Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic » Indiana's freedom of religious discrimination

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: Indiana's freedom of religious discrimination
started by: Malcolm

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2015,10:25

< Pissing off some Christians >. Holy fucking shit, it looks like some of these dudes might have read the entire Bible instead of just the parts that reinforce their own prejudice.

QUOTE

“Purportedly a matter of religious freedom, we find RFRA contrary to the values of our faith — as well as to our national and Hoosier values,” stated the letter, which was signed by Sharon E. Watkins, the church’s general minister and president, as well as the leaders of its overseas and domestic missions.

“As a Christian church, we are particularly sensitive to the values of the One we follow — one who sat at table with people from all walks of life, and loved them all.”

You'll note she didn't add, "While simultaneously condemning and judging their way of life."

How fucked up is the Indiana law? Gamers are seeing eye to eye with the Christians.

QUOTE

Other businesses and conventions, including Gen Con, the world’s largest gaming convention, which brings an estimated $50 million to the state each year, have also threatened to find another place to hold their events.

But Gov. Mike "blind as a fucking bat" Pence had this to say.

QUOTE

“Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation,” Pence said in a statement, “we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith.”

You're respecting religious freedom by taking a shit on sexual freedom. In fact, the Christians above specifically said that you're NOT respecting their values by passing this law. But I guess that religion doesn't count because Mike Pence doesn't belong to it. I missed the part in the Bible where Jesus tore up the market because the merchants were doing biz with gay dudes.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2015,17:08

Specifically, what does this law do and say? I have seen grumblings about sports teams not wanting to do bidness in IN over this, but haven't cared enough to see what it is about.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2015,17:45

Originally, the federal version was intended to make life easier for the dudes that didn't know they were on our land before we got here, the Native Americans. There are various state versions because the fed version doesn't mean dick to state and local laws, as no one's found a way to tie it to the ultimate bullshit catch-all, the interstate commerce clause.

QUOTE

Strict scrutiny
Religious liberty can only be limited for a compelling government interest
If religious liberty is to be limited, it must be done in the least restrictive manner possible

It's the thing that allows religious folk to take < peyote > legally, or do < ayahuasca > as part of a religious ceremony.

The Indiana version < does more >. Again, not a guarantee of getting able to do whatever you want, but now you've got to hire a lawyer for longer and hope the judge isn't in a shitty mood that day.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 30 2015,06:19

This guy says opposition to this law is dishonest bullshit.

< http://thefederalist.com/2015....nswered >

Posted by Vince on Mar. 30 2015,07:01

Anti first amendment people protesting. Mostly it's BS. Kind of like how we get pissed at schools for having zero tolerance policies? This law is the opposite of that. Says that if someone claims religious objections then it can't be dismissed out of hand. Has to bee looked at in context.

Gaystapo is just buzzwording it to get people riled up.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 30 2015,07:44

Yeah, the < Disciples of Christ >. Not exactly known for for gay rights.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 30 2015,07:48

(GORDON @ Mar. 30 2015,09:19)

QUOTE

This guy says opposition to this law is dishonest bullshit.

< http://thefederalist.com/2015....nswered >

While I reserve judgment about that piece being slanted, it certainly makes a far better case than anything I've heard this weekend. It always concerns me when I only hear bullet points in opposition, and no actual examples of why or how a new law sucks.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 30 2015,08:37

(Malcolm @ Mar. 30 2015,09:44)

QUOTE

Yeah, the < Disciples of Christ >. Not exactly known for for gay rights.

All well and good, but not really relevant to the law as far as I can tell.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 30 2015,08:52

(Vince @ Mar. 30 2015,10:37)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 30 2015,09:44)

QUOTE

Yeah, the < Disciples of Christ >. Not exactly known for for gay rights.

All well and good, but not really relevant to the law as far as I can tell.

The Christians that are worried about the ramifications of this law, the ones that've been in that state for over 100 years, they're just blowing this out of proportion for what, the hell of it? Trying to recruit more gay parish members? Free publicity? These are not normally the folk at the forefront of such media campaigns.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 30 2015,10:10

< More alarmists >.

EDIT: Well, shit. < Tim Cook's behind it now >. I may have to waffle on general principle.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 30 2015,10:43

Yeah, I love how the CEO of the biggest, richest company in the history of ever. is complaining that he's being treated like a black man during Jim Crow.

He should shut his whore mouth.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 30 2015,12:23

Is this law targeted towards homosexuals? No, not in the slightest.

Could it be abused to restrict the demean the lives of homosexuals? Absolutely and it probably will at some point, because every law gets abused at some point and Indiana isn't very gay-friendly right now.

Is everyone involved on both sides of this story exaggerating their balls off? Yes, the floor is literally strewn with the balls of exaggerators.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 30 2015,13:02

(TPRJones @ Mar. 30 2015,15:23)

QUOTE

Headline: Asteroid Incoming! Civilization To End In Four Days! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 30 2015,13:11

QUOTE

Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!

Technically speaking that's a true statement since everyone's hardest hit at that point.

Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 30 2015,17:56

< 19 other states already have a law like this, plus FedGov >.

And that's the WASHINGTON FREAKING POST!

The whole impetus behind this, I imagine (don't know, don't really care) is that baker in Oregon who was < ordered to pay a lesbian couple 150k > as a penalty for refusing to bake them a wedding cake.

So yeah...fuck those gay assholes...figuratively speaking.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,03:25

I'm curious to see how many votes the "Kill the gays" ballot ends up with in CA (if it ever gets that far). Not because I think a lot of people really want to kill gays, but figuring it's not going to pass anyway they get to give the gay lobby a therapeutic private and personal poke in the eye.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,06:57

QUOTE

The whole impetus behind this, I imagine (don't know, don't really care) is that baker in Oregon who was ordered to pay a lesbian couple 150k as a penalty for refusing to bake them a wedding cake.

That's rather excessive. Penalty should be legal fees, a free cake, and not much more.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,09:59

I stand with the first amendment.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 31 2015,10:04

I certainly don't think it's appropriate for the government to intervene and force individuals to do business with people they don't want to, regardless of how despicable their reasons are.

That's what destroying people on the internet is for.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,10:08

I see a huge difference between, "I won't bake you a birthday cake because you're gay" and "I won't bake you a wedding cake because it's against my religious convictions... but I'll bake you a birthday cake."

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,10:13

< Gov > rethinking things. Says he'll offer a fix, but won't go into specifics.

QUOTE

Like the Republican legislative leaders who said on Monday that they intended to clarify the law, the governor said he could not say what form that clarification might take. “The language is still being worked out,” he said.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 31 2015,10:19

QUOTE

I don't. No one asked the baker to marry anyone, just to bake a damn cake. The religion of the baker should have no bearing on the thing.

If buying a gay wedding cake do you need to make sure the farmers that grew the wheat that was ground into flour also think gay marriage is fine? Do you check in with whomever transported the eggs to the store to make sure they think gay marriage is fine? No. You just make a damn cake and sell it to them.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,10:24

QUOTE

"I won't bake you a wedding cake because it's against my religious convictions... but I'll bake you a birthday cake."

Does your religion attribute magical properties to wedding cakes? Do they make or break the event? Are you approving of it by making the cake? Hell, I hope they check to make sure that the groom and bride are both virgins. I hear god gets pissed about those things, too.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,10:38

These are the same people that have a stroke if a prayer is offered at a public meeting. And to be honest I'm having to rethink some things to be consistent. Not sure where I am yet. But if you can complain about an opening prayer at a public meeting because you don't believe in God even though no one is forcing you to participate in said prayer, then you need to shut your fucking pie hole about people that don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. It takes less involvement to sit there and shut up while a prayer is given than it takes to bake a cake.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,10:41

People still go to public meetings? That's, like, more work than voting.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,10:46

(TPRJones @ Mar. 31 2015,12:19)

QUOTE

If buying a gay wedding cake do you need to make sure the farmers that grew the wheat that was ground into flour also think gay marriage is fine? Do you check in with whomever transported the eggs to the store to make sure they think gay marriage is fine? No. You just make a damn cake and sell it to them.

The guys growing the wheat and delivering the eggs are not participants in the wedding. They don't sit down with the couple and make a personalized cake. Even though they probably aren't at the ceremony, they (the bakers) are as much a participant as the wedding planner or photographer.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,11:00

Let's have the baker put a sign on his door that says, "No gay wedding cakes." That way no gays will bother to ask him.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 31 2015,11:01

QUOTE

Even though they probably aren't at the ceremony, they (the bakers) are as much a participant as the wedding planner or photographer.

First I've heard of anything like that. We've got a baker down the street that makes wedding cakes. You go in and point to the one you want and they charge you and deliver it. They don't join the family.

In the case you outline I would agree that there is a difference. But only if we are talking about sitting down and joining in the ceremony. If it's just "I refuse to sell you this cake because I don't like what you will do with it" then it's bullshit.

EDIT: Oh, and as to the public prayer at government meetings that's a whole other kettle of fish. Don't get me started. There are a large number of ways in which those people are wrong and also a large number of ways in which they are right. There probably is no good answer. But it's certainly not as simple as you outlined it to be above.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 31 2015,11:08

I just remembered a thing about the Oregon problem that was skipped over above. The reason it was so wrong was that the baker originally agreed and then backed out on the wedding day. That's where I think it's actionable; you don't intentionally screw over someone's wedding like that even if you do hate the idea of two dudes getting hitched. Don't agree in the first place if you aren't going to follow through. That's no longer about freedom of religion, it's about being a douche.

EDIT: Although having remembered that I can't seem to find any reference to it anywhere. It's possible I'm thinking of a different case. It still serves as a demonstration of where I think the line is between what should and should not be punishable.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,11:28

Actually I think in the Oregon case, gay marriage wasn't even legal at the time that all this took place.

Looking at what does and doesn't produce great outrage in this nation, a couple of weeks ago a woman in Colorado literally ripped an unborn 7 month old baby out of a pregnant mother and left the child to die alone in a cold bathtub. In that case the state opted to not charge the woman with the murder of the baby. Instead we're worried about whether or not a gay couple gets to terrorize all bakers with business ending lawsuits if they don't get to by their cake from someone that doesn't want to make them one.

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,11:36

QUOTE

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

Jerry Falwell? Is that you, back from the dead?

QUOTE

In that case the state opted to not charge the woman with the murder of the baby.

I'm willing to bet the perpetrator isn't getting out any time soon, murder charge or no.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,12:38

(Malcolm @ Mar. 31 2015,13:36)

QUOTE

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

Jerry Falwell? Is that you, back from the dead?

Nope. A student of history. Look at what we were doing and were worried about prior to WWII

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,12:43

(Vince @ Mar. 31 2015,14:38)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 31 2015,13:36)

QUOTE

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

Jerry Falwell? Is that you, back from the dead?

Nope. A student of history. Look at what we were doing and were worried about prior to WWII

Explain. We weren't fucking around in Europe geopolitically for decades prior to WWII.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,13:00

We were asshole deep into Eugenics (along with England and France) long before Germany was. And Goebbels learned propaganda from US advertising (marketing and "public relations" were called propaganda before the Nazis starting using the term). Whether it's karma, God or cosmic balance, it seems when we ignore the principles our country is supposed to be built on for too long, bad things happen. Slavery and the Civil War is a good example.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,13:10

Do you like microchips and the other bajillions of bits of tech we developed due to that conflict? Thank WWII.

QUOTE

Slavery and the Civil War is a good example.

You're shitting me. It used to be a principle of this country that black guys were 3/5 of a person. If you take "all men are created equal" at face value, then we weren't following that particular rule until after the Civil War. In fact, that phrase used to have "Anglo-Saxon, heterosexual, white, Protestant, land-owning" in parentheses right before "men."

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,13:20

(Malcolm @ Mar. 31 2015,15:10)

QUOTE

Do you like microchips and the other bajillions of bits of tech we developed due to that conflict? Thank WWII.

The Jews, gays and Romanians that were killed might not be as excited about all that tech as you.

QUOTE

You're shitting me. It used to be a principle of this country that black guys were 3/5 of a person.

You do understand that the whole "3/5 of a man" thing wasn't a slight against blacks, right? It was actually a huge win for the anti slavery forces behind the Constitution. If they were counted as a whole person in representation the south would have had a grip on the house that would have prevented ever overturning slavery. If they'd wanted to slight the black man they would have stated he counted not as a person at all.

QUOTE

If you take "all men are created equal" at face value, then we weren't following that particular rule until after the Civil War.

Which is vaguely kind of almost exactly what I said. We ignored that principle until a very bad thing (Civil War) happened.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,13:37

QUOTE

The Jews, gays and Romanians that were killed might not be as excited about all that tech as you.

They weren't killed because we decided to drop cash on R&D. They got killed because some psychos decided now was as good a time as any to test their insane political strategies and play Risk for real. Ask all the American soldiers that are still alive because we nuked Japan.

QUOTE

We ignored that principle until a very bad thing (Civil War) happened.

Then we didn't found the fucking country on it if we didn't do anything about it until 1865.

QUOTE

If they'd wanted to slight the black man they would have stated he counted not as a person at all.

There was quite a divide on that one. The North wanted the slaves to count as a person originally (during the Articles of Confed) because they wanted to tax the South for them. The issue was not about the status of the slave as a human nor his equality to others; it was how his presence affected the House Reps and taxes paid to Washington.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 31 2015,13:37

How I view this thread:

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,13:42

Yeah, I'm going back to my default mode.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 31 2015,13:42

Slavery was a contentious issue even when the Constitution was being written, the founding fathers just knew there wouldn't be a deal if it was abolished from the get-go. So they got the thing written and passed, allowed for changes, and immediately passed the first 10 amendments as the Bill of Rights. It just took them another 80 years to get around to considering blacks as "people" to whom that BoR would apply.

Point being, it wasn't like it was just accepted everywhere and the country was founded on it. It was and it wasn't. Gray area. Context is important. They ratified what they knew they could ratify. It got straightened out in the end.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 31 2015,15:00

Arkansas to become the 20th state to pass a religious liberty bill along with the federal governments.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2015,15:00

QUOTE

It got straightened out in the end.

There's a lot of detail left out there.

QUOTE

It was and it wasn't. Gray area. Context is important.

I bet I can find someone that thinks your "straightening out" argument is just as contextual.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 01 2015,05:05

"Democrats are more interested in sanctions on Indiana than Iran."

Posted by Vince on Apr. 01 2015,07:00

The purposeful self delusion on what this law does is mind blowing. I'm so going Galt.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 01 2015,09:00

Yeah, there's lots of obfuscation happening, so I am just going to default to my "if hippies hate it it's most likely good" position. Too hard to get the real facts. Even the name of the law is misleading.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 01 2015,09:05

In defense of those worried it will be used to discriminate against homosexuals, when Governer Pence signed the bill standing around him for the photo op were some of the most horrible anti-gay activists alive today celebrating their win against the sinful. If this law is so innocent maybe someone should tell them they should stop being proud of what they accomplished because it's not about that.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2015,09:11

It's not bigotry if it's a direct order from above.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 01 2015,09:11

"The end of tolerance, and rise of enforced morality."

< http://thefederalist.com/2015....orality >

QUOTE

“The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage. Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party… The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.”

This shit is hard for me to understand, and I think I am getting measurable stupider as I age, but is this law about the bakery refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2015,09:16

If the bill limited shit to people's places of worship, I wouldn't mind so much. This bill invites litigation.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 01 2015,09:32

The bill could in theory be used to make Gay Jim Crow.

It shouldn't and it probably won't very much, but there will be at least a few incidents I'm sure.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2015,09:41

(TPRJones @ Apr. 01 2015,11:32)

QUOTE

The bill could in theory be used to make Gay Jim Crow.

It shouldn't and it probably won't very much, but there will be at least a few incidents I'm sure.

Hope all the plaintiffs have deep pockets or aclu friends.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2015,10:01

(Vince @ Mar. 31 2015,17:00)

QUOTE

Arkansas to become the 20th state to pass a religious liberty bill along with the federal governments.

< Nope. >

QUOTE

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law. The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state "to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance."

That'd be the gaystapo, GLAAD-happy gov of Arkansas saying the law might have some issues.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2015,10:08

(Vince @ Mar. 31 2015,13:28)

QUOTE

Looking at what does and doesn't produce great outrage in this nation, a couple of weeks ago a woman in Colorado literally ripped an unborn 7 month old baby out of a pregnant mother and left the child to die alone in a cold bathtub. In that case the state opted to not charge the woman with the murder of the baby.

This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.

< How rightful is your damning now >?

Posted by Vince on Apr. 01 2015,11:19

(GORDON @ Apr. 01 2015,11:11)

QUOTE

"The end of tolerance, and rise of enforced morality."

< http://thefederalist.com/2015....orality >

QUOTE

This shit is hard for me to understand, and I think I am getting measurable stupider as I age, but is this law about the bakery refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding?

Hell, I don't know anymore. I do believe the freedom from religion folks are jumping on this bandwagon as well. No proof of that, but most of the hate is coming not from Christians, but from atheists. Almost to a person, every Christian business owner I've heard speak said they would never refuse any other service to a homosexual, but they we uncomfortable with the marriage thing. They are not discriminating against the people. They are discriminating against being part of a specific ceremony that they feel goes against their religious beliefs. And I think we've shit the first Amendment with this.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2015,11:22

QUOTE

They are discriminating against being part of a specific ceremony that they feel goes against their religious beliefs.

If we're talking a strictly religious ceremony, you might have a leg to stand on. Marriage is not a religious thing. It's financial and legal. Any religious overtones are in the head of the beholder.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 01 2015,11:59

Indeed. The fundamental problem is that society has conflated a civil institution and a religious one into a single mish-mash. There either needs to be no legal effects of marriage, or it needs to stop being a religious thing. That's the only way to solve the problem.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 01 2015,12:25

(TPRJones @ Apr. 01 2015,13:59)

QUOTE

That goes with one of my long standing ideas. Keep marriage and civil unions as two different things. One is civil and one religious.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 01 2015,14:08

I like it if you mean someone getting "married" would also have to file for a civil union if they wanted to be counted as a couple under tax law and have spousal privileges and etc. The marriage part is just a church thing.

If you mean marriage is marriage and civil union is civil union and you get one or the other but not both, then I would say I don't think "separate but equal" is something that ever seems to work.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 01 2015,14:36

(TPRJones @ Apr. 01 2015,16:08)

QUOTE

This. You could grandfather churches in or something but have them as separate things and separate titles. You could even work around all the cake and photography stuff by having the baker and photographer contract with the churches. Then the couple isn't hiring them.

I have no doubt at all that they'll work their way to suing churches that won't perform the service anyway, but I don't think the church marriage should be tied to the civil union part.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2015,14:41

Something tells me the priests and such won't give up this tradition without long, pointless fight.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 01 2015,15:17

QUOTE

I have no doubt at all that they'll work their way to suing churches that won't perform the service anyway...

I can imagine a situation where the couple and their family have been a part of the church for a long time and the other church members agree they should get married in their church but the preacher refuses and it leads to a fight.

