effort to the guy who voted 15 times in the last election, not often we have elections that close that it would have made any difference but I guess he might have stuffed up some of those close senate counts

Not any more. Brewer just vetoes the bill citing creating more problems than it solves, and it was overly broad. Even Speech agreed that there was no need for this law. Brewer said the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/Brewer-arizona-gay-service-bill.html?_r=0

Even Fox News was against this bill.

No, there shouldn't be a need for a law because reasonable people should be able to turn down a job on reasonable religious grounds and be respected, just as reasonable people regularly decline to patronize a business with on principle. The problem is the LGBT lobby has abandoned reason to demand codified acceptance in spite of anyone else's rights.

so let's see if I get this right, no gays in church, no criminals in the police force, no incompetents in government, somehow I can't see it working

so let's see if I get this right, no gays in church, no criminals in the police force, no incompetents in government, somehow I can't see it working

That's because no one is calling for that extreme, although I could go for the no incompetents in government.

I keep running out of popcorn watching the right wingers fall all over themselves making laws and rules to stroke their fears and perceptions. This measure has been all over the country and so far failed everywhere. And the backlash was from republicans and businesses. That should tell the far right a thing or two, when your own party doesn't like it.

What a waste of time, and popcorn.

Wait until the first Muslimcatering business gets sued for refusing to serve Bar-B-Que pork at a Bar Mitzvah. Bet the ACLU defends them.

You can go to Taco Bell and ask for a Big Mac too! You will still get a crazy look!

You can go to Taco Bell and ask for a Big Mac too! You will still get a crazy look!Perfect answer. LOL!

You can go to Taco Bell and ask for a Big Mac too! You will still get a crazy look!

In other words Muslims can discriminate based on religious beliefs?

Even when you give the rabid left what they want, aka "do the right thing" in their eyes, you still get attacked. Vile, rabid CNN lefty Sally Kohn had this to say:


http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/546x367xScreen-shot-2014-02-27-at-8.57.10-AM.png.pagespeed.ic.aDVOGLqX-L.png

Well Sally, thanks for being the bigger person and elevating the discourse.

In other words Muslims can discriminate based on religious beliefs?

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

What are you not understanding? If you can force a Christian to bake a cake with 2 grooms on top can you force a Muslim caterer to serve haram?

In other words Muslims can discriminate based on religious beliefs?No, the services smoothy refers to would not be part of their offerings to begin with.
If someone came to cake shop and asked for moose meat, is the shop discriminating if it doesn't fulfill the order?

Let me try this again. You equate the decorations on a cake to what's on a Muslims menu?

No, the services smoothy refers to would not be part of their offerings to begin with.
If someone came to cake shop and asked for moose meat, is the shop discriminating if it doesn't fulfill the order?

I don't normally offer a cake topper with 2 grooms, so what's the difference? Nothing. The only difference is when the tables are turned your tone changes.

I don't normally offer a cake topper with 2 groomsThen that's a valid answer to the customer. You make the cake but they have to source the topper elsewhere.

Let me try this again. You equate the decorations on a cake to what's on a Muslims menu?

Uh, yes. Haram is sinful to Muslims, gay marriage is sinful to some Christians and that "decoration" is forcing them to represent something they consider against their beliefs. Which by the way, in Islam marriage is between men and women, and Muslim women are generally forbidden from marrying a non-Muslim. What if the baker is a Muslim, does he get a pass for refusing to participate in a forbidden marriage?

Then that's a valid answer to the customer. You make the cake but they have to source the topper elsewhere.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

Boy that was easy.

Boy that was easy.

It should be that easy - but you never answered the question. What if the baker is a Muslim, does he get a pass for refusing to participate in a forbidden marriage?

gay marriage is sinful to some Christians
SOME Christians? Why not all of them?

If you can force a devout Christian to cater a GAY wedding against their religious beliefs... then Atheists and Muslims can be told to go pound sand when they get their panties in a knot about Christmas decorations and anything Christmas in schools and anywhere else.

And a Muslim catering business can be legally FORCED to cater CHristmas and Easter parties.

