I'm conservative. I'm Catholic. And I support gay marriage.

That said, I don't see hwo anyone who has ever read the Constitution, specifically the Bill Of Rights, can claim that a religious business owner doesn't have the right to refuse to participate in that which is contrary to his religiously-informed conscience.

The Bill Of Rights, while genius, is tough. Like it or not, freedom of speech means an artist can hang a painting of Christ covered in urine. Like it or not, freedom of assembly means that the Klan can hold a rally. Like it or not, freedom of the press means that the folks at MSNBC can advocate for that which I would advocate against, at the top of my lungs. And like it or not, freedom of religion means that no one can be forced to participate in that which violates their religious beliefs.

If enough people disagree with the IN law, there is a mechanism to change the constitution. Until that day, we don't get to ignore the parts of the Constitution that we don't happen to like.

And if you want to see why I reject th enotion that liberals are 1% as tolerant as they claim to be, look at the vitriol in their reaction.

Constitution, shmonstitution...

I've been waiting for this post. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't imagine why you would want to eat a cake after forcing somebody to make it against their will. Seems pretty risky but I guess that goes with the territory
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BTW this is a totally fabricated story. It never happened.our POS media hard at work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course, in the liberal traditions of inclusion and tolerance, the store had to close, people threatened to burn it down, and the pizzeria's facebook page was flooded with gay pornography. Shocking, I know.

It's also worth noting, that the liberal pillars of tolerance, are targeting this pizza shop, even though they have never refused a gay wedding. A theoretical question was asked to the owners, and they said that if asked, they would feel uncomfortable working at a gay wedding, because of their religiously-informed consciences.

Cue the liberal lynch mob..."there's no room for hate in this country, so agree with me or I'll burn down your restaurant!!"

These people have no shame, and their hatred of religion knows no bounds...

Religion does suck generally speaking,loaded with zealots who have no tolerance for no tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Religion does suck generally speaking,loaded with zealots who have no tolerance for no tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't know being gay was a religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BTW this is a totally fabricated story. It never happened.our POS media hard at work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What's totally fabricated?

I didn't know being gay was a religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Dangles was paying a compliment to religious zealots with his use of a double negative. No tolerance for no tolerance reverts to the positive and the no no becomes yes, that is, tolerance. That is a tricky way of saying the zealots are tolerant.

Religion does suck generally speaking,loaded with zealots who have no tolerance for no tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Religion does suck generally "

Hilarious that you could say something like that, and then claim that people of faith have no tolerance.

Religion sucks generally, hmmm...I bet that comes as news to all of our neighbors who are getting housing, food, medical care (at zero cost if they can't afford it), quality education, and adoption services, via the church.

Every poll ever done, shows that pepole of faith describe their lives as happier and more full, than secular folks.

But the hilarious part is that you would say that religion sucks, then claim that religious folks have no tolerance for others. Those Christian soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and hospitals, will gladly help anyone in need, regardless of their religious views. That's pretty tolerant, isn't it?

Ask the people who own the pizza joint, how much tolerance they are being shown by gay rights activists, at the moment...

Can a black baker be forced to attend a Klan wedding? Or is only Christians who can be forced to participate in things against their will?

When the govenrment can force someone to attend a weding that they do not wish to go to, then at that point, we are not a free country.

Happiness in its purest form comes from helping others. Enjoy your Easter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Dangles was paying a compliment to religious zealots with his use of a double negative. No tolerance for no tolerance reverts to the positive and the no no becomes yes, that is, tolerance. That is a tricky way of saying the zealots are tolerant.

Reading comprehension is a skill that is learned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't know being gay was a religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The church has demonstrated otherwise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The church has demonstrated otherwise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hate to inject facts into your Catholic-bashing, but maybe we should say that a tiny fraction o fthe church has demonstrated otherwise...and that a similar percentage of teachers have demonstrated otherwise, and doctors, etc...

Kudos to whoever indoctrinated you...was it Bill Maher?

What's totally fabricated?

Why don't you tell me what's factual.M y list would be long ...when I don't see a list I'll know it's yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's totally fabricated?