But I sincerely doubt there would be a case where a couple that wasn't already part of the specific church was refused and sued over it. They'd absolutely lose and would be universally reviled for sueing.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 01 2015,16:26

(TPRJones @ Apr. 01 2015,17:17)

QUOTE

If you've gone to the church your entire life and didn't figure out their stance on gay marriage before trying to get married there, then you paid about as much attention as Obama in Jeremiah Wrights church and I really can't fault the church there/

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 01 2015,17:29

If a majority of the church members support it what right does the preacher/pastor/whatever have to say no? He doesn't own the church, the members do.

At least that's how it works for Methodists, which is the one I'm familiar with.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 01 2015,18:16

< This feels like the best description of the Indiana law that I've read. >

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 02 2015,08:02

< Indiana is going to change the law. >

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,09:48

Not surprising with threats of violence from the tolerant against business owners.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,09:58

No one hates like a leftie.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,09:59

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,11:48)

QUOTE

Not surprising with threats of violence from the tolerant against business owners.

You mean the other bizzes that threatened to pull out of the state over it? The Final Four dudes talking about pulling out? The bands that cancelled concerts? Yeah, damn them for wanting control over the states in which they hold events.

For fuck's sake, < even Glenn Beck > said the gov fucked up trying to explain and defend this.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,10:04

I thought he meant that place that the owners answered a poll from a reporter, then got death threats over it and had to shut down.

QUOTE

When asked by local press the hypothetical question of whether or not they'd prefer to have their family owned business, Memories Pizza, cater a gay wedding, the owner said no citing their own religious beliefs as the reason.
Rather than allowing this family to simply have their opinion, which they were asked to give, outraged people grabbed the torches and began a campaign to destroy this small business in small town Indiana.

All for having an opinion that is rooted in faith.

No one was turned away. No one was discriminated against. It was a hypothetical question asked by a news reporter who had questionable motives to begin with.

Nice people are helping them get through it, though.

< http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza >

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,10:10

Even had a middle school coach calling for volunteers to go torch it. She's suspended.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,10:13

(Malcolm @ Apr. 02 2015,11:59)

QUOTE

For fuck's sake, < even Glenn Beck > said the gov fucked up trying to explain and defend this.

LOL! Glenn doesn't think the law is bad. He thinks the gov did a piss poor job of defending it.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 02 2015,10:21

QUOTE

Even had a middle school coach calling for volunteers to go torch it. She's suspended.

Good. She should be. That is indefensible.

People have just as much right to refuse to buy the pizza of someone they dislike for the opinions they expressed as those who expressed those opinions in the first place. It's a cost of free enterprise that sometimes when you piss off enough of your potential customers by shooting off your mouth with an unpopular opinion you might end up going out of business. Do I think everyone should be persecuted for their unpopular opinions? Of course not! But if you own and operate a business that serves the public you are no longer completely free as an individual to do as you please in public, not if you want to stay in business.

But calling for violence is way out of bounds.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,10:25

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,12:13)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 02 2015,11:59)

QUOTE

For fuck's sake, < even Glenn Beck > said the gov fucked up trying to explain and defend this.

LOL! Glenn doesn't think the law is bad. He thinks the gov did a piss poor job of defending it.

Did I say he was against the law?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,10:27

(TPRJones @ Apr. 02 2015,13:21)

QUOTE

Even had a middle school coach calling for volunteers to go torch it. She's suspended.

They're not going out of business because they claimed they didn't want gay money, they are going out of business because they are in hiding and afraid to show up at work. Pretty big difference.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,10:35

I remember the good ol' days when "tolerance" in it's simplest form boiled down to "you do your thing and I'll do mine".

The lost irony on this is the hate and intolerance is coming from the left. What I've been hearing from the Christians is "We have nothing against gay people. We love our gay customers. But our religious beliefs prevent us from participating in their weddings."

This is NOT about tolerance. That's the irony. Where's the tolerance for the religious freedoms? This is an assault on Christianity. Where's Apple's CEO on stopping sales in the middle east where gays are routinely legally executed? Where is his outspoken critique of radical Islam? He's a coward. He's going to pick on a target that won't hurt him. All of them do.

The Christians in this are showing character. Knowing beforehand how the media was going to react, they stood by their principles. Without anger and without hated.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,10:37

I see some mother fucking Chic Fil A in my near future.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,10:37

(GORDON @ Apr. 02 2015,12:27)

QUOTE

They're not going out of business because they claimed they didn't want gay money, they are going out of business because they are in hiding and afraid to show up at work. Pretty big difference.

And they never said they didn't want homosexuals at their pizza joint. They said they didn't want to participate in a gay wedding. The owner said they'd serve pizza to gay customers all day long.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,10:38

(GORDON @ Apr. 02 2015,12:37)

QUOTE

I see some mother fucking Chic Fil A in my near future.

I was thinking the same.

And buying me some over priced China made crap at Hobby Lobby.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,10:42

QUOTE

We have nothing against gay people. We love our gay customers. But our religious beliefs prevent us from participating in their weddings."

Then they DO have something against the gay people. While they might love their gay customers, they're making them feel like they're second rate citizens because of their religious beliefs. That's not an issue I care about. When your beliefs translate into refusing service at your public biz because of them, I call bullshit. Dispensing pizza at a wedding, hypothetically or otherwise, is not tantamount to approving of the ceremony. You aren't the minister performing shit, you're not the organ player, you're not one of the suckers walking down the aisle, you're serving food. I'll point out again how I find it baffling they don't want to cater gay weddings, but weddings for straight couples who aren't virgins are totally cool, even though that shit gets relatively equal weight in the Bible and more than a couple branches of Christianity; mortal sin is mortal sin. I know the beliefs vary with the denomination, but it's fascinating why that one fucking rule is seized upon when hundreds, if not thousands of others, are ignored.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,10:46

Right, and if NAMBLA wants them to cater their banquet, then they will have no choice but to do it.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,10:50

If the NRA asked a gay bakery to make them a gun cake and where refused, no one would bat an eye. If the KKK asked for a cake for their weekend BBQ from their black baker and he refused, no one would bat an eye.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,10:52

(GORDON @ Apr. 02 2015,12:46)

QUOTE

Right, and if NAMBLA wants them to cater their banquet, then they will have no choice but to do it.

NAMBLA's into fostering shit that's genuinely illegal. That's different. "Sexual preference" protection goes a long way, but not below the age of consent.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,10:53

Who said anything about sex? The L is love. It's beautiful.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,10:54

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,12:50)

QUOTE

Not my fault those two groups have PR issues (and, in the case of the latter, several others).

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,10:56

(Malcolm @ Apr. 02 2015,12:54)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,12:50)

QUOTE

Not my fault those two groups have PR issues (and, in the case of the latter, several others).

So you agree that this is not based on principle but instead on anti Christian bigotry?

Cool, thanks

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,10:57

And funnily enough, the NRA and the KKK wouldn't be sending out death threats for being denied service. Only the peace-loving hippies do this any more.

Well, maybe not the KKK. Are they still in the lynching bidness?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,11:01

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,12:56)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 02 2015,12:54)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,12:50)

QUOTE

Not my fault those two groups have PR issues (and, in the case of the latter, several others).

So you agree that this is not based on principle but instead on anti Christian bigotry?

Cool, thanks

I argue the backlash is because the LGBT community gets more sympathy than the NRA and KKK.

It is based on principle. If you're operating your shop out of a fucking church or something, then I'd be inclined to say you can apply your religious beliefs however rigourously you want. When you open a public store and benefit from public infrastructure and public services, then you play by the public's fucking rules.

It's just not anti-Christian, either. I can find Dark Age advocates from every major religion.

As for the NAMBLA and KKK dudes, I'd like to see them take their cases to court in the event they try what G suggested. The NRA might get their cake. I bet the other two wouldn't because you can argue they're associated with various types of lawbreaking in the past. The NRA is a registered PAC, I think.

Finally, sexual orientation is an inherent trait of humans. No one makes a conscious choice to be gay, straight, or anything in between. It's a choice to join NAMBLA, the KKK, or the NRA, or any religion, for that matter. Discrimination based on something you were born with seems bullshit. Discrimination based on your choices and beliefs has the potential for more merit. No one's born into NAMBLA. You might have a sexual attraction to underage boys, and that's probably not something you can help. Following through on that act would make you a criminal, which is indeed a basis for discrimination. Outside of archaic anti-anal or -oral sex laws that haven't been officially cleaned up, gay sex acts aren't criminal provided both adults are consenting and of age.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 02 2015,11:16

QUOTE

I argue the backlash is because the LGBT community gets more sympathy than the NRA and KKK.

I have no horse in the LBGT race, and I certainly don't endorse the KKK. The NRA I've agreed with and disagreed with, however the backlash against anyone who even hints that they might not have the same beliefs as others on this issue reminds me of McCarthyism.

Oh you don't believe what we believe? Well fuck you and your ability to earn a living!

It's fucking disgusting. Show me the black and white line between discriminating over someone's sexual preferences, sexual identity, or beliefs, and discriminating over someone's sexual preferences, sexual identity, or beliefs.

I will never think it's ok to force someone to accept something. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates a new one.

Force does not equal education.
Force does not equal tolerance.

I'm probably WAY off topic of this law, but I felt this was the appropriate place to express what I see when I constantly hear about people being forced into acceptance while other people chuckle and say "You have freedom of speech, but you'd better be willing to accept the consequences."

There's something very, very wrong about that.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,11:27

It does feel like they are telling you how you have to feel about it, doesn't it?

Oh, and the NRA gets plenty of love. Just not from the press.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,11:33

QUOTE

Well fuck you and your ability to earn a living!

Your biz is run by umpteen zillion give and take rules between you and every level of gov't. When you enter into that relationship by founding and opening a biz, you have to be aware of and follow those rules. Well, I suppose you can ignore them and roll your dice in court. If you're just the dude that your friends call to photograph weddings, and one of them recommends you to a gay couple you don't know, as a private citizen you have every fucking right not to take their photos, cash, or set one foot inside the ceremony. If you are refusing the services of your biz as the owner, then the 14th amendment kicks in.

QUOTE

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 02 2015,11:44

(GORDON @ Apr. 02 2015,12:27)

QUOTE

They're not going out of business because they claimed they didn't want gay money, they are going out of business because they are in hiding and afraid to show up at work. Pretty big difference.

Yes, a big difference that I pointed out in the post you quoted.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 02 2015,11:46

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,12:35)

QUOTE

The lost irony on this is the hate and intolerance is coming from the left. What I've been hearing from the Christians is "We have nothing against gay people. We love our gay customers. But our religious beliefs prevent us from participating in their weddings."

The hate and intolerance is coming from both sides. The quote you give there is the public face of it. What it sounds like in private when they aren't talking to the press is more like "I got nothing against them fags, but keep them away from me and my family."

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 02 2015,11:51

QUOTE

I will never think it's ok to force someone to accept something. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates a new one.

So if it becomes a thing for bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for mixed race weddings, you'd be okay with that?

QUOTE

"You have freedom of speech, but you'd better be willing to accept the consequences."

There's something very, very wrong about that.

I strongly disagree. That's the entire bedrock of the freedom of speech. You are free to speak your mind and not have to worry about the government putting you in jail over it. You are NOT free from the responsibility of dealing with the consequences when what you say is widely held to be despicable.

How can you whine on the one hand about how awful the internet is because anonymity means no consequences while on the other hand you maintain that free speech should have no consequences? It's hypocrisy.

(Slightly edited to be a tiny bit more diplomatic)

Further edited to add: I will admit sometimes I think people go too far. And of course physical threats are way way too far. But overall the point still stands.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,12:42

(TPRJones @ Apr. 02 2015,13:46)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,12:35)

QUOTE

There's a lot to be said for keeping your hole shut for the sake of public tranquility.

And I personally think that "I got nothing against them fags, but keep them away from me and my family" is about a magnitude better than "I can't stand the Christians but I'm going to keep getting in their face and creating all sorts of public discourse until everyone either agrees with me or is in camps."

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,12:51

(TPRJones @ Apr. 02 2015,13:51)

QUOTE

I will never think it's ok to force someone to accept something. It doesn't solve a problem. It creates a new one.

So if it becomes a thing for bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for mixed race weddings, you'd be okay with that?

And this is where the fascists in the gay community come in. The law doesn't allow this. What it DOES allow is for the baker to have the opportunity to make that case if he were taken to court. That's all this law does. If a baker was taken to court and was able to show that he does belong to a legitimate religion that can be shown to have a doctrine in which homosexual marriage is against their religious beliefs then that has to be weighed in this decision. He would have trouble with doing that with a mixed marriage.

Just as a Quaker can claim conscientious objector status when it comes to the draft, that doesn't mean Quakers hate marines.

I'm sorry everyone doesn't love and embrace their lifestyle. They can get over it. I have. And I hate their movement a little more now. And it has nothing to do with their sexuality. It has everything to do with their fascist tendencies. I'm allowed my God given right to disagree with them.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,14:29

I think you meant to say Marines.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,16:47

Yes, of course :-)

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 02 2015,16:55

(Vince @ Apr. 02 2015,14:51)

QUOTE

And this is where the fascists in the gay community come in...

Sure, sure, but that doesn't answer my question. It's pertinent to the specific assertion I quoted. How about you, would you be okay with that?

QUOTE

I'm sorry everyone doesn't love and embrace ~~their lifestyle~~ the way they were born.

I fixed it for you. And this is why the bit above is relevant. Being gay is just as innate as race. You don't get to choose it.

QUOTE

And I hate their movement a little more now. And it has nothing to do with their sexuality. It has everything to do with their fascist tendencies.

To a certain extent I agree with you. Some of the people involved do go too far in various ways, IMO. But then as I've pointed out elsewhere they are in a war, fighting to exist in the manner in which they were born with full civil rights. Gay marriage isn't about someone choosing to do something on a whim. It's someone choosing to live their life with the one they naturally fell in love with without worrying if their kids will be taken away if their partner is killed because they weren't allowed to both be the parents of record. It's someone wanting to be able to be with their life partner when they are on their deathbed instead of being kept out by the hospital because they "aren't family". It's a lot of really fucking important shit like that. It matters a fuckload to some of these people, and so they are in a war. If you get in their way they will attack.

That having been said, who bakes the cake at the wedding is pretty unimportant. But after fighting for so long they can only see those that are against them as targets that need to be fought before the anti-gay ideas spread too far and roll back the progress they've made. I don't contend that excuses when they go too far, but surely you can understand why they do and sympathize to a certain degree.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 02 2015,17:58

"Homosexual" isn't a lifestyle, it is a state of being. A lifestyle is certainly a choice.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 02 2015,18:50

(TPRJones @ Apr. 02 2015,18:55)

QUOTE

That having been said, who bakes the cake at the wedding is pretty unimportant. But after fighting for so long they can only see those that are against them as targets that need to be fought before the anti-gay ideas spread too far and roll back the progress they've made. I don't contend that excuses when they go too far, but surely you can understand why they do and sympathize to a certain degree.

I can and I do. I'm not accusing or anything of that nature here, but it doesn't seem like you've ever held a deeply held spiritual belief. And while I consider myself a Christian, I don't often go to church and I'm certainly not a super pious individual. I do understand that it is as core to some people's being as their very sexuality. I'd say in the case of those that take and keep chastity vows even more so.

Our nation was first pioneered by Puritans that knowingly risked death at sea and then death by starvation once they got here. In the Middle East there are Christians being confronted my jihadists that are being given the choice to forsake their Christian religion or die and they're choosing death. I heard the story of a woman in China not long ago that had a letter smuggled out of prison for being Christian. In irony of ironies, she was forced in prison work camp to make Christmas lights to be sold over here. Even here there are people that are willing to give up there successful businesses rather than comply with something that goes against their faith.

When we're talking about deeply held religious convictions, those aren't chosen on a whim either. Not for those that are deeply religious. And that was one of the founding principles this nation was built on. For the homosexual community to FORCE someone to go against their deeply held religious beliefs would be about as appropriate as the religious community to force the gay community to have straight sex.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 02 2015,18:54

Baking a cake for someone's wedding does not violate religious beliefs. Or, should not. They're not the officiant. They are not making the wedding happen. If they're religious beliefs are that important such that they feel violated, then they should not operate a public business. That's their choice.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 02 2015,19:18

QUOTE

...but it doesn't seem like you've ever held a deeply held spiritual belief...

This is true. I grew up going to church because my family was deeply religious. I clearly remember when I was about six I realized that the adults around me actually believed that stuff and it wasn't just all a silly game of make believe. Then I had to spend the rest of my childhood years pretending I agreed with it all because otherwise I would have been disowned by my family. My personal experiences with faith have been ... rather ugly. I admit that.

And I do understand your point. At least we can agree this isn't a simple black and white matter. But when freedom of religion collides with civil rights you have to pick a side. I will side with civil rights in all but the most extreme of cases. And I can understand the stance of those who don't even have that caveat even if I don't quite agree.

QUOTE

For the homosexual community to FORCE someone to go against their deeply held religious beliefs would be about as appropriate as the religious community to force the gay community to have straight sex.

Well, that there describes most of the history of homosexuality in this country up until just a handful of decades ago. It's still the case in some parts of the country, at least in the sense that if you want to still have any of your family in your life you better just stuff that gay into the closet and pretend.

But two wrongs don't make a right and I wouldn't advocate for the pendulum swinging too so far against freedom of religion that we start putting people in jail for being Christian.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 02 2015,19:28

(TheCatt @ Apr. 02 2015,20:54)

QUOTE

Clearly I agree with you, but I must say I hate this bakery case. It's right in the middle of the grey zone on this issue. If it were a case of suing a church for not having the wedding it would be pretty clear the church should win. If it were a business just refusing service altogether or something slightly more incidental to the wedding like someone selling tuxes for the groomsmen then it would be more clear that the couple should win. The wedding cake is just important enough to the wedding to split the issue right down the middle.

If this was done as a calculated political move by the plaintiffs its very badly chosen. It's like it was a case perfectly designed to unify the less extremely religious against the issue.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 02 2015,21:37

QUOTE

I'm allowed my God given right to disagree with them.

The force of the US gov't is giving you rights, and you are limited in how you exercise them. Religious beliefs are not a blanket license to do anything you want because you think a higher power wants you to. Otherwise, I'm going to start the "everyone needs to give me 50% of their paycheck" faith and retire.

QUOTE

There's a lot to be said for keeping your hole shut for the sake of public tranquility.

Fuck that. Rocking the boat is the only way to keep society fucking honest. I was born to fuck with tranquility. Tranquility is awesome for philosophy and contemplation on a temporary basis. Great for relaxing. Boring as everloving fuck after not that long. Black holes swallowing up all the planets in the solar system will make things real tranquil after a bit. I don't want to be around then.

QUOTE

Just as a Quaker can claim conscientious objector status when it comes to the draft, that doesn't mean Quakers hate marines.