And a Muslim catering business can be legally FORCED to cater CHristmas and Easter parties.
Why would a Christian go to a Muslim catering business? Of course, the Muslim IS in business to make money, and maybe I want an authentic Holy Land cuisine for my Christmas and Easter celebrations. ;)

SOME Christians? Why not all of them?

Some are more reasonable than others.


It should be that easy - but you never answered the question. What if the baker is a Muslim, does he get a pass for refusing to participate in a forbidden marriage?

Big difference between baking a cake for a customer, and participating in a wedding. But of course you get the two mixed up. I give him a pass on participation, but not refusing to bake a cake. Pick up or delivery?

What ones does with his product is none of his business.


If you can force a devout Christian to cater a GAY wedding against their religious beliefs... then Atheists and Muslims can be told to go pound sand when they get their panties in a knot about Christmas decorations and anything Christmas in schools and anywhere else.

And a Muslim catering business can be legally FORCED to cater CHristmas and Easter parties.

Good luck finding one open.

SOME Christians? Why not all of them?

You certainly don't believe as I do, now do you?

Some are more reasonable than others

That's irrelevant and insulting as I'm guessing you mean it. You want your beliefs respected, so do we, it is not a one-way street.



Big difference between baking a cake for a customer, and participating in a wedding. But of course you get the two mixed up. I give him a pass on participation, but not refusing to bake a cake. Pick up or delivery?


Now you're making my argument, during which I don't recall you giving me a pass for declining to "participate" in something I don't believe in. Make it something else, the wedding photographer for instance. Should a Muslim get a pass for declining to shoot a gay or other forbidden wedding, or would you be sympathetic to the Muslim?


What ones does with his product is none of his business.

Somehow I think you have exceptions to that rule.

You certainly don't believe as I do, now do you?
But we're both Christians? Or me, not so much?

But we're both Christians? Or me, not so much?

Should be easily surmised that the implication in my question was as Christians, you and I don't believe exactly alike. Nothing more implied, that's just how it is and that's ok.

that's just how it is and that's ok.
That's the sweetest thing you've ever said to me! I feel like baking you a cake (or caramel brownies)!

I myself like Persian Style kabobs, Second only to Afghan style kabobs (hate Lebonese style) But if the owner decided he would not cater to Jewish customers or Christian ones (you know the Infidels)... why do I believe the current administration would be defending their right to do so?

Giving gay people a federal tax return doesn't mean he is going to screw with their menus. That's the nog head state legislatures screwing with the rights.

Still wondering if you think the Muslim photographer should have to shoot the gay wedding. With his camera, not an assault rifle.

Contrary to popular belief, there are gay Muslims. What you didn't know?

Contrary to popular belief, there are gay Muslims. What you didn't know?

The insult to my intelligence was uncalled for, and you're still dodging the question. Lots of Muslims believe homosexuality is not only a sin but a punishable offense, are you going to make that guy shoot the gay wedding?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ff/ff1ee7080e5efe078269d5755a9962d761aad5a3a65f3888e7 a65eba688a9c07.jpg

Hello again, Steve:

I was wondering what your plan was when other religions start discriminating against Christians... Then I read that the Tea Party believes the 1st Amendment only applies CHRISTIANS... (http://williamsteaparty.com/2014/02/24/sb-1062-written/)

That takes care of that, don't it?

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

PS> (edited) They took it down... They took it down... I don't blame 'em..

The insult is thinking I should make anyone do anything. If one guy can't fill my needs I find one who can. I pity the fool who gives me crap about I ain't worthy of his business though. BBB, or Greg Abbott... or both.

Hell I didn't get mad when a specialist didn't want to take my health insurance either. Found one that did. I did get a bit upset when they bulldozed the woods I grew up in and built houses and street. I adapted. More people should learn too.

Hello again, Steve:

I was wondering what your plan was when other religions start discriminating against Christians... Then I read that the Tea Party believes the 1st Amendment only applies CHRISTIANS... (http://williamsteaparty.com/2014/02/24/sb-1062-written/)

That takes care of that, don't it?

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

PS> (edited) They took it down... They took it down... I don't blame 'em..

And what does that have to do with me? Nothing.