I'm guessing here...but I think he might be referring to the fact, and it's fact, that the poor people who own this restaurant, never declined a gay wedding. They were asked a theoretical question about what they would do if asked to cater a gay wedding. The fact that these people have never, ever, actually done this, doesn't matter to the media of these militant, deranged activists, who descended upon these innocent pepole with visciousness and bile.

A pizza joint who has never actually been involved in this issue, is now ground zero for the crystal clear display of liberal anarchy, feral behavior, and spoiled-bratty-ness.

And the recipient of around half a million dollars of donations from supportive Christians.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the recipient of around half a million dollars of donations from supportive Christians.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure this too pisses off the haters
Posted from my
iPhone/Mobile device

I thought welfare was bad?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reading comprehension is a skill that is learned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Get over yourself . A double negative isn't that impressive 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the recipient of around half a million dollars of donations from supportive Christians.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Damn right! And that wouldn't have been remotely necessary, if thos etolerant liberals would have precticed their motto of "live and let live". In this case, the truth is "live and let live as long as you agree with me, otherwise I will burn your business down".

I hope they get a jillion dollars. They deserve it. No evidence these people have ever done anything wrong (and as born again Christians who appear to take their religion seriously, it's a safe bet they make a habit out of helping others), yet they are being absolutely villified by the $#@!%^&%$##@ left. These activists see nothing wrong with holding a sign in one hand that says "stop the hate", and holding a brick in the other hand to throw through the window of anyone who disagrees with them. Can't make it up.

I thought welfare was bad?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



Welfare??

It's welfare when the government gives you other people's $$ for nothing in return. Private citizens, helping one of their own through a miserable and challenging time, isn't "welfare". It's an example of "American exceptionalism". Unless Obama has outlawed that phrase...


.

True. And I was joking. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the recipient of around half a million dollars of donations from supportive Christians.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean bc they they said that they would discriminate?

That is hilarious.

You mean bc they they said that they would discriminate?

That is hilarious.

Agreed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others....

All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others....

As in some animals (gays), are more entitled to "discriminate" than others (Christians).

You mean bc they they said that they would discriminate?

That is hilarious.

S you would support a law that would force a black baker to serve cake at a Klan wedding?

If not, please explain why in this case, the black baker has the right to discriminate, but not the Christian baker.

Read the Bill Of Rights. It doesn't say that freedom of religion is limited to cases where no one's feelings are hurt.

The left never, ever address the only thing that matters, which is what the Bill Of Rights says. It's always about labeling the other ide as hatemongers.

You mean bc they they said that they would discriminate?

That is hilarious.

No because their business was all but shut down , they have had death threats all because of a fabricated story . They never denied any gay couples anything .

What happened to " live and let live"??
Now you , because you're the epitomy of tolerance , have now decided they are bigots ... You do that a lot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm guessing here...but I think he might be referring to the fact, and it's fact, that the poor people who own this restaurant, never declined a gay wedding. They were asked a theoretical question about what they would do if asked to cater a gay wedding. The fact that these people have never, ever, actually done this, doesn't matter to the media of these militant, deranged activists, who descended upon these innocent pepole with visciousness and bile.

A pizza joint who has never actually been involved in this issue, is now ground zero for the crystal clear display of liberal anarchy, feral behavior, and spoiled-bratty-ness.
I think what they did may have been even worse. In this case it's not even an incident as much as proactive policy.

They went on the news and said it, I don't see how that's a media fabrication.

I think what they did may have been even worse. In this case it's not even an incident as much as proactive policy.

They went on the news and said it, I don't see how that's a media fabrication.

They don't and never have catered weddings . That's their" policy"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They don't and never have catered weddings . That's their" policy"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So if someone called and ordered 20 pizzas for a wedding they'd turn it down? That's not their policy, they just haven't done it.

Who caters a wedding with pizza?

How awkward would this entire conversation be?

Regardless, they went out and said it and made the bed.

Snicker…

Fort Schritt, Indiana — Dr. Michael Freiheit is a general practitioner in the small town of Fort Schritt, Indiana. He describes himself as both an atheist and gay. Dr. Freiheit estimates that he sees a few hundred people a month for various maladies. In the wake of his state’s governor signing a highly-contentious bill that would allow any business in Indiana to discriminate against Freiheit, who last week volunteered to provide no-cost health care at a homeless shelter, based solely on the business owners’ religiously-based discriminatory feelings toward homosexuals. This has Dr. Freiheit curious about something, and he plans to ask Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the Republicans in the state legislature directly, via email.