A biz ain't the same as a draft. Once's compulsory; one's not. Also, the objector in question is denying their alleged duties as a citizen of some nation. That's not a deal between biz owner and client or even two private citizens.

QUOTE

Our nation was first pioneered by Puritans that knowingly risked death at sea and then death by starvation once they got here.

Yeah, and their interpretation of what's just is often times fucking insane. To quote Robin Williams...

QUOTE

Then the Puritans broke away from the Calvinists, our ancestors, people so uptight, the English kicked them out.

Their surviving a dangerous boat ride doesn't make them gurus about founding republics nor does it mean their laws are 100% relevant to modern times and attitudes. Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until kind of recently.

QUOTE

I clearly remember when I was about six I realized that the adults around me actually believed that stuff and it wasn't just all a silly game of make believe.

I always figured if god wanted me to worship him, he'd make life a lot simpler. Overly complex design is the mark of an inferior engineer.

QUOTE

If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,03:44

(TheCatt @ Apr. 02 2015,20:54)

QUOTE

So Christians shouldn't be allowed to be bakers? I really don't understand this. The bakers aren't saying they can't get married. The bakers aren't saying no one should be allowed to back them a cake. They're saying, please go use someone else and let us both live in peace.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,04:00

(TPRJones @ Apr. 02 2015,21:18)

QUOTE

Then I had to spend the rest of my childhood years pretending I agreed with it all because otherwise I would have been disowned by my family. My personal experiences with faith have been ... rather ugly. I admit that.

I'm really sorry for that. I had some ugliness which I was fortunate didn't come from my family, but I can certainly appreciate that.

QUOTE

And I do understand your point. At least we can agree this isn't a simple black and white matter. But when freedom of religion collides with civil rights you have to pick a side. I will side with civil rights in all but the most extreme of cases. And I can understand the stance of those who don't even have that caveat even if I don't quite agree.

Thank you. It sometimes feels that the opponents of this believe less in "freedom of religion" and only in "freedom of going to church" and don't understand that those aren't the same thing.

I think if both side can at least acknowledge the other side having a valid point, then that might be an actual starting point for debate.

As I get older, my default mode is starting from "leave people alone". If the answer is to be lawsuits or jail time or a fine (regardless of the issue at hand) I am looking for a compelling justification to do it. If it violates the person's rights it better be a super justification. And I don't see how they can weaken just part of the first amendment. Could start a dangerous precedent.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 03 2015,04:07

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,06:44)

QUOTE

Christians can be bakers all they want, they just cannot pick and choose their clients as a place of public accommodation.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,04:12

(TheCatt @ Apr. 03 2015,06:07)

QUOTE

Christians can be bakers all they want, they just cannot pick and choose their clients as a place of public accommodation.

They aren't refusing the client. All of these cases have served the clients before in other capacities.

If a photographer is asked to photograph a wedding and is told it's going to be at a nudist camp, does he have the right to refuse?

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 03 2015,05:18

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,07:12)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 03 2015,06:07)

QUOTE

Christians can be bakers all they want, they just cannot pick and choose their clients as a place of public accommodation.

They aren't refusing the client. All of these cases have served the clients before in other capacities.

Yes, they are refusing the client.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,05:22

If a photographer is asked to photograph a wedding and is told it's going to be at a nudist camp, does he have the right to refuse?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2015,05:30

I think I come down on the side of the bakers. People like to yell, "The first amendment means the government can't restrict your speech, people are allowed to boycott Chic-Fil-A all they want because there is a price for having unpopular opinions!" To me that seems like a 2 way street. The government should not be allowed to restrict people from being gay, but at the same time it isn't the government that is choosing to not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

"I don't want to bake you a cake."

"Too bad, do it anyway, or you will be forced to do it."

Doesn't sit right with me.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,05:30

(GORDON @ Apr. 02 2015,12:04)

QUOTE

Nice people are helping them get through it, though.

< http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza >

Up to about $499k now. And a couple of homosexuals appear to have donated as well.

QUOTE

As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2015,05:34

That census report said, what, 2% of the population was gay? Suggests to me that the majority of hate is coming from the White Knights, not the gays, themselves.

Clarification of my above statement: I agree with the right of the bakers to refuse the job. If they said they'd do it then on the wedding day said "Nope, don't agree with this," then there is a breach of contract and they should lose a civil lawsuit.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,05:47

Agreed. I've had this feeling that the "freedom from religion" crowd has been driving this much harder than the gay community. Most of the homosexuals I've known tend to be positive people. They were less like Perez Hilton and more like... hmmm... for some reason it's only the ugly ones that get air time.

At any rate, they are positive people. They wouldn't WANT a baker or photographer or anyone else there that didn't see it as a joyful event. And really who would? Let's face it, the ratio of gay bakers and florists to straight Christians that refuse to do gay weddings is probably 10:1. Not even including the straight bakers and florists that are willing to do it.

To the agitators, this isn't a problem with homosexual being denied service. This is a problem with Christians being Christians.

And agree with it being a dick move to back out at the last minute. The case people are thinking of I believe was a gay wedding at a church where they bailed the day of (preacher bailed on use of church).

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,07:25

QUOTE

The government should not be allowed to restrict people from being gay, but at the same time it isn't the government that is choosing to not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

A private citizen is not the same as a fucking biz. If it's one person doing a favour for someone else and they happen to get compensated, cool. If they can pay their rent/mortgage that way, ever better. I'm willing to bet they don't have enough contacts to keep busy and financially solvent. If you want the right to refuse service for this sort of reason, then you're not a biz owner with a sole proprietorship. You're a dude with a freelance gig that's self-employed. If you want legal status as a biz, then you play by the goddamn, motherfucking rules EVERY OTHER BIZ has to. You do not get special treatment because your religion gets to trump those rules. You are a biz; not a church. If you can't separate your beliefs from your job, then you don't get to make be that kind of legal entity and don't get to be a biz owner. The right to operate a biz carries as much weight as the right to be gay as far as the Bill of Rights goes.

QUOTE

To the agitators, this isn't a problem with homosexual being denied service. This is a problem with Christians being Christians.

No. It is a problem of the gays being denied service. This is the same speech I'd give to any Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Shintoist, Zoroastrianist, Hindu, Voodoo, or Sikh follower who tried to pull the same bullshit. I don't care what faith is proclaiming this type of thing. I don't care how many devout they have, I don't care how old their books are, I don't care what metaphysical justification (if any) is provided for it, I don't even care how deep the belief is.

It's the same speech I'd give to someone if their religion told them everyone with brown eyes was an emissary of the devil and they couldn't support the "brown lifestyle." Hate the pigments in the iris, love the person. That faith might even give people an out. "Just keep your eyelids sewn shut for the rest of your life and we'll be cool with you."

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2015,07:30

If I owned a bakery and some Marines in uniform told me they wanted me to cater for a banquet for their "Keep fags out of the military" meeting, and I will do it or else, I would tell them to go fuck themselves.

My attitude has nothing to do with homosexuals, and has everything to do with being compelled to do something against my will, and no matter how many times you say "fucking" in your arguments it is not going to make me not have a problem with authority.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,07:32

QUOTE

You'd probably win that court case because it's a group working towards excluding others based on their sexual orientation. You could argue associating yourself with such activists would give you negative press, especially if you had any gay clientele. A couple gay dudes don't have a political agenda you can rail against. They just have their being gay.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2015,07:34

If they told me I would bake a cake for the Marine Corps Ball, "Or else," I will still tell them to go fuck themselves. They can say please.

Which is my point.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,07:37

When did this become an argument about politeness? Did they just walk in and say, "Bake me a cake, bitch?"

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,07:38

(Malcolm @ Apr. 03 2015,09:25)

QUOTE

The government should not be allowed to restrict people from being gay, but at the same time it isn't the government that is choosing to not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

QUOTE

To the agitators, this isn't a problem with homosexual being denied service. This is a problem with Christians being Christians.

I'll keep you in my prayers.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2015,07:42

(Malcolm @ Apr. 03 2015,10:37)

QUOTE

When did this become an argument about politeness? Did they just walk in and say, "Bake me a cake, bitch?"

Is that really what you think my point is?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2015,07:42

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,08:30)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 02 2015,12:04)

QUOTE

Nice people are helping them get through it, though.

< http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza >

Up to about $499k now. And a couple of homosexuals appear to have donated as well.

QUOTE

The people who started the "go fund me" now getting death threats.

< http://tinyurl.com/mldwvs3 >

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,07:57

Rules don't apply to them. Nor the Constitution. These are Social Justice warriors.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,08:14

I refuse divine assistance on pride alone.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 03 2015,09:12

QUOTE

That census report said, what, 2% of the population was gay?

There was a really good study a couple of years back that made a solid point that about 5% of males are gay, with just over half being in the closet to one degree or another. But if an argument is going to be made about that being too small a number of people to worry about, remember that Jews are only 1.4% of the population and they have legal protections.

As to the issue of business versus private citizen, I think the best guideline would be could an employee of a business be fired for refusing to do the job based on their own beliefs regardless of the position of the business. So if the bakery as a business was absolutely fine with making fabulous gay wedding cakes but one of the bakers was all "Nope, I am absolutely not going to do that because God says no" would it be reasonable to fire that employee for refusing to do his job? If you wouldn't give that employee special protection and make the bakery continue to employ him anyway then you probably shouldn't be giving the business as a whole the right to do the same thing.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 03 2015,09:28

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,06:00)

QUOTE

I think if both side can at least acknowledge the other side having a valid point, then that might be an actual starting point for debate.

Well ... I don't know I'd go so far as to say the bakery has a valid point. I was trying to avoid this part of it to keep things simple, but I do think it's obvious that this by logical necessity must be based in either homophobia or hypocrisy. There are a shit-load of rules in the bible about the things God cares about that are just as important - and in some cases more important - that these people don't give a crap about paying any attention to. Just the gay thing is all that seems to matter to them.

If someone tells me they can't serve gays and that they also try to follow < all these rules as well > then I will actually have some respect for their point of view. Otherwise they're totally full of shit.

But for the sake of continuing the general discussion, I'm willing to forego this point for now and pretend that "no gays" is the only important rule in their religion and they aren't complete hypocrites.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,09:43

(TPRJones @ Apr. 03 2015,11:12)

QUOTE

I took his point being along my suspicions that there's a whole lot of noise being made about this that belies a spontaneous movement driven by a segment of the population that small. There's a much larger engine at work here and motivations beyond gay rights.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,09:47

(TPRJones @ Apr. 03 2015,11:28)

QUOTE

There are a shit-load of rules in the bible about the things God cares about that are just as important - and in some cases more important - that these people don't give a crap about paying any attention to. Just the gay thing is all that seems to matter to them.

Again, this law doesn't protect the person you're describing. If they can't show that their religious beliefs are being violated, then they have no case. They can't just say "This is what I believe". They are going to have to get into things like which church they go to and their church's stance and doctrine, etc. And unless you want to completely do away with the First Amendment, then the court doesn't get to decide for your church what that are allowed and not allowed to believe in the Bible.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 03 2015,10:14

Then they should also be required to demonstrate that they are making a good faith attempt to follow all the other rules of their religion as well in order to win the case, rather than just using that one particular rule to discriminate and ignoring the rest.

Which not one single one of the Christians in these cases would be able to do.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,10:16

< Enlightened pizzeia owners speak >.

QUOTE

“That lifestyle is something they choose,” Kevin told ABC57. “I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?”

The only people who have to choose to be hereto are typically closeted gays. Straights simply have to be heterosexual. That statement is insane. It's like "I choose to blink my eyes. I choose to breathe."

QUOTE

If this dude was about combating premarital sex as much as he was gay marriage, I might believe him. I mean, how could his conscience rest if he found out two grown adults had sex before they were married and he catered that shit? Can he point out the denomination he follows and where they say straight fucking before marriage isn't a mortal sin while two dudes fucking after getting married is? This is his religion, he ought to have his theology in order. Otherwise, "religion" is being used as a cover for "personal opinion."

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 03 2015,10:22

I wonder when exactly he decided to stop getting hard over other guys and just be heterosexual.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,11:13

I hope he gets some understanding as well.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,11:24

Is it time for Westboro Baptist Church to start going to gay printers for getting their literature printed up? Would the printers have a right to say no? Or should the printers be forced to either suck it up and take the job or shut down?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,11:28

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,13:24)

QUOTE

If those pathetic examples of human beings could stand to be in the same room with a homosexual for two seconds, that might get brought up at some point. Again, in this case you've got an organization whose members have all made a choice to follow an insane faith. They also have a very political agenda, unless you want me to believe their protests at military funerals are their form of worship. Gays at a gay wedding are being gay. Their agenda is getting married to enjoy legal rights and protections. They aren't campaigning to make your religion recognize them.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,11:39

(Malcolm @ Apr. 03 2015,13:28)

QUOTE

They also have a very political agenda. Gays at a gay wedding are being gay. Their agenda is getting married to enjoy legal rights and protections. They aren't campaigning to make your religion recognize them.

Which has zero bearing on Constitutional protections. The speech the Constitution was set up to protect was specifically political speech.

And sorry, they ARE campaigning to have religions recognize the marriages. By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage". It's as simple as that. Otherwise the there's no wedding in the mind of the Christian to sue over.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,11:43

QUOTE

By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage".

No, it doesn't. Unless your marriage is made official by the people serving food. It means you provide sustenance to a client for a predetermined cost.

QUOTE

The speech the Constitution was set up to protect was specifically political speech.

Yeah, it doesn't say shit about them dragging down others with their beliefs. Just like A&E can boot the beards from "Duck Dynasty" because those guys are associated with their network. When the WBC is associated with your biz, there can be real legal consequences. If the biz owner can show all his other customers won't patronize his shit, then he probably doesn't have to do dick for WBC. If anybody from the pizzeria can show me a signed petition from a few hundred customers stating they won't eat at "teh g3y pizza place" I'm inclined to say killing his financial living isn't worth a single client.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,11:53

(Malcolm @ Apr. 03 2015,13:43)

QUOTE

By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage".

No, it doesn't. Unless your marriage is made official by the people serving food.

Okay, so why are they suing? For not catering or providing other services for a WEDDING. If the court recognizes their right to not view this as real wedding in their faith, then there's no basis for a lawsuit.

Can they bake them a birthday cake for their wedding?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,11:58

QUOTE

Can they bake them a birthday cake for their wedding?

If the customer's cool with their wedding cake saying "Happy Birthday," sure. A cake is a cake is a cake, despite the purpose. Decoration is a detail between the owner and customer, unless the owner decides take into account circumstantial external factors not relevant to the customer request. Your faith doesn't mean a thing to your client or his wants. They want a cake or pizza or whatever widget they ordered. Now, your client's faith on the other hand...

If you found out some Voodoo folk were going to sacrifice a live chicken at a party and you're either heavy into animal rights or Buddhism, then you might have a basis for refusal. Being gay isn't a religion, though.

You can try to half-ass the cake you don't want to bake and make like you're incompetent, I suppose. Then again, I suppose your client could show up, claim it, and take out a billboard with your shitty craftsmanship front and center. See how a couple thinly veiled lies on either side could take the courts out of this? Hell, how about a flyer up in the store anywhere that says, "Please don't ask me to make cakes for same sex marriages. You might legally be able to force me, but you're probably better off hiring someone who's going to be a bit more into it than me." Dude shouldn't be afraid to advertise his faith in his own store if he's going to base biz decisions on it, otherwise he's ambushing his customers with his beliefs.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 03 2015,12:03

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,13:53)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 03 2015,13:43)

QUOTE

By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage".

No, it doesn't. Unless your marriage is made official by the people serving food.

By refusing they are accepting that it is indeed a valid wedding in the first place. If they really didn't believe it was a legitimate wedding then they shouldn't have any problem catering the non-specific event they've been asked to cater.

Silly, I know, but if you are going to try to apply logic to it you have to go to the conclusion of the logical chain, not stop halfway.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,13:12

(TPRJones @ Apr. 03 2015,14:03)

QUOTE

So Atheists that refuse to pray in doing so are acknowledging that there is a God? Jews by refusing to print Aryan propaganda are admitting to their own Nazism? I could go on and on.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,13:19

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,11:43)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Apr. 03 2015,11:12)

QUOTE

Another thought on who might be helping behind the scenes to keep this going...

Who was the only group so far to successfully take on the federal government with Obamacare? Hobby Lobby. Using religious exemption. That's the OTHER thing these laws protect against. Which oddly isn't getting any coverage.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 03 2015,14:04

People should be excellent to each other, the end.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 03 2015,14:24

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,15:12)

QUOTE

So Atheists that refuse to pray in doing so are acknowledging that there is a God? Jews by refusing to print Aryan propaganda are admitting to their own Nazism? I could go on and on.

You could, but I can't see how those are at all parallel.

The event that needs catering clearly still exists so the first one doesn't apply. It's only whether it is a legitimate wedding or not that is in question. And the way you phrased the second one the analogy would mean that by refusing to cater a gay wedding then that means the caterer must be gay, which is just silly.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,14:37

QUOTE

Jews by refusing to print Aryan propaganda are admitting to their own Nazism?

Free speech is a bitch. While I can't imagine a white supremacist going to a Jewish printer, the Nazis cross a line the gays don't. They advocate genocide, which is something plainly against the law, clothed in political free speech bullshit though it may be. Even then, I fall back to the argument of the dude showing the rest of his Jewish customers boycott his store. Also, antisemitism isn't something that Jews and Nazis hold in the same regard. Marriage is something apparently held sacred by a great many folk. The hypothetical baker/pizza guy is making a distinction between straight weddings and gay weddings. The hypothetical Jew is making a distinction between the reality of his right to exist and the Nazi's take on the same thing. If some atheists come around to a Ned Flanders-type guy and pull the shit you're talking about, Flanders seems well within his rights to tell them to fuck off.

QUOTE

By refusing they are accepting that it is indeed a valid wedding in the first place.

If there is no threat or offense taken from an event, then refutation of it is moot; it's harmless in any case. You would transitively be getting in a fuss about nothing. Once the gay couple tells you about the wedding, the thought's in your head. Your refusal of service means zero to the outcome of the event itself, and it's only your brain that gets benefits because you can put the occasion out of your mind forever. On the other hand, accepting the job means more or less one thing: you'll be thinking about the gay wedding more and more because you need to get your damn job done on time. You'll have to deliver the widget/cake/pizza and ***GASP*** might see ... things. Unless you're walking in on the middle of an actual orgy, the worst you'll see is two people of the same sex dancing and maybe kissing. You aren't buying them a gift, you are delivering a commodity and being compensated. You aren't asking them where they're going on their honeymoon, you're asking them, "So, how many tiers on this?"

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 03 2015,14:43

Lefties are now trying to get the GoFundMe shut down as fraudulent. Seems to be some sort of reporter, I don't know. The writing and details are murky.

< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/355932.php >

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 03 2015,14:57

That's a bit excessive.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,15:01

(GORDON @ Apr. 03 2015,16:43)

QUOTE

Lefties are now trying to get the GoFundMe shut down as fraudulent. Seems to be some sort of reporter, I don't know. The writing and details are murky.

< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/355932.php >

They've evil.

"Alix Bryan, this is your dry cleaner. Your brown shirts are ready."

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 03 2015,16:42

(GORDON @ Apr. 03 2015,17:43)

QUOTE

Lefties are now trying to get the GoFundMe shut down as fraudulent. Seems to be some sort of reporter, I don't know. The writing and details are murky.

< http://ace.mu.nu/archives/355932.php >

She is not being excellent.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 03 2015,19:40

Whoa... bogus...

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 04 2015,17:26

Sort of interesting that, for the most part, those of us in favor of forced vaccinations are opposed to forcing people to do business with people with whom they don't want to, and those of us opposed to forced vaccinations are in favor of forcing people to do other shit they don't want to do.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2015,11:14

70 year old florist being sued because she wouldn't do a gay wedding.

Here's her defense fund:

< http://www.gofundme.com/mz6zm4 >

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2015,11:22

As far as I can tell, what she did is illegal in the state of Washington, and the couple has every right to sue.

I had some sympathy for the Indiana pizzeria, given that no actual discrimination occurred. I have none here.

She failed to be excellent to others.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2015,11:47

QUOTE

Barronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist, referred her friend and long-time customer to other florists because she could not in good conscience provide full wedding support for a same-sex wedding.

Then you have an issue with gay people getting married and the gov't says you don't get to own a biz specifically because of shit like this. If your religion feels the same way about gingers as hers does about gays, then you can deny service to redheads. This is just as absurd.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2015,13:23

Is suing the old lady for being old fashioned the current measure of "be excellent to each other?"

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2015,13:59

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2015,16:23)

QUOTE

Is suing the old lady for being old fashioned the current measure of "be excellent to each other?"

We have to start with who failed to be excellent first.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2015,14:33

I better buy a gun to save myself from the excellent people.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2015,14:51

A biz, private or public, shouldn't get the same application of freedom of religion as a private citizen, well ... maybe if you follow the Rules of Acquisition, but that's not really a religion, either. In your house or house of worship, you can call the shots based on whatever spiritual or political whim you want. If you want legal status as a biz, then you follow the rules set by the gov't. Otherwise you shouldn't qualify for shit like a small biz loan or any of the other biz-related tax breaks. You're a self-employed freelancer that bases their decisions on their faith. Citizens walking into a biz have an expectation of commerce. They shouldn't be treated separately because of their marital and sexual status. The gov't has a vested interest in making sure that minority has access to the same goods and services everyone else does. If you provide widgets, except to gay weddings, then you're being discriminatory in a way the gov't doesn't allow.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 05 2015,15:45

I'm going Galt.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2015,17:27

(Malcolm @ Apr. 05 2015,17:51)

QUOTE

If you want legal status as a biz, then you follow the rules set by the gov't.

And it's illegal to not work within the government's rules if you want to run a business.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2015,17:33

(TheCatt @ Apr. 05 2015,14:22)

QUOTE

Isn't there a federal law she falls under, though?

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 05 2015,18:47

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2015,20:33)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 05 2015,14:22)

QUOTE

Isn't there a federal law she falls under, though?

So NOW you want a strong federal government?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2015,19:12

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2015,19:27)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 05 2015,17:51)

QUOTE

If you want legal status as a biz, then you follow the rules set by the gov't.

And it's illegal to not work within the government's rules if you want to run a business.

Like I said, you can be a self-employed freelancer all you want. You are within your rights then. There is no Constitutional guarantee anywhere about protections while owning and operating a biz anymore than there is about sexual orientation related to marriage. The federal RFDR does not allow a biz the same rights as an individual. Indiana's does in theory, which is why all this shit is going on. The fed's case was related to Indians doing peyote, on their own time and in their own house of worship. Not during work.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 05 2015,19:19

(TheCatt @ Apr. 05 2015,21:47)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2015,20:33)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 05 2015,14:22)

QUOTE

Isn't there a federal law she falls under, though?

So NOW you want a strong federal government?

I'm asking about what is, not what I want.

I take it by your answer that yes she's covered, but still not excellent and deserving of financial ruin.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2015,19:43

QUOTE

I'm asking about what is, not what I want.

QUOTE

The federal RFDR does not allow a biz the same rights as an individual.

No, there's no federal law she falls under.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 06 2015,03:46

It will be interesting to see where we are in 4 or 5 years. We're probably about to give 20-40 million Hispanic illegals amnesty. The Hispanic community is generally very macho and very Catholic. Two things that will be against the grain of the current pro-gay trend.

Another factor I think will be that the economy will more than likely have tanked hard by then. And I suspect that the fed has reached the end of what they can do to prevent a hard rebounding from everything they've been manipulating for the last 20 or so years. I fear the next correction will be worse than the last one in '08. Also, there's a good chance we'll be in the third big global conflict and Americans tend to get pretty socially conservative when things like that happen. Lots of churches filled up the first couple of years after Sept 11th.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 06 2015,04:14

(GORDON @ Apr. 05 2015,22:19)

QUOTE

I take it by your answer that yes she's covered, but still not excellent and deserving of financial ruin.

No, there's no applicable law to protect her actions.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 06 2015,06:05

QUOTE

Liberals ask how a baker can believe that making a cake for a same sex wedding violates his conscience, but they don’t think about how the standard they are setting is that the government now gets to determine the validity of individual beliefs.

< http://townhall.com/columni....1980933 >

Posted by Vince on Apr. 06 2015,06:42

It doesn't matter. Soon the Bible will be considered hate speech and banned. Oh wait! Let's burn them instead! Yeah, that'll be the way to make a statement!

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 06 2015,07:35

(GORDON @ Apr. 06 2015,09:05)

QUOTE

< http://townhall.com/columni....1980933 >

You can believe whatever you want. But your business cannot.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2015,07:50

QUOTE

The Hispanic community is generally very macho and very Catholic.

Yeah. Because no gay dudes ever put out a song about macho men.

QUOTE

Soon the Bible will be considered hate speech and banned.

There are more than a few Old Testament sections that are nothing but Hebrews murdering the shit out of other cultures because they believed in different gods. I wonder what a Baal worshipper or generic polytheist might think of that.

QUOTE

Nope. Her beliefs aren't in question in a vacuum here. It's her beliefs in conjunction with her running a biz. There is no federal law nor civil right to do that with impunity like there is when you're in a church.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 06 2015,08:24

A thought occurred to me on the way in to work today. Could you sub contract the homosexual wedding business out to someone that didn't have religious objections to it?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2015,08:29

(Vince @ Apr. 06 2015,10:24)

QUOTE

A thought occurred to me on the way in to work today. Could you sub contract the homosexual wedding business out to someone that didn't have religious objections to it?

If the contract's fulfilled, yeah. There's probably not a lot preventing you from getting someone to make and deliver a widget on your behalf. There are any number of winkwinknudgenudge ways around this.

Gay couple: So, we're having a fancy dress party this weekend for us and a hundred or so friends and acquaintances. We need a four-tier cake.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 06 2015,08:55

(Malcolm @ Apr. 06 2015,09:50)

QUOTE

The Hispanic community is generally very macho and very Catholic.

Yeah. Because no gay dudes ever put out a song about macho men.

QUOTE

Soon the Bible will be considered hate speech and banned.

QUOTE

Did Ricky Martin's career go up or down after he came out?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2015,09:08

QUOTE

Did Ricky Martin's career go up or down after he came out?

If you mean his American career, it was dead after we all got over La Vida Loca. If you're talking his overall career, especially in Latin America ...

QUOTE

He has sold over 70 million albums (the most updated figure is 85 million), and has had 95 platinum records, six #1 Billboard albums, 11 Number 1 hit songs, two American Music Awards, six Grammy Awards, eight World Music Awards, ten Billboard Music Awards, eight MTV Music Video Awards, with concerts in more than 60 countries across the globe.

... I'd say his career didn't give a fuck. Furthermore, can you find a Ricky Martin fan that didn't think he was gay before he came out?

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 06 2015,09:48

(Vince @ Apr. 06 2015,11:24)

QUOTE

A thought occurred to me on the way in to work today. Could you sub contract the homosexual wedding business out to someone that didn't have religious objections to it?

I don't see why not.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 06 2015,14:33

The pizza place could have contracted out to < Braff and Faison. >

Posted by Vince on Apr. 06 2015,14:59

I suspect for the intolerant left, the whole subcontracting thing would still be fought with lawsuits. I don't think they're suing for actions, but rather suing for thoughts.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 06 2015,15:21

I saw a preacher in KS had my idea of bakeries and photographers contracting exclusively with churches that don't perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 06 2015,15:33

(Vince @ Apr. 03 2015,07:30)

QUOTE

Up to about $499k now. And a couple of homosexuals appear to have donated as well.

QUOTE

Ended up near a million. < More on the gay woman that donated the $20. > Also one of the best reasoned defenses of them I've seen to date.

QUOTE

“My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” she said. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2015,15:40

QUOTE

we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event

The law says otherwise. I'm still trying to figure out the "attachment" part. Are they displaying your name on a banner somewhere? Additionally, I think it's rather logical that a gay person would be anti-anti-gay; that's diametric opposition. Are you saying that the religious biz owners and gay engaged couples are similarly at odds? An anti-gay marriage activist, the dude doing the preventing in this case, is out there doing something to minimize the chances of two dudes or two chicks getting married. The analogy doesn't follow through. The gay folk getting married are not directly assailing Christianity or any other faith by their actions, unless gay people getting hitched is predicted in your apocalypse. They just want their goddamn wedding.

EDIT: correct analogy is a Flanders being asked to cater something like a black mass. Then yeah, he has every right to refuse.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 06 2015,16:39

(Vince @ Apr. 06 2015,10:24)

QUOTE

Could you sub contract the homosexual wedding business out to someone that didn't have religious objections to it?

Absolutely! But that wouldn't have solved the problem for this woman because she'd still be associated with the gay wedding and thus have their sinful stink upon her.

Ultimately what she is in my opinion isn't so much a bigot (although there's some of that in there) but just bad at business. Gay weddings in Washington are going to be a booming industry for awhile. To pass that up is just bad for business.

QUOTE

I saw a preacher in KS had my idea of bakeries and photographers contracting exclusively with churches that don't perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Technically this could also work, but they'd have to be sure not to take any contracts outside those set deals, not just pass on the gay ones.

You are free to discriminate only as long as you do it to everyone equally.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2015,18:19

Everyone could simply do the right thing and boycott all marriage.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,04:34

< Penn weighs in >

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,04:55

Yeah, I'd seen that before. I like Penn, but until not too long ago he'd had a history of being outright hostile to Christians. And I don't know the value of going to an avowed atheist to see what he thinks Christians feel about it.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,05:35

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,07:55)

QUOTE

The fundamental issue here is that people have to be treated equally. It's not a question of what Christians, or Muslims, or whoevers feel. Otherwise we open up to an endless raft of "Well, my religion hates [black/white/yellow/brown/red] people," "My religion hates [women/men]," "My religion prevents me from serving mixed race couples," etc. It's never-ending. Individuals have the right to practice their religion as they see fit, to the extent it does not violate other people's rights or infringe upon their liberties.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,06:38

Yeah, except show me the examples of those churches today that teach that about the religions that hate blacks or mixed marriages etc. Plus, the things you cite are explicitly protected classes within the Constitutions or its Amendments.

Here is why at least in the short term I think the anti Christian groups are going to lose. It's the same reason the anti 2nd Amendment groups lose and it's the same reason the goFundMe page made almost a million dollars and the counter pages haven't made a 10th of that... there's no passion behind the stance. Not from the majority of the supporters. There are no principles driving it. A big chunk of the supporters are mindlessly listening to the news and watching the Daily Show and saying, "Yeah! Those stoopid Jesus lovers!"

But when it comes to actually sacrifice for their beliefs, they pause. When it comes time to vote, the Christians won't say, "Well, I don't agree with them on forcing Christians to go against their held beliefs, but he's good on other stuff". The straight, pro-gay marriage guy WILL weigh that stance against his other interests.

I am so opposed to the fascist tactics that have been employed by the left on this that I'm using Opera as my web browser. And if not for Opera, I'd still be using IE. MOST of the support for the Tides Foundation on this is squishy. If you threatened to take away their Facebook or Netflix they'd fold in a heartbeat.

This is why in the end they'll lose.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,06:47

(Vince @ Apr. 06 2015,17:33)

QUOTE

Also one of the best reasoned defenses of them I've seen to date.

QUOTE

< Twitter responses to this lady. >

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,06:50

Most of the places it's legal to discriminate against gays, it's totally cool to do it to women and Christians, too. Wonderful company we're keeping.

Just because there aren't religions that have a problem with straight marriage doesn't change shit.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,06:54

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,08:47)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 06 2015,17:33)

QUOTE

Also one of the best reasoned defenses of them I've seen to date.

QUOTE

< Twitter responses to this lady. >

I already pointed out how her analogy wasn't accurate. I assume she's getting flamed, but probably not for that.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,06:55

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2015,08:35)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,07:55)

QUOTE

The fundamental issue here is that people have to be treated equally.

People are being treated equally. Every place with this issue, Chic Fil A, Hobby Lobby, the pizza place, and the bakery, have all said they have no problem doing business with gay people, they just don't want to take part in their customs and practices.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,07:06

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,08:55)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2015,08:35)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,07:55)

QUOTE

The fundamental issue here is that people have to be treated equally.

People are being treated equally. Every place with this issue, Chic Fil A, Hobby Lobby, the pizza place, and the bakery, have all said they have no problem doing business with gay people, they just donon't want to take part in their customs and practices.

Customs and practices? Of getting married and having a family? Or the ones about sex?

Saying you have no issues with gays but their "lifestyle" is insane.

I like my dog, except for how he wags his tail and walks on four legs. I like my car, except for how it has wheels and rolls. I like heteros, except when they fuck the opposite gender. You have a problem with one of the core things that makes them who they are. Whether that comes from you or your god is moot, although God's a convenient cover story.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,07:08

< Lefties are insane with hate. >

QUOTE

Hot new liberal theory: Memories Pizza orchestrated this fiasco because they wanted the online donations

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,07:21

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,09:55)

QUOTE

If you will cater a hetero wedding, but not a gay wedding, people are not being treated equally.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,07:24

Yeah, customs and practices. Marriage isn't something that even everyone in America does, much less all heteros, much less everywhere in the world. Who you want to stick your dick in isn't really related to a wedding ceremony.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,07:29

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2015,09:21)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,09:55)

QUOTE

If you will cater a hetero wedding, but not a gay wedding, people are not being treated equally.

These are private events. If you cater gay weddings but not Scientology events, can you be sued for religious discrimination?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,07:30

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,09:24)

QUOTE

Let's see how understanding straight people are when someone won't deliver an ice sculpture to their shit. Oh yeah, every woman I've met would lose their fucking mind. "Sure you can have that flower arrangement. Wait, you're straight? Nope, not in good conscience."

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,07:32

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,09:24)

QUOTE

Awesome. I see the religions having lots of prohibitions on homo fucking, but nothing against marriage. Problem solved. "One man shall not lay with another..." Nothing about living under the same roof in a legal union.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,07:37

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,09:29)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2015,09:21)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,09:55)

QUOTE

If you will cater a hetero wedding, but not a gay wedding, people are not being treated equally.

These are private events. If you cater gay weddings but not Scientology events, can you be sued for religious discrimination?

Again, an organization that's been in court and ordered to pay millions to plaintiffs. They have a rep, a very public one. Has the gay couple robbed a bank or done anything criminal?

QUOTE

Plus, the things you cite are explicitly protected classes within the Constitutions or its Amendments.

Not in the context of a biz, which is what Indiana is trying to claim.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,07:38

I don't even know what the argument is any more. People should be forced to do shit they don't want to do, got it.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,07:45

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,09:38)

QUOTE

I don't even know what the argument is any more. People should be forced to do shit they don't want to do, got it.

The issue is whether or not someone can L. Ron Hubbard up a religion to fit whatever prejudice they want without adhering some base standard set by law in a place of biz.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,08:02

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,10:29)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2015,09:21)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,09:55)

QUOTE

If you will cater a hetero wedding, but not a gay wedding, people are not being treated equally.

These are private events. If you cater gay weddings but not Scientology events, can you be sued for religious discrimination?

Are there public events for which people get cakes? I mean birthdays, anniversaries, graduations - technically you could pull the "private event" label out of your ass for almost anything.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,08:04

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,10:38)

QUOTE

I don't even know what the argument is any more. People should be forced to do shit they don't want to do, got it.

People shouldn't. Businesses should. If you operate a business, you should not disciminate.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,08:19

Again, why in the end the religious businesses will win. Because rather than operate against their beliefs they will close. And other businesses that might even have no trouble with catering a gay wedding event will close because they don't like being told how they are no longer allowed to choose who they work for. And when the Facebook and Netflix crowd that are unwilling to risk anything or believe in anything realize their favorite baker shut down over this, they're going to be a little pissed off at the gay Nazis. And the gay Nazis will turn on the Facebook and Netflix crowd because opposition is not allowed. And then we'll see really how few of the gay Nazis there really are.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,08:21

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,11:19)

QUOTE

Disagree.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,08:24

Until they actually start rounding them up, they'll be fine.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,08:37

QUOTE

And other businesses that might even have no trouble with catering a gay wedding event will close because they don't like being told how they are no longer allowed to choose who they work for.

Not a bloody chance. They do indeed have a say. A black dude can't be forced to print KKK leaflets or host their website. He can do that specifically because he's black and the clients are members of a certain political organization. If you're being asked to photograph a Voodoo ceremony where they cut the throat of a live chicken and you have a problem with that, you can refuse, even as a biz owner.

If you refuse service for a gay wedding where you'd provide one for a straight ceremony, I'm forced to conclude one of two things:

1) You believe in the bullshit "love the homo but hate the homo actions" line. I already went over my opinion on that one.

2) It's the gay sex. It's non-procreative and some moldy, old book has some moldy, old proclamations against it from millennia ago, and it's something a lot of people seem psychologically hung up on. Many religions use this to make masturbation and condom use a sin. Except the < dudes from whom we take > our core democratic ideals were what we might call pederasts today. The very idea that your voice should be heard in opposition to the gov't in a public forum with your fellow citizens has its germination in a culture of man-on-boy love.

QUOTE

And when the Facebook and Netflix crowd that are unwilling to risk anything or believe in anything realize their favorite baker shut down over this, they're going to be a little pissed off at the gay Nazis.

No. I'll just take my local hangouts as an example. They aren't looking at this shit and saying, "Well, time to close our doors because we can't pick our clientele." Even if they were in Indiana, I doubt they'd be saying it.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,08:39

When you're dealing with this level of < insane and hate >, you have to figure eventually people will catch on.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,08:48

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,10:39)

QUOTE

When you're dealing with this level of < insane and hate >, you have to figure eventually people will catch on.