P.S. Here you go (http://www.examiner.com/article/williams-tea-party-the-1st-amendment-protects-only-the-christian-faith), you're welcome. Whoever those morons are are just morons.

The insult is thinking I should make anyone do anything.

But it's discrimination if he refuses. That was your argument this whole time was it not?

I'm looking forward to the Atheists being forced to cater to Reglious events of all types... they didn't want the right to refuse service... whats the old saying... be careful what you wish for... you might get it?

m looking forward to the Atheists being forced to cater to Reglious events of all typesSure, why not? I'd do it. If you are buying product or services that I offer I'll fulfill my obligations.

Sure, why not? I'd do it. If you are buying product or services that I offer I'll fulfill my obligations.
Even the ones you personally seriously object to...

You would cater a NAMBLA convention if asked?

I see no reason to go through every single objectionable situation. I'll leave that pointless exercise to you. I'd rather live in the real world. :-)

Yet we have seen you get indignant about seeing a decorated Christmas tree in public...

But it's discrimination if he refuses. That was your argument this whole time was it not?

No my argument is that states should make no laws that gives excuse or sanction to discrimination of one group of people by another. There are more thoughtful ways one can deal with their circumstance and situation without a law that favors one over another.

You agreed with me we didn't need such a law in the first place. And yes refusing people goods and services for religious beliefs is discrimination, be it Christian, or Muslim, Jew, or Gay. There is NO difference.

That's my point, that's my argument. I handle day to day bad behavior with my own device.

Yet we have seen you get indignant about seeing a decorated Christmas tree in public...Never.
When you feel the need to make stuff up it's obvious the discussion on this particular subject is over.

Never.
When you feel the need to make stuff up it's obvious the discussion on this particular subject is over.
There are numerous examples in your posts over the years in this forum... because I've participated in some of them so I know they exist.

Just admit to it... you've claimed to be proud to be an atheist... I'm proud to claim I'm not... whats the big deal?

Or do what all liberals do when cornered...throw up that same tired argument.

What tired argument?

The one you just made...

I'll just let you talk to yourself. I assume you do that a lot.

Look it's getting boring, let's make stuff up

Look it's getting boring, let's make stuff up

I think that was the problem with the outrage anyway, instead of looking at the bill rationally they just made bad stuff up about it.

Maybe this was the one smoothy was remembering.: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/happy-holidays-154276-10.html

And I make no judgment here about who is right or wrong or who remembers what? I didn't read the very long thread.

Signed: The Gutless Googler

If it was he is still making stuff up since that thread has nothing to do with his assertion that I "get indignant about seeing a decorated Christmas tree in public".
(it is a good thread though and I stand by everything I said....in 2007 :-) )

Right... the Catholic Church nominated you as saint already, first one thats still alive.... right? Everyone that frequents this forum knows you are an atheist... you've bragged about it adnausium in at least hundreds of posts... but if it makes you happy to pretend otherwise... have at it...far be it for me to deny you that bit of happyiness, everyone else here knows the truth.

If it was he is still making stuff up since that thread has nothing to do with his assertion that I "get indignant about seeing a decorated Christmas tree in public".
(it is a good thread though and I stand by everything I said....in 2007 :-) )

I googled "needkarma objects to Christmas tree" and that's what came up.
Similar to what Jesse on B. Bad was coached to say when Jane was found dead- "I woke up, I found her. That's all I know."

smearcase... I can find dozens on a matter of minutes... on threads I've participated in alone the comments were made in, but its not worth my time... they are there and only a mod or higher can edit content so there won't be any last minute deletions... and its not important enough for me to get worked up over anyway. I've got more important things to do.

Everyone that frequents this forum knows you are an atheist....but if it makes you happy to pretend otherwise... When did I deny that? How do I pretend I'm not? You obviously do not have anything better to do.
BTW next Christmas we'll put up a decorated tree... just like last Christmas. I really don't know what you're rambling about.

Jesus didn't have a tree. Some guy in Europe through that into the tradition in the 16th Century.

The Christmas Archives (http://christmasarchives.com/trees.html)

They make it up as they go along would appear. Religious beliefs are subject to influence other than the truth. Or is it a perceived truth?