“Dear Governor Pence and the Republicans in the state legistlature,” Freiheit’s letter begins, “As a gay atheist doctor in a small town in Indiana, I want to applaud your bravery and standing up for your principles, because it would seem that you have given me a chance to finally stop having to treat #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, bigoted Christians at my practice, based on my own deeply held religious views, and not anything more sinister or petty, of course.” Freiheit then goes on to ask Pence and the Republicans, “Is that not the intent of your letter, to give everyone a chance to discriminate against someone they don’t like? I am assuming that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies here, meaning that as a gay atheist I am permitted to not give judgmental bigots the medicine they need to get over the infections in their bodies, right?”

So if someone called and ordered 20 pizzas for a wedding they'd turn it down? That's not their policy, they just haven't done it.

Who caters a wedding with pizza?

How awkward would this entire conversation be?

Regardless, they went out and said it and made the bed.

And a fine bed it will be. Maybe get $1 million from the bed.

So what's the fuss about? A reporter seeking a way to make her chops chooses the hot item of the day, goes in search of a Christian patsy who will give an honest answer, and whoosh, that's supposed to create shock and horror in "most Americans" who must then insist that the "victim" in this case must be threatened and driven out of business? It may well be that "most Americans" are not shocked, nor even care that much. It might be that they are starting to get a bit annoyed at the insistence that they must care. It may be that they don't really see a problem with someone not wanting to cater a gay wedding, and maybe they are beginning to feel more sorry for the bakers who are being driven out of business than they are for the proliferation of manufactured, instigated "cases" of supposed "discrimination." So maybe a bunch of them are deciding to show their support to the victim by donating lots of money to her.

Maybe most of them would just rather that aggrieved victims of actual, non-manufactured, non-instigated cases of "discrimination" take their grievance to court and not make a national fuss about it.

Of course, that would shrink the number of opportunities for aggressive, ambitious, "journalists."

Maybe they could go after Muslim bakers who discriminate against gays. Oh wait, that trick was tried yesterday in Dearborn MI. Muslim baker refused. SHOCKER--no big media fuss. No outcry from the gay community to shut him down. No threats on his life or establishment.

The thought amuses me, once the Christians have been marginalized into political impotence, of the inevitable confrontation between gays and Muslim bakers. Eh . . . probably not inevitable. The gays are probably too scared of the Muslims,

All this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& does is distract people from the serious issues in the economy, like the national deficit, the 1%'s run away profits and the shrinking middle class. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Found this funny...

Snicker…
Quote:
Fort Schritt, Indiana — Dr. Michael Freiheit is a general practitioner in the small town of Fort Schritt, Indiana. He describes himself as both an atheist and gay. Dr. Freiheit estimates that he sees a few hundred people a month for various maladies. In the wake of his state’s governor signing a highly-contentious bill that would allow any business in Indiana to discriminate against Freiheit, who last week volunteered to provide no-cost health care at a homeless shelter, based solely on the business owners’ religiously-based discriminatory feelings toward homosexuals. This has Dr. Freiheit curious about something, and he plans to ask Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the Republicans in the state legislature directly, via email.

“Dear Governor Pence and the Republicans in the state legistlature,” Freiheit’s letter begins, “As a gay atheist doctor in a small town in Indiana, I want to applaud your bravery and standing up for your principles, because it would seem that you have given me a chance to finally stop having to treat #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, bigoted Christians at my practice, based on my own deeply held religious views, and not anything more sinister or petty, of course.” Freiheit then goes on to ask Pence and the Republicans, “Is that not the intent of your letter, to give everyone a chance to discriminate against someone they don’t like? I am assuming that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies here, meaning that as a gay atheist I am permitted to not give judgmental bigots the medicine they need to get over the infections in their bodies, right?”