There are certainly extremists overreacting. I ain't with them.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,08:58

Apparently that post got pulled. What was it?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,08:59

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,10:58)

QUOTE

Apparently that post got pulled. What was it?

I can still see it.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,09:03

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,10:58)

QUOTE

Apparently that post got pulled. What was it?

There were some formatting issues depending on the browser. Scroll down and you should see it. Tons of tweets supporting a pizza conspiracy theory to get anti-gay wedding money.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,09:10

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,11:03)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,10:58)

QUOTE

Apparently that post got pulled. What was it?

There were some formatting issues depending on the browser. Scroll down and you should see it. Tons of tweets supporting a pizza conspiracy theory to get anti-gay wedding money.

Let's imagine this is true for a sec, and there's a way to suck money from what most left-wingers would call conservative supporters.

You're telling me they wouldn't exploit the fuck out of it and drain cash from the other side?

"Damn, I need to make rent again this month. Time to set up another false biz and get a fundraiser going."

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,09:12

I'm just going to let that comment stand on its own.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,10:00

< Gay female student wants to wear Tux to prom. School threatens to cancel prom >

Opinions?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,10:07

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2015,12:00)

QUOTE

< Gay female student wants to wear Tux to prom. School threatens to cancel prom >

Opinions?

In that student's shoes, I'd show up. Then it'll be the school being a total ass to everyone.

QUOTE

The principal told Love that it wasn’t anything personal and that dress codes were dress codes.

Eat a cock. What about a tux makes it inappropriate for a female?

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,10:10

If they don't have an established dress code for prom I'd say let her wear what she wants. On the other hand, the school gets to make the rules they want for stuff like this. There is no right to prom. Her rights aren't being violated.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,10:13

I'll grant there's no right to it, but I'd still show up to make the school follow up on their asshole threat. Or even better, how about asking the students if it's ok, since it's their fucking prom? Sorry the experience would be ruined for the faculty.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,10:43

< I almost feel bad. >

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,10:54

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,12:43)

QUOTE

< I almost feel bad. >

QUOTE

Too much love will kill you, just as sure as none at all.

- Freddie Mercury

That campaign reeks of hippie.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,12:17

(Vince @ Apr. 07 2015,13:43)

QUOTE

< I almost feel bad. >

They are getting annihilated in their comments.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,12:20

(TheCatt @ Apr. 07 2015,13:00)

QUOTE

< Gay female student wants to wear Tux to prom. School threatens to cancel prom >

Opinions?

My initial reaction is that they should be allowed to wear what they want, as long as it is "formal."

IIRC a couple girls in my high school wore tuxes to prom, and we all discretely wondered if they were lesbians, but they are married to men w/kids now. It wasn't a big deal. I still had hetero sex that night.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 07 2015,16:06

QUOTE

Yeah, except show me the examples of those churches today that teach that about the religions that hate blacks or mixed marriages etc.

I know of a Klan church in Vidor, TX that is very much opposed to mixed-race weddings. I'm sure there are others.

Plus what is and isn't a religion is not codified into law in a meaningful way outside the IRS non-profit status. Basically if you start a church and call it a church then it's a church. Right now only the gays will be persecuted by this Indiana law, but there's no limits to what it could be used to excuse. Even though I'll fight against it, I'm not too worried because if it stands it will eventually be struck down by the courts anyway.

QUOTE

Plus, the things you cite are explicitly protected classes within the Constitutions or its Amendments.

Nope. The only mention of race or gender left in the Constitution is about the right to vote, and no one is trying to take that way from homosexuals (yet). All the other protections you are referring to aren't in the Constitution but in federal regulations, where sexual orientation has equal weight. If you find a way to discriminate against sexual orientation then there is no reason you can't use that same method to discriminate against all the other equally protected qualities like race and gender.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 07 2015,16:29

TPR is absolutely correct. There was a very good piece in the WSJ today or yesterday about the numerous challenges to federal law based on religions. (Avoiding the draft, avoiding paying taxes, drug laws, etc). Basically saying that it would be untenable to allow religion to trump personal freedom.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 10 2015,17:20

< Quiz on discrimination - What is legal, what is not >

Actually a good quiz, with very good explanations of the answers and rationale.

But does show how confusing the laws can be.

8/9

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 10 2015,19:05

(TheCatt @ Apr. 10 2015,19:20)

QUOTE

< Quiz on discrimination - What is legal, what is not >

9/9

I wonder, what if #1 was about a paraplegic with no legs and thus no shoes? How would that change the answer?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 26 2015,10:58

< Oregon levies $135K fine >. GoFundMe page has been shut down by the hosts, probably because they clearly violated Oregon law. And here again is a dude totally a few points:

QUOTE

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins blasted the harsh penalty levied against the Kleins.

“The state of Oregon has given a new meaning to shotgun weddings,” Perkins said. “You will be forced to participate in same-sex weddings and violate your beliefs.”

They're baking a cake, Tony, not walking down the aisle. They could also have subcontracted the gig out to someone else and made everyone's life easier.

QUOTE

“If Americans are not free to decline to be involved in a specific activity that violates their beliefs, then we are not free,” he said.

Awesome. I'm going to start a religion where I believe I don't need to pay taxes of any kind or serve jury duty. I had a vision last night in which a higher power spoke to me and told me those things are the root of all evil and he's pissed whenever anyone does them. Still way more sane than < some "faiths." > This isn't a bakery run out of a church or their home, either. Not a private residence of house of worship.

QUOTE

Melissa told me the state of Oregon is trying to send a message to Christian business owners.
“They are trying to say — look what will happen to you if you decide to live by your faith,” she said. “They won’t be satisfied until we lose everything.”

This is too good a shot to pass up -- climb down off your cross. It's not your Christianity specifically. It's the single belief some corners of that faith, including the one you live in, cling to for reasons that most psychs would have a holiday with. You aren't the only ones, but you're the most plentiful, statistically speaking.

What makes it even more brain-numbing, theologically speaking, is that Jesus Christ, your lord and saviour, only has ONE, count 'em ONE, segment in the whole of the New Testament where he might arguably be referring to homosexuality, Matthew 19:1-8:

QUOTE

19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

While I see a mention of "male and female," that can be interpreted five bajillion ways that don't involve the physical. If you think that's stretching things, it's far less imaginative than some of the more < acid trippy books > < in the collection >. I also see a reference to Mosaic law about divorce, NOT marriage. I also don't see a connection between "wife" and "female." You'd think god would make that explicit so us puny mortals wouldn't get any crazy ideas. The majority of the New Testament ranting against homos come from Paul of Tarsus, the convert that wrote all those damn letters to everyone after falling off his mount and getting blinded for a few days. If you're going with him, then he hates pre- and extramarital sex as much as gay sex. If you want to start citing the Old Testament, well ... that brings all kind of wacky baggage and laws with it.

But finally, Oregon's got a law that directly states in writing someone's sexual orientation is not a basis to refuse biz service. Read the law before you open the biz.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 26 2015,11:05

$135k seems OBSCENELY high.

QUOTE

You will be forced to participate in same-sex weddings and violate your beliefs.

No, just no, that is not what is happening. You're just making a damned cake.

QUOTE

Oregon's got a law that directly states in writing someone's sexual orientation is not a basis to refuse biz service. Read the law before you open the biz.

This.

< Jesus says "be excellent unto one another" >

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,03:57

I would make them a cake that looked like it was decorated by a 5 year old. I would tell them on the front end that I really didn't want to take their business, as it was against my beliefs and offer them the chance to be a decent human being and take their business to someone else. And then the cake would look like a Pollock painting.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2015,04:49

"Sorry we had our trainee make that one."

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,05:06

Actually, if I were religiously inclined not to make them one that's what I'd do. Since I don't care religiously, I'd probably ONLY do gay wedding cakes and get word out that I'm a religious zealot and gouge the shit out of them. They could come to me out of spite and I'd charge them 3 times as much as any other baker. Straight couple would see my prices and think, "Holy shit, we're going some place cheaper."

I'd call that win-win.

And that's the problem with these cases. The gay lobby is only looking for a win-lose. A win-win would be them going to someone that didn't object to making their cake. They aren't content with just being allowed to be married. They have to punish those that don't agree with them. They are not "being excellent to one another."

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,05:33

(TheCatt @ Apr. 26 2015,13:05)

QUOTE

You will be forced to participate in same-sex weddings and violate your beliefs.

No, just no, that is not what is happening. You're just making a damned cake.

Curious as to your thoughts on < IBM and the Holocaust > or < EU banning the export of lethal injection drugs to US >?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,07:13

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,05:57)

QUOTE

Cool. Then they take out an ad in the local paper and say, "Here's what the shitty bakery down the street did for our wedding. They obviously hate their customers."

QUOTE

They have to punish those that don't agree with them.

If the bakers don't think they should bake cakes, maybe they shouldn't bake for a living.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,07:19

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,07:33)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Apr. 26 2015,13:05)

QUOTE

You will be forced to participate in same-sex weddings and violate your beliefs.

No, just no, that is not what is happening. You're just making a damned cake.

Curious as to your thoughts on < IBM and the Holocaust > or < EU banning the export of lethal injection drugs to US >?

Pretty much the same thing I think of Henry Ford, Chuck Lindbergh, James Mooney getting the < highest award possible for a non-native Nazi >, same as IBM's Tom Watson. Political bullshit. Also, tell me how gay marriage is killing people like the two things you mentioned. In fact, most of the analogies I hear in defense of denying service to customers based on religious beliefs seems to equate gay people with either KKK members, Nazis, or some other plainly psychotic group.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,08:32

I'm curious to see how the tolerant gay agenda folks are going to react now that Bruce Jenner has come out of that OTHER closet and described himself as a Christian conservative?

Some of the tweets have been rather ugly.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,08:55

Strictly speaking, I don't think Bruce is gay. Trans perhaps.

QUOTE

He said he has never been attracted to men and has always been heterosexual, but currently identifies as asexual.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,08:58

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,10:55)

QUOTE

Strictly speaking, I don't think Bruce is gay. Trans perhaps.

QUOTE

He said he has never been attracted to men and has always been heterosexual, but currently identifies as asexual.

From what I've seen, I'd agree with that characterization.

But I wasn't the one that created the one LGBT umbrella.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,09:04

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,10:58)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,10:55)

QUOTE

Strictly speaking, I don't think Bruce is gay. Trans perhaps.

QUOTE

He said he has never been attracted to men and has always been heterosexual, but currently identifies as asexual.

From what I've seen, I'd agree with that characterization.

But I wasn't the one that created the one LGBT umbrella.

I always thought that was a bit strange. Sure as hell all of them don't get along all the time.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,09:17

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,09:19)

QUOTE

Also, tell me how gay marriage is killing people like the two things you mentioned.

It's not, and that's not what I'm saying. But you either allow people freedom based on their conscience or you don't.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,10:23

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,11:17)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,09:19)

QUOTE

Also, tell me how gay marriage is killing people like the two things you mentioned.

It's not, and that's not what I'm saying. But you either allow people freedom based on their conscience or you don't.

This country doesn't. Your faith is not a blank check to take whatever you want and have them protected under law, least of all when you're outside your temple/church/synagogue/whatever. Otherwise we'd be living under some type of bullshit theocracy, the likes of which sprinkles Iran with its own special flavour of crazy. That's why Catholics have to wait until 21 to drink like everybody else, it's why you can't trip balls on peyote in public whenever you want in spite of what the spirits tell you, it's why < lunatics like this > can't treat non-whites like tenth-rate human beings.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,10:42

More freedom, not less.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,10:43

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,12:42)

QUOTE

More freedom, not less.

Cool, so the gays should have the freedom to shop anywhere the fuck they want for a cake?

If you want to give people the most freedom, then 75% of the population will be dead in a month.

EDIT: It'd be nice if the Vatican followed that philosophy when they wrote down the draconian policy for checking out documents from their archives.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2015,10:51

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,13:42)

QUOTE

More freedom, not less.

I was reading a gun control thread in another forum this morning, and someone mentioned slippery slope arguments, and how one law leads to another, and it leads to the government having more control over the decisions you make, and "that's just how liberals like it," and what occurred to me is this:

Some people take to slavery easier than others.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2015,10:52

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,13:43)

QUOTE

If you want to give people the most freedom, then 75% of the population will be dead in a month.

I disagree with this. The cities would eat themselves, but we country folk will have about 7 minutes of smacking the local teenagers around, then everything will be fine.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,11:07

(GORDON @ Apr. 27 2015,12:51)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,13:42)

QUOTE

More freedom, not less.

That is very true. Only about 20% of the Jews were willing to leave Egypt (and slavery) with Moses.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,11:32

(GORDON @ Apr. 27 2015,12:52)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,13:43)

QUOTE

If you want to give people the most freedom, then 75% of the population will be dead in a month.

I disagree with this. The cities would eat themselves, but we country folk will have about 7 minutes of smacking the local teenagers around, then everything will be fine.

Overconfidence.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2015,12:39

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,14:32)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 27 2015,12:52)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 27 2015,13:43)

QUOTE

If you want to give people the most freedom, then 75% of the population will be dead in a month.

I disagree with this. The cities would eat themselves, but we country folk will have about 7 minutes of smacking the local teenagers around, then everything will be fine.

Overconfidence.

Two or three decent men with guns would be all it takes to organize the peeps who want nothing more than to live their lives without being bothered.

edit - In a small town where you aren't already critical-mass with people inclined to be gang bangers.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,12:56

I tend to agree w/ Gordo. Plus people in the more rural areas are much more used to taking care of things themselves. City peeps tend to be like that commercial where the people are on the escalator that stops and they're all calling for help and trying to reassure each other not to panic that help would be coming soon.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,13:30

(Vince @ Apr. 27 2015,14:56)

QUOTE

All those rural farmer dudes out in the Midwest who go apeshit whenever someone threatens to take away their ag subsidies?

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,14:13

In rural areas community also tends to actually mean the people that live around you rather than the guys you raid with in WoW. Visiting with my dad this weekend, I was struck by how many of his neighbors' phone numbers he had in his cell phone. I barely know one family in my neighborhood, much less have their number. I think that will be another key factor in the survival of the folks in the smaller communities.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2015,14:40

Go Fund Me has decided it is not excellent to allow people to raise money for legal defense.

< http://tinyurl.com/laxlx5l >

Has begun closing accounts of people accused of discrimination.

QUOTE

A GoFundMe page for a different Christian-owned business, Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon, was yanked down by GFM because there are discrimination charges pending against the owner and it’s GFM’s policy not to raise money “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.” Politely refusing to cater a gay wedding is, evidently, now a “heinous crime.” But that raised a question: If charity for Sweet Cakes was verboten, why wasn’t it also verboten for Barronelle Stutzman, the Christian florist from Washington who’s also facing discrimination charges for declining to provide the flowers for a longtime gay customer’s marriage ceremony? With help from Dana Loesch, the GoFundMe page for Stutzman had apparently already reached six figures. And now suddenly it’s gone, likely the next victim in GFM’s left-appeasing policy of treating discrimination allegations about a religious business owner’s objection to gay marriage as too heinous for a respectable business to tolerate.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 27 2015,14:45

I think the market is now ripe for a gofundme alternative called "Go Fund Yourself" that actively goes after the people gofundme drops.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 27 2015,15:03

(GORDON @ Apr. 27 2015,16:45)

QUOTE

"Go Fund Yourself"

Winner!

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,16:01

(GORDON @ Apr. 27 2015,16:45)

QUOTE

I think the market is now ripe for a gofundme alternative called "Go Fund Yourself" that actively goes after the people gofundme drops.

South park beat you to it.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 27 2015,18:54

QUOTE

Go Fund Me has decided it is not excellent to allow people to raise money for legal defense.

< http://tinyurl.com/laxlx5l >

Has begun closing accounts of people accused of discrimination.

This sort of shit is what I was talking about in my rant earlier in this chain.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 27 2015,20:21

(Leisher @ Apr. 27 2015,20:54)

QUOTE

Go Fund Me has decided it is not excellent to allow people to raise money for legal defense.

< http://tinyurl.com/laxlx5l >

Has begun closing accounts of people accused of discrimination.

This sort of shit is what I was talking about in my rant earlier in this chain.

Whoa. Are you discriminating against GoFundMe.com's right to do biz with who they want?

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,03:18

Either it's okay or it isn't. When you have two sets of rules for different people is what's historically led to insurrections.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,07:13

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,05:18)

QUOTE

Either it's okay or it isn't. When you have two sets of rules for different people is what's historically led to insurrections.

It's the same rules for everyone. If you want to operate a biz, you must follow the state's rules. If you don't like them, move to another state or get your own. If you want to use GoFundMe to raise cash, you have to follow their rules. If you don't like them, get your own server, your own DNS, your own web pages.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2015,07:21

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,10:13)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,05:18)

QUOTE

Either it's okay or it isn't. When you have two sets of rules for different people is what's historically led to insurrections.

Why does gofundme get to make their own rules, but the bakery doesn't?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,07:29

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2015,09:21)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,10:13)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,05:18)

QUOTE

Either it's okay or it isn't. When you have two sets of rules for different people is what's historically led to insurrections.

Why does gofundme get to make their own rules, but the bakery doesn't?

Because GoFundMe isn't operating in the state of Oregon, where a biz may not discriminate against customers because of the sexual preference. If GoFundMe was HQ'd in a place that prohibited discrimination based on your legal status, then they'd be doing something illegal, much like the bakers are.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,07:31

Malcolm thinks it's okay for the baker to be forced at gunpoint to make the cake for a gay wedding.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,07:46

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,10:29)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2015,09:21)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,10:13)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,05:18)

QUOTE

Either it's okay or it isn't. When you have two sets of rules for different people is what's historically led to insurrections.

Why does gofundme get to make their own rules, but the bakery doesn't?

No.

You're abandoning your core argument and trying to let hypocrisy slide by on a technicality.

Reminder: I'm in the middle on this one, but I will point out bullshit when I see it.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,08:08

GoFundMe denying service to people that might hurt their rep sounds more legit than people refusing to "participate" (and butchering the meaning of that word) in something their chosen faith finds distasteful. Like I said pages ago, if the biz owner can demonstrate that baking a cake for a gay wedding is going to kill their future profits, I might listen.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2015,08:09

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,11:08)

QUOTE

Vince called it a while ago... there seem to be two sets of rules in place.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,08:13

Apparently rights are bound to profits or something. Makes no sense.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,08:31

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2015,10:09)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,11:08)

QUOTE

Vince called it a while ago... there seem to be two sets of rules in place.

That's because one of your biz owners is trying to drag their religion into commerce while the other is choosing politics and reputation. State is separated from former and not the latter, and biz is a state institution. Additionally, you have owners trying to apply their religion's views to the state institution of marriage and using that as justification for refusing to participate in the state-run arena that is private biz operations. The state gives you religious freedom in your home and your temple or equivalent thereof, not your business.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,09:52

QUOTE

I can easily point out examples where businesses would want to discriminate to save their business and future profits. Let's start with the nightclub industry...