When did I deny that? How do I pretend I'm not? You obviously do not have anything better to do.
BTW next Christmas we'll put up a decorated tree... just like last Christmas. I really don't know what you're rambling about.

If it makes you feel good to believe that... have at it.. you among a few others have a long history of posting info to that effect.

Jesus didn't have a tree. Some guy in Europe through that into the tradition in the 16th Century.

The Christmas Archives (http://christmasarchives.com/trees.html)

They make it up as they go along would appear. Religious beliefs are subject to influence other than the truth. Or is it a perceived truth?

Is it up you you or me to decide these sorts of things? Nope... everyone's free to celibrate it as they wish, or not... just not to demand how others will or won't be doing it.

Just an observation.

If you destroy all their "religious" beliefs, rituals and traditions, they are going to be left with the aweful or is that awesome, truth, Jesus. Where do you go then? no saints to hide behind, no statues to hide behind, no one left to pray to but Jesus

Jesus didn't need all the rubbish, he didn't need buildings and he didn't need deputy dog Santa

no one left to pray to but JesusWhy the need to pray to anything at all?

If you destroy all their "religious" beliefs, rituals and traditions, they are going to be left with the aweful or is that awesome, truth, Jesus. Where do you go then? no saints to hide behind, no statues to hide behind, no one left to pray to but Jesus

Jesus didn't need all the rubbish, he didn't need buildings and he didn't need deputy dog Santa

Humans need those things though.

Regarding people's need for prayer and a church and all its trappings, here's a terrific book for you -- Rollo May's Cry for Myth. From the goodreads web site: "Rollo May, respected therapist and bestselling author of Love and Will, discusses the relationships between myths [and rituals] and the subconscious, showing how myths can provide meaning and structure for those who seek direction in a confused world. Here are case studies in which myths have helped Dr. May's patients make sense out of an often senseless world."

Why the need to pray to anything at all?

Firstly; we need to get the attitude out of the way, Jesus is not a thing, an object. Secondly; there are times in the life of every person where they need the intervention of someone greater than themselves, if you haven't experienced that yet, you have been fortunate. My book; Revival ~ a different perspective will answer your question

I have been fortunate I suspect.

Remember this from the person who just a few posts back was claiming they WERE NOT an atheist...

When was that smoothy?

Go back a few posts. Those are not comments made by a person that has any religious faith.

If you are you are..if you aren't you aren't....whichever it may be...embrace it. Nobody here is trying to "save you" or convert you.

Once again I don't understand your lack of capacity to directly answer a question.

I learned that from you. You should be proud.

I'll tell you what, Dems are damn sure desperate. From resurrecting the war on women, to synchronized attacks on Fox News, calling Americans liars, playing the race card to this...

Obama: Some in GOP want 'segregation' for gays | Mobile Washington Examiner (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-some-in-gop-want-segregation-for-gays/article/2544898?custom_click=rss)

The Great uniter is just another liberal a$$h... liar. And that has nothing to do him being black, half white, gay or whatever, he has no interest in making this a better place. Divide and conquer at home while taking more selfies as the world crumbles.

Speaking of some religions being different than others, some Syrian Christians have opted for dhimmitude (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.577608), which I suppose is the least painful of the 3 options, the other 2 being conversion or death.

This is a despicable act by a bunch of fundamentalist extremist military groups. Totally unacceptable! They isn't even Syrians.

Uh that would be Islamic fundamentalist extremists and it is unacceptable, but seems our regime has been fairly silent about the plight of Syrian Christians. Meanwhile in other news, an Iranian Ayatollah said (http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/4167.htm) "Death to America is the first option on our table," and the "State Department allowed an Islamic preacher who called for the death penalty for homosexuals" into the country for a fundraising tour (http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/state-dept-lets-anti-gay-muslim-leader-into-u-s/), while the emperor bashed Christians for wanting to segregate gays.

And then there's this, http://freebeacon.com/iran-executes-two-for-perversion/

45757

And today we learn a Syrian Christian is forced to convert to Islam...and then beheaded anyway (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=026_1393880424). Yes but, gay marriage, war on women...

Don't watch it.

So where is the uproar over the gay hairdresser refusing to cut the governor's hair?