Constitutionally, I would say that he has a right to "discriminate" in that way. Don't know if that would cause a problem with his professional ethics regarding the hippocratic oath, if he swore to it. Might be a problem with legalities of medical practice, Obama care and all. And don't know if there are enough gay and atheistic bigots in his area to support his business at the level he desires. That may not matter. It sure would provide a service to all the gay and atheist bigots who are being turned away by Christian doctors.

Oh, wait . . . when the doctors give medical attention to gay and atheist bigots, they are not participating in or practicing their life style. No matter. Small potatoes.

Anyway, if the good doctor was able to discriminate in the matter he proposes, then it would actually make the Indiana bill even more acceptable and even more discriminatory (it's not) than it is. I don't think he wants to open up that can of worms.

Anyway, if Pence answers his letter, and if the doctor is capable of understanding and willing to listen, the Governor will explain that the bill is not discriminatory. It does not take away gay's or atheists'"rights." It does not take away their right to legal action if called for.

So if someone called and ordered 20 pizzas for a wedding they'd turn it down? That's not their policy, they just haven't done it.

Who caters a wedding with pizza?

How awkward would this entire conversation be?

Regardless, they went out and said it and made the bed.

I'm glad you see how silly this "story" is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Snicker…

Spence, why doesn't the Bill Of Rights give these people the right to decide what weddings they will cater or not, depending on their religious beliefs. Hint...MSNBC won't tell you how to answer that question, they'll just give you plenty of synonyms for "hatemonger".

Hate to inject facts into your Catholic-bashing, but maybe we should say that a tiny fraction o fthe church has demonstrated otherwise...and that a similar percentage of teachers have demonstrated otherwise, and doctors, etc...

Kudos to whoever indoctrinated you...was it Bill Maher?

Why do you consider my statement Catholic bashing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No because their business was all but shut down , they have had death threats all because of a fabricated story . They never denied any gay couples anything .

What happened to " live and let live"??
Now you , because you're the epitomy of tolerance , have now decided they are bigots ... You do that a lot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"Live and let live". You mean if they're gay?😬


I think I have a heck of a lot more tolerance than you. They certainly are bigots whether they want to claim it is their religious right or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

S you would support a law that would force a black baker to serve cake at a Klan wedding?

If not, please explain why in this case, the black baker has the right to discriminate, but not the Christian baker


Sucks for the black baker but yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sucks for the black baker but yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul , you've mentioned Ben Carson a couple of times referring to his statements comparing the US to Germany during the Nazi movement....it's not clear that you ever read what he actually said or his later comments but here's a bit of it....seems relevant


" You know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe."

He went on to list the "PC police" politicians and news that, together, "stifle people's conversation."

"The reason that is so horrible is because the only way that you have harmony and reach consensus is by talking. But if, in fact, people are afraid to talk, you never reach consensus," Carson said. "And instead you grow further and further apart. And that's exactly what's happening, creating a horrible schism that will destroy our nation if we don't fix it."

I looked up the definition of bigot. This is the most succinct one I found:

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion"

Spence and PaulS are bigots. :rotf3:

these words don't have real meaning any more, they are thrown around so frequently and used as weapons to stifle opposition or disagreement as a replacement for thought...makes them meaningless .....hate, racism, bigot, and on........someone spoke of certain truths being "self evident" once upon a time......if you use these words often enough though, you start to exude their 'real meaning' yourself

these words don't have real meaning any more, they are thrown around so frequently and used as weapons to stifle opposition or disagreement as a replacement for thought...makes them meaningless .....hate, racism, bigot, and on........someone spoke of certain truths being "self evident" once upon a time......if you use these words often enough though, you start to exude their 'real meaning' yourself

Yes. And the meaningless words are the codes that distinguish the "superior" or "smart" group from those presumably too stupid to understand or tolerate, ergo too bigoted. There is a progressive lexicon of such words, bigot being one, but others such as fair, or equal, discrimination, and hate or racism as you mentioned. Words which have specific, concrete, or discernible meaning when spoken in appropriate contexts. But when hurled as weapons against opponents of progressive group-think, especially in political accusation, they indeed are meant to stifle thought by the nature of their imprecise but significant sounding emanations--"penumbras and emanations" as an activist progressive Supreme Court Justice once coined in order to transfigure constitutional law into something it wasn't--some shadowy middle which could mean whatever you want it to mean.