QUOTE

Oh, ok! It's ok to discriminate based on politics and if your reputation will be by current public sentiment. It's not ok to discriminate based on your own personal beliefs.

That clears it up. No hypocrisy there!

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 28 2015,10:03

I don't think GoFundMe should have canceled that fundraiser. And the baker should have made the cake.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,10:07

(Leisher @ Apr. 28 2015,11:52)

QUOTE

I can easily point out examples where businesses would want to discriminate to save their business and future profits. Let's start with the nightclub industry...

K, long as they don't violate the federal laws covering such things.

QUOTE

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

QUOTE

It's ok to discriminate based on politics and if your reputation will be by current public sentiment. It's not ok to discriminate based on your own personal beliefs.

Politics are also your personal beliefs. I find the difference between it and religion is chiefly that "god" gets replaced by "the public good." After that, it looks mostly the same to me. But I'm not the Constitution or the law. Also, the Bill of Rights grants freedom of religions NOT to corporations, but to citizens. The current legal system also says corporations are not people. It's why a company cannot plead the fifth. Finally, seeing as how GoFundMe is not basing their bias on "race, color, religion or national origin," they seem to be on solid legal ground on both the state and national level.

They are still pretty much being dicks, though, if that's a rule they changed after the campaign began.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,10:15

QUOTE

Vince called it a while ago... there seem to be two sets of rules in place.

There has been no evidence of this anywhere. I've seen some links to people claiming so, but so far they've all been clearly misrepresenting things in order to push a political agenda, not making an actual cogent point.

Can you clarify what you mean?

QUOTE

Oh, ok! It's ok to discriminate based on politics and if your reputation will be by current public sentiment. It's not ok to discriminate based on your own personal beliefs.

On the difference between the bakery and GoFundMe: the bakery broke the law by refusing to do business based on sexual orientation. GoFundMe is refusing to assist criminals. There's a whole world of difference there and equating the two is wildly disingenuous.

So far the arguments used by the bakery and their ilk are exactly the same things that were used to justify the outlawing of interracial marriage and even the basis of slavery. That hardly speaks well towards their moral position. If we allow them to stop serving gays because they hate gays, shouldn't we also allow them to stop serving blacks because they hate blacks?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,10:18

< Here > are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.

Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,10:19

I think the baker should have made the cake. I don't think the government should FORCE the baker to make the cake.

Government is force. I approach these things with the question, "Are you okay with the government coming in with guns drawn to enforce this law/rule?"

I am NOT okay with the government coming in and forcing a baker at gunpoint to make a cake for someone for whom they do not want to make a cake. So I think the government has no business in this.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,10:20

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:19)

QUOTE

Then the baker has no business baking. The gov't very much has an interest in seeing commerce flourish in their sector. Biz owners that can arbitrarily terminate transactions before they begin don't facilitate that.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,10:21

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,12:15)

QUOTE

On the difference between the bakery and GoFundMe: the bakery broke the law by refusing to do business based on sexual orientation.

I've seen no evidence of this. Can you show me where they told the gay people they didn't serve gay people? Can you show me where they said "We can't do any business with you"?

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,10:23

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,12:20)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:19)

QUOTE

So you're okay with the government coming in and forcing them at gunpoint.

You apparently have no belief in free market principles as well.

Noted.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,10:27

QUOTE

I don't think GoFundMe should have canceled that fundraiser. And the baker should have made the cake.

Agreed.

QUOTE

K, long as they don't violate the federal laws covering such things.

It's very easy to get around federal laws covering such things. However, before I go into a bunch of examples, I think this might be a discussion for a different thread so we don't derail this one. Start it if you'd like to have that discussion. It's fun to point out the hypocrisy in laws.

QUOTE

They are still pretty much being dicks, though, if that's a rule they changed after the campaign began.

They're both being dicks. That's my point. One is allowed to do it because it fits public pressure, the other not so much.

QUOTE

That made me laugh. Yes because I'm sure GoFundMe would put their campaign back up if they made the cake, but still wanted to fight the law that requires them to do so. Implying their only reason for pulling the campaign is because the baker "broke the law" is wildly disingenuous.

They're caving to public pressure. End of story.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,10:28

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:23)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,12:20)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:19)

QUOTE

So you're okay with the government coming in and forcing them at gunpoint.

You apparently have no belief in free market principles as well.

Noted.

This country hasn't had a free market in forever. And if the gov't has to step in to ensure that all the biz owners play by the same basic rules, then fucking fine, come in and enforce things.

QUOTE

I've seen no evidence of this. Can you show me where they told the gay people they didn't serve gay people? Can you show me where they said "We can't do any business with you"?

Yes, I can, and I did pages ago.

QUOTE

A judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recommended a lesbian couple should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering after Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to make them a wedding cake.

QUOTE

“Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion. Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007.”

Right there.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,10:29

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,13:18)

QUOTE

< Here > are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.

Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.

Most of those red countries have something in common...

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,10:29

(Leisher @ Apr. 28 2015,12:29)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,13:18)

QUOTE

< Here > are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.

Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.

Most of those red countries have something in common...

Yeah, they seem to enjoy living centuries in the past.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,10:35

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,12:15)

QUOTE

So far the arguments used by the bakery and their ilk are exactly the same things that were used to justify the outlawing of interracial marriage and even the basis of slavery. That hardly speaks well towards their moral position. If we allow them to stop serving gays because they hate gays, shouldn't we also allow them to stop serving blacks because they hate blacks?

Actually, the reason the government got involved with marriage to begin with was to stop interracial marriages.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,10:38

(Leisher @ Apr. 28 2015,12:29)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,13:18)

QUOTE

< Here > are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.

Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.

Most of those red countries have something in common...

Also, if you showed the US and which states had a legal standing to refuse based on homosexuality not being a protected class, it would be most of the US states.

Indiana being one of them which made this whole thing kind of silly.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,10:39

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:35)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,12:15)

QUOTE

Actually, the reason the government got involved with marriage to begin with was to stop interracial marriages.

Bull the fuck shit. Earliest known marriage law is from Mississippi in 1830, and it regards the ability of women to own property apart from their husband. After property, then rulings came in response to polygamy.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 28 2015,11:16

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,13:19)

QUOTE

Government absolutely has a place here. The point of government is enforce the rights and liberties of individual... at gun point.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,11:50

Well, at least I know what I'm dealing with.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,12:01

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:21)

QUOTE

I've seen no evidence of this. Can you show me where they told the gay people they didn't serve gay people? Can you show me where they said "We can't do any business with you"?

Isn't the whole point of this that they refused to bake their cake? Are you implying they in fact did bake their cake?

Unless they just don't do wedding cakes at all - which they do - then the only difference left is the fact that these folks are gay and therefor they refused them based entirely on their sexual orientation.

QUOTE

They're both being dicks. That's my point. One is allowed to do it because it fits public pressure, the other not so much.

No, one is allowed to do it because it's not criminal, while what the other one is doing is criminal.

Whether or not it should be criminal is a different discussion entirely. But regardless right now it is.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,12:14

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:38)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Apr. 28 2015,12:29)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,13:18)

QUOTE

< Here > are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.

Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.

Most of those red countries have something in common...

Those are places where being gay is illegal. If you want to talk about places where they're < merely second-class citizens instead of criminals >...

Anywhere red or purple isn't gay marriage friendly.

Here's map of bullshit anti-sodomy laws in the US, the darker the red, the more recently the Supreme Court had to strike them down. Notice any overlap from the other map?

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,12:52

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,15:01)

QUOTE

They're both being dicks. That's my point. One is allowed to do it because it fits public pressure, the other not so much.

Can you show me where GoFundMe said they were taking it down because their actions were criminal?

I don't disagree with the distinction between the two, but I do disagree that it wasn't their guiding factor. I think they bowed to pressure without even thinking about the law.

I honestly don't believe that anyone or any group with beliefs that are on the right side of the political spectrum are allowed the same rights as left leaning groups. I honestly don't give a shit about the actual discussion at hand as I feel like the law says they should have made the cake, end of story. However, the one sided bullying that's going on in this country is very troubling to me.

We're told every day that the right is a bunch of fascist bullies intent upon forcing their beliefs on everyone else (and I'm not arguing they aren't...), yet all I see from the left is them forcing their beliefs on everyone else. "Oh you don't agree with us? Well, no problem, you're now blacklisted. Enjoy your career you no longer have because we're going to take everything we can away from you simply because you had a different opinion."

It concerns me.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 28 2015,13:04

(Leisher @ Apr. 28 2015,15:52)

QUOTE

It's earlier in the thread. I think GoFundMe's word is "heinous," not criminal, but the examples were all criminal behavior.

I do not believe the behavior was heinous.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,13:09

QUOTE

I honestly don't believe that anyone or any group with beliefs that are on the right side of the political spectrum are allowed the same rights as left leaning groups...
We're told every day that the right is a bunch of fascist bullies intent upon forcing their beliefs on everyone else (and I'm not arguing they aren't...), yet all I see from the left is them forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

Both sides are very guilty of this activity. The difference is where you are.

If you are in New York or Los Angelas or on the internet, these are places that are left-leaning environments so those on the right side of the spectrum get severely mistreated and abused. Go to just about any rural area or small city and the exact opposite is true; they're going to stone the gays and scorn the Jews for killing Jesus.

I have witnessed both in abundance. It's all about where you are and what is "normal" there. The left being assholes is generally more visible to us because we're all online. But it's not more common.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,13:12

QUOTE

I don't disagree with the distinction between the two, but I do disagree that it wasn't their guiding factor. I think they bowed to pressure without even thinking about the law.

Of course it's not a guiding factor. I bet they thought a lot about the law, then figured what they could legally do to distance themselves the fuck from these people bringing their website negative attention, justly or otherwise. They're certainly applying it selectively here and being dicks. But this kind of being a dick isn't illegal.

QUOTE

I think GoFundMe's word is "heinous..."

Yeah. By an dictionary I can find, this word is subjective and GoFundMe's behaviour doesn't qualify.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2015,13:20

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,16:09)

QUOTE

Go to just about any rural area or small city and the exact opposite is true; they're going to stone the gays and scorn the Jews for killing Jesus.

I'm looking out my window in my small town and I'm not seeing any gay stoning or jew scorning.

In fact, I've lived lots of places, in many small towns and cities, and I've never seen either. I've never even heard of it happening anywhere near me. Well, I heard a lot about Baptist churches getting burned down in the south, but that's pretty much what an enlightened liberal would do because they are athiests, I guess.

Of course, anecdotal evidence is not data.

+++

Don't speak out against a Democrat to the media, you'll get the Joe the Plumber treatment.

Don't have a conservative tax-emept foundation, you'll get the IRS sicced on you and your member lists will be turned over.

Don't even mention you disagree with homosexual marriage, ever. If anyone gets a whiff you will be destroyed.

++++

I'm seriously considering disappearing dtman.com front page archives because I may have said something in the past that could trigger the wrong person.

The USA today is NOT getting it from both sides. It's pretty much one way. Be progressive or else.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,13:26

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,14:01)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,12:21)

QUOTE

I've seen no evidence of this. Can you show me where they told the gay people they didn't serve gay people? Can you show me where they said "We can't do any business with you"?

It your implication that's false. If a straight woman had walked into their store and wanted to buy a wedding cake for her gay brother's wedding and this person said no for religious reasons, they just refused service to a straight person. If that same woman's gay brother walked in and wanted to buy a wedding cake for his sister's traditional wedding and they sold him a cake, they'd be selling him (a gay man) a wedding cake.

This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the customer. It's about the wedding and their religious beliefs.

Believe it or not, their are people of faith that can disagree with their lifestyle and still not hate them or even dislike them.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,13:28

I've been in 30 or so states and have lived in the South, Southwest, and Midwest. I'm not exactly seeing things just out my living room window.

There are indeed manipulative assholes on both sides of the spectrum, but lately the left's nutjobs have been far louder and more active than the right's nutjobs.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,13:29

(EDIT: Post in reply to GORDON above)

As a semi-progressive who has progressive friends, I can assure you there are situations where progressives are getting it in their ends as well. Your anecdotal evidence does not carry more weight than mine does. And all your anecdotes you list between the +s are of liberals being dicks in locations that are mostly liberal, which is exactly what I said was the case.

As to your own small town community, how many openly gay homosexuals are accepted members of you community? Or are there not any because they're too afraid and have to hide or move away?

As to the church burnings, the only two Baptists church burning cases I'm personally familiar with both were black Baptist churches that were burned down by white Christian racists. Don't go blaming that shit on atheists.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2015,13:32

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,16:29)

QUOTE

As to your own small town community, how many openly gay homosexuals are accepted members of you community? Or are there not any because they're too afraid and have to hide or move away?

Is this really your impression of small town America?

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,13:36

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,15:26)

QUOTE

This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the customer. It's about the wedding and their religious beliefs.

Believe it or not, their are people of faith that can disagree with their lifestyle and still not hate them or even dislike them.

It would still be illegal to refuse to sell the straight sister the cake for her brother's wedding, because the sexual orientation of the wedding participants is what they are discriminating against. In the same way they couldn't refuse to sell a white woman a cake because she was buying it for her wedding to a black man and they didn't approve of that.

And I see what you are saying there, but that whole "hate the sinner and not the sin" stuff is just bullshit that people say to justify their own mistreatment of others to themselves. If you judge someone so harshly that you are convinced they are going to be going to hell because of the way they are born, then either your religion is hateful or you are. Or both.

(As always, this is the general "you" used here, not you in particular Vince)

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,13:38

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2015,15:32)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,16:29)

QUOTE

As to your own small town community, how many openly gay homosexuals are accepted members of you community? Or are there not any because they're too afraid and have to hide or move away?

Is this really your impression of small town America?

Yes. I have spent about half my life in various small towns all over the country. And the vast majority are very polite on the surface but if you are different because you are gay or atheist or progressive you will be openly hated by some, quietly snubbed by others, and in some rare cases have people throw bricks through your window while yelling "go home faggot!"

On more than one occasion (two, actually) the mere fact that I don't like football meant that I must be gay and was physically attacked for it.

There are assholes everywhere. And they aren't the majority, but they're annoying enough to make up for that in spades.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,13:43

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,15:29)

QUOTE

As a semi-progressive who has progressive friends, I can assure you there are situations where progressives are getting it in their ends as well.

Other than maybe gun control, what issues are progressives getting handed their asses on?

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,13:48

I'm referring to local individual experiences, not losing political issues. Like< these (extreme) examples >.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2015,13:54

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,16:38)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2015,15:32)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,16:29)

QUOTE

As to your own small town community, how many openly gay homosexuals are accepted members of you community? Or are there not any because they're too afraid and have to hide or move away?

Is this really your impression of small town America?

Welp. Talk about living in a "demon-haunted world."

I've had none of these experiences, and I've not liked football all over the country, as well. Never, ever occurred to me that someone might try to... bully? me over it. Or if they did, I didn't notice.

Anyway, I'm not sure we have a common enough foundation to be able to discuss this. I think most people are generally decent ESPECIALLY outside of big cities, and you think everyone is a piece of shit especially if they live outside of a city. Not a lot of common experience, here, for an exchange of ideas on this subject.

I think I'm out of this thread. I've said everything I have to say, already.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,13:58

QUOTE

and you think everyone is a piece of shit especially if they live outside of a city

Nope. As I keep saying most people are decent. But the assholes are everywhere and they are loud and when they hit you it doesn't matter that they are a minority you are still being hit by someone.

Oh, and I also specifically said people in cities are assholes, too, just of a different type.

Basically you've completely misrepresented or misunderstood everything I've said. So, that's fair I guess.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2015,14:02

I wonder if I will ever in my life get so pissed off that I stop using tact when I speak to someone.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,14:25

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,15:48)

QUOTE

I'm referring to local individual experiences, not losing political issues. Like< these (extreme) examples >.

Not to diminish what those guys went through, but that seems to be life for anyone different than the norm. Reminds me of the mm-mm-mm song by the Crash Test Dummies (if I'm remembering the correct band for that song).

Also, Matthew Shepard probably should be on that list as it's looking more and more like his death was due to his drug dealing. Now his killer thought he'd be more likely to get off if he claimed to have done it because Shepard was gay, but I blame that more on his being a brain dead meth head than a homophobe. Especially since he'd hooked up with Shepard in the past.

There was a black transvestite called Ducky in my small home town that everyone in high school bought their pot from. Very likeable like the guy/gal in Midnight in The Garden of Good and Evil. I always felt bad for him because he had more acceptance from the white community than from his own.

But I think that's just the human condition. As I've mentioned before, the most openly racist group I've ever been around was when I went with a friend to a gay AA meeting for about a year. And that was in a larger city.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,14:47

(GORDON @ Apr. 28 2015,16:02)

QUOTE

I wonder if I will ever in my life get so pissed off that I stop using tact when I speak to someone.

I did. Sometime before high school, I don't remember when.

I've encountered, on average, as much homophobia in the cities as I have in the boonies. For whatever reason, when I'm at a bar with a couple drinks in front of me, I'm a magnet for fucked up people. They have the irresistible urge to strike up conversations with me. I'm not exactly social if I don't know someone, so I don't know wtf vibe is being picked up. Anyhow, when Michael Sam was all the talk in the NFL, one of these occasions happened. The dude explained how he hoped Sam would make the cut and get on a team so he could get in a pile up on his first play and have the bottom layer of players beat the shit out of him with some cover on top. He further went on to explain how god had killed Patrick Swayze because his character in Dirty Dancing slept with Jennifer Gray's character out of wedlock. God didn't approve and gave him cancer. Not one word of that sentence has been exaggerated or had its core meaning altered. Thank fucking jeebus he's not a regular. Have never seen his crazy ass again. Reason I didn't say much is because I go to the pub to chill and relax. I don't get paid to deal, argue, or get into fights with psychos. Secondly, it's almost like a Seinfeldian thing where I want to see how deep the insanity goes. Kind of like when George's former in-laws make him drive all the way out to the Hamptons to call his bluff.

Trust me, there's plenty of homophobia out there. Plenty of other prejudice in the same neighbourhood. Christ help you if you were black, Hispanic, or gay (and lots of other things) and had to deal with the less pleasant of my two grandfathers at any point in your life. There's also plenty of "Republicans = racist, women-hating, gun owning wackos" propaganda. I went to school with lots and have numerous friends that dance to that tune, ferver varying.

QUOTE

As I keep saying most people are decent.

The fuck they are.

QUOTE

I think most people are generally decent ESPECIALLY outside of big cities

Nah. Mostly dicks most of the time.

QUOTE

but lately the left's nutjobs have been far louder and more active than the right's nutjobs.

Not my fault the PR war was lost long ago and the right still hasn't found a way to recover. If the party or political philosophy can't sell itself, it deserves to die as a major player.

QUOTE

but that whole "hate the sinner and not the sin" stuff

A phrase uttered by Jesus exactly ZERO times in the Bible, nor anything even remotely like it.

QUOTE

that seems to be life for anyone different than the norm.