Gay hair stylist drops New Mexico governor as client because she opposes same-sex marriage - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gay-hair-stylist-drops-new-mexico-governor-client-opposes-same-sex-marriage-article-1.1027072)

Hello again, steve:

If governors were a protected class of people, and this LAWBREAKER violated her rights, I'd be UPROARIOUS.

But, they're not, so I ain't.

excon

The governor is a minority, "Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race."

And gays are not a protected class, so try again.

Hello again, Steve:

And gays are not a protected class, so try again.
In LOTS of places they are, and/or soon WILL be. The reason she was turned down was NOT because she's a minority. She was turned down because she's a governor...

But, it DOES raise interesting legal issues... Maybe, like congressman Steve King said, she's only PRETENDING to be a governor, to TRAP the gay hairdresser into REFUSING service to her, just so she can make a case against the gay hairdresser, and score a big payday. That makes SO much sense to me..

I'm willing to rethink it, though. If it can be shown that governors, as a class, NEED protecting, I'm all for it.

excon

The governor is a minority, "Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race."

And gays are not a protected class, so try again.

They should be protected against Christian aggression and degradation in America.

Hello again, Steve:

In LOTS of places they are, and/or soon WILL be. The reason she was turned down was NOT because she's a minority. She was turned down because she's a governor...

No, that's incorrect, and the baker did not refuse to serve gays nor did the photographers refuse to serve gays.


Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn't Hateful - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/)

In America, there is plenty of homophobia, plenty of anti-gay bigotry, and plenty of people whose antagonism to gays and lesbians is rooted in hatred. Sometimes the language of religious liberty is used to justify behavior that is anything but Christ-like. But the Slate article is implicitly trafficking in its own sort of prejudice. The working assumption is that homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what's motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding.


That assumption is wrongheaded. A closer look at the photographer's case is the best place to begin. Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin lost a case before the New Mexico Supreme Court, and have now appealed the ruling. As noted in their petition to the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf), the Huguenins' photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings. Insofar as a photographer can distinguish between discriminating against a class of client and a type of event—there is, perhaps, a limit—their business does so: "The Huguenins gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs."
The photography business has also turned down clients other than gay and lesbian couples while citing religious objections. "They have declined requests for nude maternity pictures," their petition states, "and photographs portraying violence."


Finally, it isn't just same-sex weddings they'd be uncomfortable photographing: their petition states that they'd also refuse business capturing a polygamous marriage.


Set aside for a moment the tension here between individual liberty and non-discrimination law. Whether you think the New Mexico Supreme Court decided the case rightly or wrongly, that is separate from the question of what motivated Elaine Huguenin. I've never met the woman. None of us can look inside her heart. But her petition presents a perfectly plausible account of why she would refuse to photograph same-sex weddings for perfectly common religious reasons that have nothing to do with fear of gays, intolerance toward gays, or hatred of gay people.

The hairdresser refused to serve the governor because she does not support same sex marriage, not because she's the governor. Can you show me how cutting the governor's hair might constitute some moral wrong for the hairdresser?

How is he damaged by cutting someones hair? He isn't whatsoever, it's just a haircut. Yet you defend him for rejecting the governor because of her beliefs while demanding someone who does serve all violate their religious values by participating in something they find morally wrong? Can you force me to photograph you masturbating, or is there a line we can draw, too?

They should be protected against Christian aggression and degradation in America.


How about protecting Christians from the aggression of gays, Muslims, secularists, communists every place

No, that's incorrect, and the baker did not refuse to serve gays nor did the photographers refuse to serve gays.



The hairdresser refused to serve the governor because she does not support same sex marriage, not because she's the governor. Can you show me how cutting the governor's hair might constitute some moral wrong for the hairdresser?




Interesting enough you probably demonstrate this. Provided you use the same grounds that are being applied for in the petition to the Supreme Court.

Some interesting points to come out of the petition:

. Photography is an art form.

.Forcing people to speak is unconstitutional

.Freedom of speech is of the same type type as freedom of mind.

.Anti-discrimination legislation can't override freedom to speak or, not to speak.

How about protecting Christians from the aggression of gays, Muslims, secularists, communists every place
Exactly...