The shadowy remnant of the original meanings become the "moral" shibboleths by which the flock are persuaded in the righteousness of the cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
"I didn't know being gay was a religion."

Reply by Sea Dangles:
"The church has demonstrated otherwise."


Hate to inject facts into your Catholic-bashing, but maybe we should say that a tiny fraction o fthe church has demonstrated otherwise...and that a similar percentage of teachers have demonstrated otherwise, and doctors, etc...

Kudos to whoever indoctrinated you...was it Bill Maher?

Jim, you have to understand that Dangles is a sort of Zen contrarian. If he thinks you are in need of elevation into a higher form of consciousness, he will respond to what he considers your unenlightened statements with his peculiar type of koan. You know . . . his version of what is the sound of one hand clapping thingy. When you rationally respond to it, he again gives you back nonsense. And the more you try to rationalize his nonsense, the more you repeat, and the more nonsense is thrown back at you. Eventually rationalization and nonsense meld into comedic senselessness, the hope being that since there is no rational answer to the koan, you will achieve the deeper understanding--the gray area that Dangles refers to. Not unlike the Zen wisdom of Rumi in this quote by him:

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

I know this personally, as I learned when he Zen beat my weary brain not long ago in another thread so that I now wander with bliss in the gray area. I now see what was once invisible. I now understand what was once unknowable. Once, having learned all this, you will know how to respond to his koans. Speak back to him in the fullness of the unknown--with even more nonsense. Try it. It's fun. It's enlightenment. And will probably end the string of Zen provocation. :buds:

Quote:
Fort Schritt, Indiana — Dr. Michael Freiheit is a general practitioner in the small town of Fort Schritt, Indiana. He describes himself as both an atheist and gay. Dr. Freiheit estimates that he sees a few hundred people a month for various maladies. In the wake of his state’s governor signing a highly-contentious bill that would allow any business in Indiana to discriminate against Freiheit, who last week volunteered to provide no-cost health care at a homeless shelter, based solely on the business owners’ religiously-based discriminatory feelings toward homosexuals. This has Dr. Freiheit curious about something, and he plans to ask Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the Republicans in the state legislature directly, via email.

“Dear Governor Pence and the Republicans in the state legistlature,” Freiheit’s letter begins, “As a gay atheist doctor in a small town in Indiana, I want to applaud your bravery and standing up for your principles, because it would seem that you have given me a chance to finally stop having to treat #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, bigoted Christians at my practice, based on my own deeply held religious views, and not anything more sinister or petty, of course.” Freiheit then goes on to ask Pence and the Republicans, “Is that not the intent of your letter, to give everyone a chance to discriminate against someone they don’t like? I am assuming that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies here, meaning that as a gay atheist I am permitted to not give judgmental bigots the medicine they need to get over the infections in their bodies, right?”

Constitutionally, I would say that he has a right to "discriminate" in that way. Don't know if that would cause a problem with his professional ethics regarding the hippocratic oath, if he swore to it. Might be a problem with legalities of medical practice, Obama care and all. And don't know if there are enough gay and atheistic bigots in his area to support his business at the level he desires. That may not matter. It sure would provide a service to all the gay and atheist bigots who are being turned away by Christian doctors.

Oh, wait . . . when the doctors give medical attention to gay and atheist bigots, they are not participating in or practicing their life style. No matter. Small potatoes.

Anyway, if the good doctor was able to discriminate in the matter he proposes, then it would actually make the Indiana bill even more acceptable and even more discriminatory (it's not) than it is. I don't think he wants to open up that can of worms.

Anyway, if Pence answers his letter, and if the doctor is capable of understanding and willing to listen, the Governor will explain that the bill is not discriminatory. It does not take away gay's or atheists'"rights." It does not take away their right to legal action if called for.

Once again I'm not sure I would want him practicing medicine on me! I would rather him be open about his bias then be forced to give medical care to people he does not like.
People only believe in what they believe. You cannot force them into believing something with laws. It actually works to further the divide not heal it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sucks for the black baker but yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, I respect the fact that you are consistent.

But what about the Bill Of Rights? Why doesn't the Bill Of Rights, absolutely, irrefutably, prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs?