Who you like fucking is a rather integral part of your identity. If you have everyone tell you your urges are fucked up and wrong, and you couple that with the less than fun time in your life it happens, you can emotionally cripple someone very easily to the point of mental illness or hangup. It's not like when someone disagrees with you choice of clothes or music, though that might still get your ass kicked in a few places.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,14:48

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,15:36)

QUOTE

And I see what you are saying there, but that whole "hate the sinner and not the sin" stuff is just bullshit that people say to justify their own mistreatment of others to themselves. If you judge someone so harshly that you are convinced they are going to be going to hell because of the way they are born, then either your religion is hateful or you are. Or both.

I'm sorry for the hurt you've experienced in the past that doesn't allow you to see anything other than that. I mean that sincerely.

And I know you weren't talking about me personally. I'm not God, so I don't really know what He thinks about the whole issue. I suspect regardless of where He falls on the gay issue, He's probably against being a slut. And I've had gay friends. I just try to treat people decently. And if I were a baker or a florist, I can't imagine it'd bother me to provide for a gay service. I really think we're talking about such a small percentage of these providers that this seems to be much more about targeting and punishing than any sort of real grievance. And I think this is being driven much harder by the atheist wing of the left than the gay wing.

I know that some people will use the Bible as an excuse to be hateful towards homosexuals, but there are also those that are very caring people that just view it as a sin. They hold no malice towards them. I think abortion is a sin. I don't hate women that have gotten abortions. Not going to drive them to the abortion clinic or pay for one, but that doesn't mean I hate them or wish them ill. I usually pray for them because more often than not they're haunted by having had one.

I have had deeply held spiritual beliefs. I think that's why I won't begrudge anyone else that holds them, even if they differ from my own. And honestly, that seems to be the common denominator that I've seen. I have a coworker that tilts pretty far left of center. He's also an atheist. But he's an atheist that used to believe in God. He doesn't believe these guys should be forced to do something they see as not being in line with their religion either. And I think it's because he was once in touch with his spiritual side, that he can relate to them.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,15:09

QUOTE

I think that's why I won't begrudge anyone else that holds them, even if they differ from my own.

< Oh, I'll still > call bullshit on some beliefs, no matter how deeply held they are.

As for man's relationship to god or being in touch with your spiritual side, I defer:

QUOTE

Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad, why we fought or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!

God ought to respect that life and self you've got, since he gave it to you, after all. If not, Conan's got the right idea.

Captain Kangaroo also had a profound quote. Something like, "The goal of every good parent is to raise a child that doesn't need parents." It's interesting applying it to a higher creator.

Finally, it seems to me that if there's a supreme being, and if he inspired his creations to worship him with miracles, revelations, etc., it baffles the everloving fuck out of me why one of his prime tenets is "Don't go worshiping anyone but me now." Is the almighty hurting for self-confidence so badly? I'd be like, "Yeah, go ahead! Shop the fuck around and see who you find! You think I'm joking about the 'one and only' part?"

QUOTE

Believe it or not, their are people of faith that can disagree with their lifestyle and still not hate them or even dislike them.

Hate the Nazism, love the German? I guess you don't put stock in the "we are what we repeatedly do" saying. If you can separate sin and sinner so easily, why does Christianity need confession?

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 28 2015,15:28

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,16:26)

QUOTE

Believe it or not, their are people of faith that can disagree with their lifestyle and still not hate them or even dislike them.

They would still be failing Jesus.

And Rufus.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,15:30

Catt, I know you aren't the second coming. Jesus didn't own so many pairs of shoes.

Or a rabbit.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,15:34

QUOTE

I've had none of these experiences, and I've not liked football all over the country, as well. Never, ever occurred to me that someone might try to... bully? me over it. Or if they did, I didn't notice.

To be clear the incidents I'm referring to didn't involve someone trying to hurt my feelings, it involved punching. Both were very belligerent and homophobic drunks and since I was in no mood to tiptoe around their prejudices at the time I didn't deescalate. Now that I think on it most of the worst incidents I've observed have involved belligerent drunks in one way or another.

Right-wing hatred is fueled by cheap beer in the same way that left-wing hatred is fueled by overpriced coffee.

QUOTE

Talk about living in a "demon-haunted world."

No worse than yours that is full of gangs of liberals eager to get you fired for disagreeing with them.

QUOTE

I have a coworker that tilts pretty far left of center. He's also an atheist. But he's an atheist that used to believe in God. He doesn't believe these guys should be forced to do something they see as not being in line with their religion either.

And ultimately I agree with him even though I've never had any belief in God. But then I also think business should be allowed to refuse service to minorities and for any other reason and then go out of business because they lose most of their customer base for being racists.

But that's a separate issue. That's about changing the law. And I certainly wouldn't agree with a law that allows you to discriminate against homosexuals but not against everyone else.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,15:38

(Malcolm @ Apr. 28 2015,17:09)

QUOTE

< Oh, I'll still > call bullshit on some beliefs, no matter how deeply held they are.

I can't understand why someone would believe what they believe, but as long as they aren't harming anyone against their will I defend their right to believe it.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,15:45

QUOTE

...as they aren't harming anyone against their will...

And there's the real problem with Scientology. Between keeping people that want to leave their private navy as perpetual prisoners on the boats, psychological attacks and even blackmail against ex-Scientologists using information collected in their "auditing" sessions, and their Fair Game practices, they don't qualify under this condition.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,15:49

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,17:34)

QUOTE

This was something I was thinking about this morning along with my "at the point of a gun" argument. What are you willing to have the government do to citizens at the point of a gun. Would I have them force someone to bake a cake at gunpoint? No. Would I force them to make a sandwich for a black man at a restaurant? No. If said black man decided he want to go into the restaurant and eat his sack lunch along with all his black friends, would I force him to leave at gunpoint for trespassing? Seems like there are a bunch of other people here eating their lunch. If you want that he should buy lunch from YOU in order to sit here and eat, then perhaps you should sell it to him. If the restaurant owner lays hands on the black man for being in his restaurant, would I intervene with the gun? You bet.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,15:52

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,17:45)

QUOTE

...as they aren't harming anyone against their will...

That's why I qualified it as I did. I know there are a lot of allegations against them. And if true (and I suspect they are), that's a different beast. But as far as the members themselves believing what they want to believe, I'm all for them believing what they're inclined to believe.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,15:56

(TPRJones @ Apr. 28 2015,17:45)

QUOTE

...as they aren't harming anyone against their will...

If I ever become mega-rich, I'm going to take a few years out of my life to drag them into the light. That place is just begging for someone to blackmail them.

QUOTE

What are you willing to have the government do to citizens at the point of a gun.

The fuck? Gov't runs shit because it outnumbers and outguns you. If it doesn't, it'll do that first, then get to running shit. That's the sole reason. It is the bottom line recourse when all others have failed. Don't pay your taxes? We've got a tank for that, asshole. Don't want to serve jury duty? We'll send an armed sheriff to your door to retrieve you. Don't want to surrender peacefully and let your hostages go? We have sharpshooters for that. We got negotiators to, but they lack the finality of brute force. Don't want to show up to your court dates? We got more armed dudes for that. The status quo aims to keep the status quo for the status quo, usually at the expense of others. Occasionally making life better for others is incidental. You have as many "rights" as you have the desire and martial prowess to enforce.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 28 2015,16:15

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,18:30)

QUOTE

Catt, I know you aren't the second coming. Jesus didn't own so many pairs of shoes.

Or a rabbit.

Jesus was pretty clear on loving one another.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 28 2015,16:37

I don't think that includes enabling what He would consider a sin. He stopped the prostitute from being stoned. He didn't rent her a room to whore out of.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 28 2015,17:52

By that logic there's nothing to stop from making that gay wedding cake. Because getting gay married isn't the sin. Having gay sex is the sin, and I think it's a safe bet they're going to be doing that whether they get married or not.

I'd go so far as to suggest that helping them get gay married would reduce the amount of sin because at least then they'd stop having sex outside of marriage. Although that's admittedly arguable because you could make the case that according to the bible gay sex isn't actually sex and doesn't count towards having sex outside of marriage.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,18:31

(Vince @ Apr. 28 2015,18:37)

QUOTE

I don't think that includes enabling what He would consider a sin. He stopped the prostitute from being stoned. He didn't rent her a room to whore out of.

We don't really know if he thought being gay or gay sex was sinful because he says precisely zero things regarding them. A few pages back, there's the eight verses out of Matthew I posted, and that's about divorce. He also points out that's a law Moses gave the Jews because they wouldn't stop nagging him about getting rid of their wives. Now if Jesus is hating on one Mosaic law, that really puts some of the others into question, like the ones in Leviticus that everyone loves to quote.

These are the same arguments I had in school for years. I have plenty of ammo, even if I'm restricted only to the Bible.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,19:01

QUOTE

Jesus was pretty clear on loving one another.

Not clear enough for a lot of Catholic priests...

QUOTE

But then I also think business should be allowed to refuse service to minorities and for any other reason and then go out of business because they lose most of their customer base for being racists.

This goes back to the point I was making to Malcolm that I said should probably be in another discussion thread.

It's interesting how corporations get around such things despite the current laws. (Sometimes they just get ignored and nobody says shit.)

And I would argue that in some cases, being discriminatory is good for business.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,19:23

QUOTE

being discriminatory is good for business.

They're allowed some leeway. I used to shoot pool in a place with a "no bandanas inside" sign.

QUOTE

But then I also think business should be allowed to refuse service to minorities and for any other reason and then go out of business because they lose most of their customer base for being racists.

Awesome until it's a service that's extremely limited or required in a timely manner. Shit, you wanted that morning after pill from this pharmacy, you whoring harlot of a hooker? Go drive to the next place that stocks it six counties over, bitch. We only do that sort of thing for couples we approve of, god-fearing folk in wedlock.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,19:25

QUOTE

They're allowed some leeway. I used to shoot pool in a place with a "no bandanas inside" sign.

That's the best you've got? Come on, you can do better. MUCH better examples of clear discrimination out there that get ignored.

QUOTE

To be fair, the pharmacy could simply not stock said pill under current laws.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 28 2015,19:32

QUOTE

To be fair, the pharmacy could simply not stock said pill under current laws.

We'll imagine they belong to some hypothetical branch of Christianity that looks past the contraception thing but blows up the out of wedlock thing up by 10,000%. Kind of like how "love thy neighbour" gets looked past and some other fringe belief is seized upon as fundamental dogma from which all else springs.

QUOTE

MUCH better examples of clear discrimination out there that get ignored.

Sure. Like how the Boston Red Sox wouldn't allow a black guy on their team until 19-fucking-59, a full 12 years after Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier. They also sucked ass because of a limited talent pool. Affirmative action quotas are the definition of discrimination, but that's about employer-employee things, not client-customer ones. There are also plenty of bars back where I grew up that you simply did not go into if you were white, unless you were surrounded by three or four of your closest black friends to vouch.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 28 2015,19:57

QUOTE

Affirmative action quotas are the definition of discrimination, but that's about employer-employee things, not client-customer ones. There are also plenty of bars back where I grew up that you simply did not go into if you were white, unless you were surrounded by three or four of your closest black friends to vouch.

AA is king of the hill for discrimination. Hell, it's sanctioned by the very government that passes laws to fight discrimination!

We could discuss this subject for pages upon pages, but I don't want to derail this thread.

So is everyone watching Daredevil yet? It's fucking awesome and you should be or you're a loser and I wouldn't bake you a cake if I was a baker.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 28 2015,20:07

(Leisher @ Apr. 28 2015,22:57)

QUOTE

So is everyone watching Daredevil yet? It's fucking awesome and you should be or you're a loser and I wouldn't bake you a cake if I was a baker.

edit - ha, never mind.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 29 2015,09:56

< From here >

QUOTE

He also asked Bonauto whether “a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men.” Bonauto said that the First Amendment would protect such ministers, although she did not explain why the First Amendment would do so, given that the lawyer for the Obama administration, Verrilli, would later openly admit that religious institutions could see their non-profit status revoked, and religious business owners in various states have already been fined for failing to serve same-sex weddings. And as Scalia pointed out, a Constitutional requirement to recognize same-sex marriage would only strengthen such acts against religious Americans.

Personally, I think that'd be the best things for the churches. Hey churches... the government isn't giving you tax exempt status to help you. They're doing it to control you. Pay your taxes and start getting heavily involved in politics where religious matters are concerned. Run ads against politicians that you disagree with spiritually. They've been using your tax exempt status to extend the "separation between church and state" out of the capital and into your building. Tear it down and feel free to go after them.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2015,10:23

There is no church, anywhere, that will give up the tax exempt thing willingly because, at the end of the day, everyone worships the same god -- the Almighty Dollar. I can't even think of a time when tax exemption was given then taken away. The idea is that it's generally given to charitable organizations on the premise that they promote the good of society. If the IRS thinks your religion is encouraging violation of civil rights, I suppose they could yank it.

QUOTE

...a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men.

Sure they can. The minister has an impact on the service, and unlike a baker, is directly fucking participating. Also, getting authorized by a state to conduct a marriage is shit that can be done online now. You can literally go to a fucking website and get creds.

QUOTE

Later on, Kennedy explicitly rejected a linkage between marriage and child-bearing and child-rearing...

Valid. Marriage != sex != children. You can have any one without the other two.

QUOTE

Justice Samuel Alito then took over the questioning and asked whether Bonauto believed that all marriage statutes were designed to “demean gay people.” Bonauto essentially answered yes to the question.

That's stupid.

QUOTE

Alito followed up by asking whether for thousands of years, all cultures that endorsed traditional marriage were “operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes or prejudice?” Bonauto answered again in the affirmative.

Stupider.

QUOTE

Alito asked Bonauto why, then, ancient Greece approved homosexuality but still did not endorse same-sex marriage. She claimed ignorance. Alito then asked why same-sex marriage should be endorsed but not incest or polygamy; she answered that polygamy would lead to family disruption (a particularly weak argument, given the nature of multiple divorce in America today), and coercion (another weak argument, since coercion is already illegal). He asked the same question in another guise to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who similarly failed to answer it.

It seems the pro-gay marriage folk have simply sent up the two most clueless motherfuckers they could find.

QUOTE

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepped in to irrationally demean the institution of marriage, calling it a historically “dominant and a subordinate relationship,” then stating that modern society had made marriage “egalitarian,” and that egalitarian marriage would encompass homosexual couples.

The hell?

QUOTE

Justice Antonin Scalia asked Bonauto whether she could name “a single other society until the Netherlands in 2001” that “permitted same-sex marriage.” She admitted she could not...

Just because she's hopeless at history doesn't mean that shit was unprecedented.

QUOTE

All argued that the institution of marriage is specifically designed only to grant dignity, and that it is discriminatory not to grant dignity to homosexual couples...

The first half is bullshit. The second part about denying them dignity isn't too far off. "Dignity" isn't the right word, though.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 29 2015,10:30

(Malcolm @ Apr. 29 2015,12:23)

QUOTE

Valid. Marriage != sex != children. You can have any one without the other two.

I agree. This is, however, the basis for incest laws. Not sure what this would do to those.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2015,10:34

(Vince @ Apr. 29 2015,12:30)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 29 2015,12:23)

QUOTE

Valid. Marriage != sex != children. You can have any one without the other two.

I agree. This is, however, the basis for incest laws. Not sure what this would do to those.

Those laws are probably ancient, written before modern chemical or surgical sterilization methods. If a brother and sister feel like fucking each other, then I'd better not have to deal with their retarded offspring in the future. Incest should have nothing to do with marriage.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 29 2015,12:22

I know of first cousins who have married and have children. The first two are fine. The third kid has medical issues. Not sure if it's because of the family relations or not.

It's interesting to see how the rest of the family doesn't really discuss their original relationship.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2015,12:33

QUOTE

Not sure if it's because of the family relations or not.

Inbreeding's not a guarantee of genetic defects, it does raise the odds a fuckload. Several royal lines died out to prove this point.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2015,13:02

< Bride in Tears After Cutting Into Moldy Wedding Cake. >

QUOTE

“I went into the kitchen to see it and ran outside and broke down in tears.

"My husband was crying because he knew I was going to be absolutely devastated.”

I'm not really sure what the big deal is since the cake isn't really part of the ceremony, it's just a pastry.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2015,14:15

I'd read the article, but the retard website won't show me the whole thing, so fuck it. Your comment is completely off in the analogy. To the dude that baked it, it's just another cake. To the chick cutting it, it's a vital cog in a plan. However, I believe have we records of marriages without cakes. Women obsess over their weddings for years before having them. If there's so much as a cloud out of place, shit will hit the fan.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 29 2015,14:26

(Malcolm @ Apr. 29 2015,16:15)

QUOTE

Your comment is completely off in the analogy. To the dude that baked it, it's just another cake.

A LOT of work goes into a wedding cake. And under a deadline. Sometimes two full days of work. To the dude that baked it (or more accurately, the one that decorated it) it is NOT just another cake. No more than The Last Supper was just another mural for Da Vinci.

Though to be honest, this one looked like it was more of an assembly line deal, so in this particular instance you might be right. But generally speaking, these things are a labor of love for the artist (and they ARE artists).

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2015,14:40

(Vince @ Apr. 29 2015,16:26)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Apr. 29 2015,16:15)

QUOTE

Your comment is completely off in the analogy. To the dude that baked it, it's just another cake.

Not the fucker that baked that cake.

It may have value to the creator as a bit of art or fluffy sugar, and sure, that's sort of why the buyers want it, but it's not the same. They see it as one of the centerpieces of a time-sensitive dealie that's taken months to plan. By no means a legal requirement, but if people want the bare minimum, they go to a courthouse, not a baker. The wedding party has decided they want their shit in exquisite condition that day.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 29 2015,14:58

(Malcolm @ Apr. 29 2015,16:40)

QUOTE

Not the fucker that baked that cake.

I'll give you that in this instance.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2015,16:13

But it's just a cake. It doesn't have anything to do with marriage and that's why no one should have a problem with baking one for a gay marriage.

Sorry, I'll stop. Probably already ran TPR off.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 29 2015,17:11

(Vince @ Apr. 29 2015,17:26)

QUOTE

No more than The Last Supper was just another mural for Da Vinci.

Umm... I think you over-corrected, there.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 29 2015,17:14

Nah, just busy at work.

You won't run me off, you'll have to ban me out of annoyance and frustration one day.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2015,18:17

(TPRJones @ Apr. 29 2015,20:14)

QUOTE

Nah, just busy at work.

You won't run me off, you'll have to ban me out of annoyance and frustration one day.

Good because I have many strong and complicated feelings for you.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 29 2015,19:47

(GORDON @ Apr. 29 2015,18:13)

QUOTE

But it's just a cake. It doesn't have anything to do with marriage and that's why no one should have a problem with baking one for a gay marriage.

Sorry, I'll stop. Probably already ran TPR off.

If I ever fuck up and get married, I won't give a fuck about the cake. I'm in the minority. How many of you old men would've had a colossal disaster on your wedding day if your cake had been slightly off?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 29 2015,19:48

I didn't marry a bridezilla so it wasn't an issue.

I can see it being an issue at more weddings than not, though. I think more women are high-strung than not. Just personal observation.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 29 2015,20:22

(GORDON @ Apr. 29 2015,20:17)

QUOTE

Good because I have many strong and complicated feelings for you.

I love you, too.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 30 2015,03:35

(TheCatt @ Apr. 29 2015,19:11)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Apr. 29 2015,17:26)

QUOTE

No more than The Last Supper was just another mural for Da Vinci.

Umm... I think you over-corrected, there.

As someone that has done art work (nothing of grand scale of particularly awesome aesthetic pieces) it's really impossible to gauge how an artist will feel about any particular piece. For all we know, The Last Supper was just another mural for him.

Michelangelo didn't want to do the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because he considered himself a sculptor rather than a painter. When he did finally paint it, he did nothing that they wanted. The Pope was rather pissed off because all the scenes represented where Old Testament. When he first finished, there wasn't a single depiction of Jesus up there. Not sure if he went back and added some.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 30 2015,03:38

(TPRJones @ Apr. 29 2015,19:14)

QUOTE

Nah, just busy at work.

You won't run me off, you'll have to ban me out of annoyance and frustration one day.

I would miss you as well. You're one of the good ones where if I don't let my emotions get the better of me, I can have a good debate and learn where the other side on some issues is coming from.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 30 2015,07:46

QUOTE

For all we know, The Last Supper was just another mural for him.

Uh, no way. Based on the sheer size of the piece and the pains in the ass he went to in order to work with that particular medium, he obviously invested a great deal of himself into it.

QUOTE

Michelangelo didn't want to do the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because he considered himself a sculptor rather than a painter. When he did finally paint it, he did nothing that they wanted. The Pope was rather pissed off because all the scenes represented where Old Testament.

Mikey was the quintessential "artiste." Pissing him off or offending his artistic sensibilities required as much effort as seeing tits during Mardi Gras. The pope at the time (as with most times) was a power-hungry control freak not used to disagreement, let alone impudence.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 30 2015,08:13

(Malcolm @ Apr. 30 2015,09:46)

QUOTE

For all we know, The Last Supper was just another mural for him.

Uh, no way. Based on the sheer size of the piece and the pains in the ass he went to in order to work with that particular medium, he obviously invested a great deal of himself into it.

I saw an article in National Geographic probably 3 decades ago where they were restoring the painting. They had a shot of it from the end of the hallway it's in. It was mind boggling that from that perspective the ceiling of the hallway extended into the painting itself. It was like those weird 3d street paintings they do.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 30 2015,14:48

(Vince @ Apr. 30 2015,05:38)

QUOTE

I would miss you as well. You're one of the good ones where if I don't let my emotions get the better of me, I can have a good debate and learn where the other side on some issues is coming from.

Well, don't take my positions too seriously as an exemplar. On most issues I am far more likely to agree with you than them. Just not this one.

Ultimately I'm an insane contrarian who disagrees with everyone. But at least I have fun doing it.

Posted by GORDON on May 01 2015,17:15

gofundme has cut off christian businesses because they like discrimination.

But.... isn't that discrimination?

Oh, it must be the correct kind of discrimination.

< http://tinyurl.com/mfgb9s9 >

Posted by Vince on May 01 2015,19:34

I was listening to the long laundry list of problems that the two lesbians in OR listed were a result of their having the Christian bakers refuse to bake them a cake. They said they both started smoking again because of it, they gained weight, they slept too much, they suffered a loss of confidence... on and on. I'm thinking, thank God you're gay because you should NOT be reproducing. And please don't inflict an adopted kid with your special kind of neurotic.

Posted by GORDON on May 01 2015,19:39

Ah, fodder for the lawsuit. Very integrity.

Posted by Malcolm on May 02 2015,08:53

QUOTE

Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Arlene’s Flowers, said in an interview Tuesday that GoFundMe’s decision to drop the page, even though Ms. Stutzman has not been charged with a crime, raises questions as to whether GoFundMe is discriminating on the basis of religion.

They'll use the same defense I called out earlier. It's not based on religion, it's based on the amount of traffic or cash they think they'll lose if they don't.

Posted by GORDON on May 25 2015,20:07

1. Lesbians go to a jeweler in Canada, ask for custom wedding rings.

2. Jeweler makes them and sells them to the lesbians for the agreed upon price.

3. Lesbians later find out the jeweler doesn't care for gay marriages because he is Catholic.

4. Mob threatens jeweler to refund the price of the rings, "or else," he does, lesbians keep rings.

< http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher....ns-lose >

Posted by Vince on May 26 2015,03:51

I said it before. It's not enough you don't care one way or the other about homosexuals. You now have to celebrate their homosexuality.

Posted by TheCatt on May 26 2015,04:31

Are you sure on point #4? Sounded like the refund decision had been made, but not yet done, and the rings hadn't been kept yet, necessarily.

At any rate, I think the people harassing the jeweler are out of line.

Posted by GORDON on May 26 2015,04:33

No, not sure about #4, saw the commentary and then drilled down to the original news article.

Posted by Vince on May 26 2015,04:39

(TheCatt @ May 26 2015,06:31)

QUOTE

Since they are custom rings, it's almost the same as far as the jeweler is concerned. They whole reason for a deposit on a custom job is because if they don't follow through and buy them, they've screwed the jeweler out of money. ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.

Posted by TheCatt on May 26 2015,06:23

(Vince @ May 26 2015,07:39)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ May 26 2015,06:31)

QUOTE

Agreed, poor form on the clients.

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2015,08:12

Canada has, and always will, suck.

Posted by TPRJones on May 26 2015,11:50

Yeah, this is some bullshit right here. But one thing I have to comment on:

QUOTE

ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.

I don't think rings can have a sexual orientation. Or are they tainted because the homos touched them?

Posted by GORDON on May 26 2015,11:53

Someone once publicly corrected me when I said, "Gay marriage" with, "There is only marriage not gay or straight marriage."

Then I unfriended her on facebook and it took her a couple years to figure it out.

Maybe the rings were inscribed, "Lesbo love forever" inside the band.

Posted by TheCatt on May 26 2015,14:11

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,14:50)

QUOTE

ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.

I don't think rings can have a sexual orientation. Or are they tainted because the homos touched them?

I think Vince's point is that homosexuals are about ~2% of the population. As such, they are about 2% of the wedding market. Since they were a PAIR of engagement rings, I'd say that's pretty constraining to the traditional lesbian market.

Posted by Vince on May 26 2015,14:25

(TheCatt @ May 26 2015,16:11)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,14:50)

QUOTE

ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.

I don't think rings can have a sexual orientation. Or are they tainted because the homos touched them?

Yes.

Posted by TPRJones on May 26 2015,14:55

Oh, well then just bust up the pair and you have two engagement rings to sell, no?

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2015,15:19

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,16:55)

QUOTE

Oh, well then just bust up the pair and you have two engagement rings to sell, no?

Yeah, if someone thinks that particular custom ring is for them.

Posted by TheCatt on May 26 2015,15:58

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,17:55)

QUOTE

Oh, well then just bust up the pair and you have two engagement rings to sell, no?

Depends on how they were paired. If it's just "hey we both want a blue stone instead of a diamond" that's one thing. If it's "we want 'OMG I Love your pussy'" on both... good luck.

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2015,16:42

(TheCatt @ May 26 2015,17:58)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,17:55)

QUOTE

Oh, well then just bust up the pair and you have two engagement rings to sell, no?

Depends on how they were paired. If it's just "hey we both want a blue stone instead of a diamond" that's one thing. If it's "we want 'OMG I Love your pussy'" on both... good luck.

I'm betting it's at least got a monogram or some type of engraving specific to that person. It's a complete bitch to get a woman to decide on a cut of diamond, let alone the details of the metal circle thingy that goes around it. Even if it's not, you still have to sit on it and wait until someone with that taste and finger size comes around. Time that could've been spent filling other orders, making more profit. Unless they've got some evidence he was going to intentionally fuck up the rings, I'm unsure what they're carrying on about.

Posted by Vince on May 26 2015,16:43

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,16:55)

QUOTE

Oh, well then just bust up the pair and you have two engagement rings to sell, no?

Also, since they were a custom job, so if they had dainty fingers the market got small again since it's a pain to size up. If that had the traditional bull dyke meaty man hook hands, then plenty of room for downsizing.

Posted by TPRJones on May 26 2015,17:58

Engagement rings sound like a pain in the ass.

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2015,18:00

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,19:58)

QUOTE

Engagement ~~rings sound~~ sounds like a pain in the ass.

Fixed.

Posted by Vince on May 26 2015,18:24

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,19:58)

QUOTE

Engagement rings sound like a pain in the ass.

It's all about getting to the married part. But then that presents a whole different set of challenges.

Posted by TheCatt on May 26 2015,18:51

(TPRJones @ May 26 2015,20:58)

QUOTE

Engagement rings sound like a pain in the ass.

My first engagement... she let me know what was an acceptable size of diamond, etc.

The 2nd didn't care.

Guess which one I married?

Posted by GORDON on May 26 2015,18:56

The one you drugged?

Posted by TheCatt on May 27 2015,02:20

(GORDON @ May 26 2015,21:56)

QUOTE

The one you drugged?

No, the one with bigger tits!

Posted by GORDON on May 27 2015,05:04

Masterstroke.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2015,10:12

< Let's see how much > Indiana supports religious freedom.

QUOTE

But participants in Wednesday's inaugural service at the First Church of Cannabis were planning to celebrate the gathering without their illegal sacrament, days after authorities threatened arrests if the congregation lit up during the rites.

Looks like not much.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2015,10:18

I'm sure Indiana supports religious freedom without discrimination for Christians of all sorts.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2015,10:26

(TPRJones @ Jul. 01 2015,12:18)

QUOTE

I'm sure Indiana supports religious freedom without discrimination for Christians of all sorts.

< Confirmed >. Indiana will let Catholic children drink while underage, but adults smoking bud is off limits. Come on, where are all the religious freedom defenders?

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 02 2015,12:40

In fairness to the Catholics in question, it may not be illegal in the first place. Every state is a bit different, of course, but at least in Texas it is legal for a minor to drink the their parent or guardian provides the booze and approves.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2015,12:44

QUOTE

Every state is a bit different, of course, but at least in Texas it is legal for a minor to drink the their parent or guardian provides the booze and approves.

Since Catholic priests aren't supposed to have kids, that tiny loophole doesn't apply. The parent isn't providing it. Hell, according to them, it's not even booze.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 02 2015,13:04

If the priest hands it to the parent who hands it to the kid then what would qualify.

Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2015,13:24

I say let them have their pot head church. I don't care. As long as I'm not supporting them, I don't give a flip. As long as they aren't trying to make me partake... don't care.

I say keep the wall of separation between church and state raised. I hope you will be as consistent when they come after the churches that refuse to perform a gay marriage.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 02 2015,13:26

I agree with Vince.

I think if your crazy church funds/supports violence, though, your church needs to be outlawed and lots of peeps need to go to jail.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 02 2015,13:27

Absolutely. No church should be forced to perform a wedding they don't want to. I think it would be a bit shameful if a long-term church member of good standing were denied, but that's just my opinion and I'd not force it on anyone. Church's have long been able to pick and choose because they aren't there to serve the public, they are there to serve their congregations.

Florists and bakers are a different story, though.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 02 2015,13:29

(GORDON @ Jul. 02 2015,15:26)

QUOTE

I think if your crazy church funds/supports violence, though, your church needs to be outlawed and lots of peeps need to go to jail.

That would be a quick way to close down a lot of churches. Especially the Catholic church; they still allow exorcisms, which are pretty violent.

Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2015,13:29

(GORDON @ Jul. 02 2015,15:26)

QUOTE

I agree with Vince.

I think if your crazy church funds/supports violence, though, your church needs to be outlawed and lots of peeps need to go to jail.

Agreed.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 02 2015,13:30

I was also wondering about what I thought about the possibility of churches losing their tax-exempt status. At first I was like, "Good." Then I remembered the only thing near me that gets used as a community center is the local church, and it would suck if that was no longer available. We vote there and the boy scouts meet there and it is the local tornado and fallout shelter and would probably be where the Red Cross would set up shop if there was a disaster. So it would kinda suck if they couldn't' keep their doors open because suddenly they owed $25k in property taxes every year.

Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2015,14:50

I think the last thing the left wants is for churches to loss their tax exempt status. Black churches regularly preach politics that would get any other church investigated by the IRS. But they are allowed because they are protected and as long as they've voting democrat. As soon as the IRS no longer has the tax exempt status to hold over the churches, they get to preach politics and the politicians really are afraid of that.

Prior to the revolutionary war when the Brits were sweeping through arresting the rabble-rousers, the preachers were usually among them.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 02 2015,14:59

As much as I dislike religion I'm still in favor of their tax exempt status for a few reasons. I think it helps to underline separation of church and state, a topic that is all too blurry already. That money was already taxed as individual income before it was tithed. If it ddi become taxed the next step might be taxing charities which I'd rather avoid, and at least with some better churches a fair portion of those tithes are going to charity work anyway. And finally even though I disapprove of churches and much of what they do - or at least the way they do it - they're still more likely to spend the money better than the government would.

EDIT: I guess I wouldn't be entirely opposed to setting a large annual cap on their tax exemption, though. That might help cut down on the proliferation of mega churches and encourage smaller congregations a bit, which would go a long way to cutting down on the worst of them. But I'm hesitant to go even that far.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2015,16:48

(Vince @ Jul. 02 2015,15:24)

QUOTE

I don't give one flying fuck if a church won't marry a gay couple. Go to a courthouse, find a judge, get that shit done, throw a reception in a big-ass hall somewhere. Even if the couple happened to be members of the congregation, I still wouldn't care.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2015,16:50

QUOTE

I think the last thing the left wants is for churches to loss their tax exempt status.

Scientology is classified as tax exempt. Some shit is fucked the fuck up.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 21 2015,18:25

I just realized that restaurant owners can no longer ban children, because that is discrimination and there are rules they need to follow if they want to do business in America.

< http://qz.com/249754/why-more-and-more-restaurants-are-banning-kids/ >

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 21 2015,18:39

(GORDON @ Jul. 21 2015,20:25)

QUOTE

The law tends to agree with age discrimination of this kind, it's built around it. Once adults and minors have equal legal standing, you might have a case.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 28 2015,13:29

< Texas teacher > v Texas retard.

QUOTE

Students at West Memorial Junior High were asked to categorize a list of statements as “opinion,” “fact,” or “assertion.” One of the statements read, “There is a God.”

Jordan Wooley says she identified the statement as fact and opinion, but the teacher told her that answer was wrong.
...
Wooley and her mother took her complaint to the Katy ISD school board meeting. Wooley’s mother wants the teacher fired.

“I think that the teacher crossed a serious line when she led impressionable minds to write there was no God…that God wasn’t real. I think that infringes on my child’s rights,” Jordan’s mother, Chantel Wooley said, according to KTRK.

How about leading the impressionable minds to believe there is one? Seems to me you've got exactly as much evidence as your kid's teacher.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 06 2015,12:52

< More legal battles around > contraceptive mandate.

QUOTE

To be eligible for the government’s accommodation, a religious organization must certify to its insurance company that it opposes coverage for contraceptives, or it must send a letter to the government saying so and provide the name of its insurance company. The insurers and government take over from there to provide the services.

But the religious groups say either of those options serve as a “trigger” that allows the contraceptives to be provided and makes the groups complicit.

That last sentence is such utter bullshit. By that logic, giving loose change to a homeless guy that later uses it to buy a knife and kill someone makes you complicit in the murder. Not only that, but every pub in the nation could be sued any time anyone does anything as a result of being wasted after having had so much as one sip of booze at their establishment.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2016,10:27

< Governor > from that bleeding heart liberal state of Georgia...

QUOTE

“In light of our history, I find it somewhat ironic that some in the religious community today feel that it is necessary for government to confer upon them certain rights and protections,” Mr. Deal said at the State Capitol, where he had faced intense pressure from the bill’s supporters and critics. “If indeed our religious liberty is conferred upon us by God, and not by man-made government, perhaps we should simply heed the hands-off admonition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
...
By rejecting the measure, Mr. Deal has most likely sidestepped the type of economic backlash that Indiana faced last year after its governor signed a so-called religious liberty measure.
...
The bill was intended to offer protections to faith-based groups if they, absent certain conditions, refused to provide “social, educational or charitable services that violate” their religious beliefs. The measure also would have allowed such groups, without legal repercussions, to avoid hiring anyone whose religious beliefs conflicted with the organization’s.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2016,10:34

< Mississippi joins > the list of states with horseshit laws that will be struck down when the Supreme Court gets around to it.

QUOTE

"This is presenting a solution to the crossroads we find ourselves in today as a result of Obergefell vs. Hodges," Republican State Sen. Jenifer Branning said as she presented the bill to the Senate, according to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger. "Ministers, florists, photographers, people along those lines — this bill would allow them to refuse to provide marriage-related business services without fear of government discrimination."

Later in her speech, she assured her colleagues, "It takes no rights away from anyone. It gives protection to those in the state who cannot in a good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage," according to New York Magazine.

Yes, by allowing them to deny rights to others based on who they fuck. Have fun losing hundreds of millions of dollars like Indiana.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 05 2016,10:32

< PayPal > tells North Carolina to fuck itself.

QUOTE

The backlash against a North Carolina law that bars local governments from extending civil rights protections to gay and transgender people continued Tuesday, with PayPal saying it is abandoning plans to expand into Charlotte in response to the legislation.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 06 2016,10:28

< NBA All-Star > game may be pulling out of NC.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2016,06:34

(Malcolm @ Apr. 05 2016,12:32)

QUOTE

< PayPal > tells North Carolina to fuck itself.

QUOTE

Another example of a < hashtag warrior/activist > that doesn't have balls enough to put their beliefs on the line someplace where it might actually make a difference. If you believe in it, fine. But stop being a pussy and show that you have actual principles.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 08 2016,15:06

< This shit > is going awesome for NC.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 11 2016,10:23

< Bryan Adams > tells Mississippi to eat a dick.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2016,10:17

< Jimmy fucking Buffet > cancels future NC shows.

QUOTE

Buffett condemns the law on his blog and says he thinks most of his fans feel the same way. But he says fans bought tickets long before the law was enacted last month.

He adds: "I am not going to let stupidity or bigotry trump fun for my loyal fans this year."
...
But in a blog post he says scheduling of future shows will depend on whether the law is repealed.

< TN > deciding whether or not the state wants to watch a billion dollars float away.

QUOTE

The sponsor of a Tennessee transgender bathroom bill told a Senate committee Tuesday that he has to consider a state attorney general’s opinion before going forward.

Sen. Mike Bell, R-Riceville, told the Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee that he wanted another day to consider an opinion that State Attorney General Herbert Slatery issued Monday that said that federal education funding could be placed at risk if the measure becomes law. A fiscal analysis said the bill could cost the state more than $1.2 billion in federal money for K-12 and higher education.