When we have had military drafts, for example, people with religious objections, were not forced to go to war. People who didn't want to go to war for other reasons (let's say they didn't want to go because they didn't believe in the cause), were forced to go.

If these pizzeria owners tell you that the Bill Of Rights guarantees them the right to make this decision, what's your response?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That doesn't seem very ambiguous to me. Like it or not, the Constitution gives them this right.

Do you deny the Bill Of Rights gives them this right? Based on what? How can you read that text, and draw any other conclusion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
"I didn't know being gay was a religion."

Reply by Sea Dangles:
"The church has demonstrated otherwise."




Jim, you have to understand that Dangles is a sort of Zen contrarian. If he thinks you are in need of elevation into a higher form of consciousness, he will respond to what he considers your unenlightened statements with his peculiar type of koan. You know . . . his version of what is the sound of one hand clapping thingy. When you rationally respond to it, he again gives you back nonsense. And the more you try to rationalize his nonsense, the more you repeat, and the more nonsense is thrown back at you. Eventually rationalization and nonsense meld into comedic senselessness, the hope being that since there is no rational answer to the koan, you will achieve the deeper understanding--the gray area that Dangles refers to. Not unlike the Zen wisdom of Rumi in this quote by him:

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

I know this personally, as I learned when he Zen beat my weary brain not long ago in another thread so that I now wander with bliss in the gray area. I now see what was once invisible. I now understand what was once unknowable. Once, having learned all this, you will know how to respond to his koans. Speak back to him in the fullness of the unknown--with even more nonsense. Try it. It's fun. It's enlightenment. And will probably end the string of Zen provocation. :buds:

I'm scared to try it...

OK, I respect the fact that you are consistent.

But what about the Bill Of Rights? Why doesn't the Bill Of Rights, absolutely, irrefutably, prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs?



I don't know Paul's understanding of the Constitution. From what he has said before, it sounds like he doesn't have one. That it's too complicated and better left to "experts." But he usually does agree with the progressive interpretations of it. So his answer, if he ventures one other than "the Court has decided" type of stuff, might be in line with the Progressive Living Constitution theory. That is, the Bill of Rights means whatever the current Court says it means.

So, then, by that interpretation, if the Court says you must violate your beliefs or face a penalty, then that is the choice you are left with.

You, apparently, hold to the original understanding that the Constitution is, as progressives like to say, a charter of negative liberties. You understand that it is irrefutable that it will "prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs". But progressive belief, that the Constitution is a living, evolving (on its own, without necessity of amendment) thing, holds that it has evolved into a charter of positive rights. That is, rather than being a document which limits government, it has become one which more fully empowers government.

The conflict lies between originalist and progressive definition of rights pertaining to the Constitution. In the main, originalists view rights as belonging to the people and as such, as you say, are not to be violated by government. And whatever "rights" the government has, are those granted to it by the people as expressed by constitutional enumerations. On the other hand, progressives view rights, in the main, as belonging to the government which, in turn, can dole out rights to the people, and so can, therefor, make defunct original, "outdated," so-called unalienable rights.

How does this apply to the question at hand--what are the "rights" of the bakers, et. al., and of the gays, et. al.?

The originalist view only partially holds at this time since full rights have already been re-interpreted by anti-discrimination laws to apply to various select groups rather than being universal. But, even so, a quasi-originialist view would hold that the bakers, et. al., must sell whatever they have in stock if requested by any buyer who belongs to a select group. And would certainly allow a successful suit against a proprietor who refused to sell his stock to any buyer, espescially to a protected group. But it would not consider it a right of any buyer to demand what the proprietor does not have in stock, or would never have, due to personal belief or prerogative.

The Progressive view, on the other hand, would hold that the proprietor, must fill the demand of a buyer, especially of a protected group, for the generic type of the proprietor's product, even if that version of his product violates his personal or religious beliefs and he has never made such a version.

One might say, other than the blatant transfer of power from the people to the government, that a major distinction between the originalist and progressive Constitutions is that the former allows those with conflicting bigotries to live together with equal "rights," but that the latter allows one bigotry to trump another.

But what about the Bill Of Rights? Why doesn't the Bill Of Rights, absolutely, irrefutably, prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs.

If these pizzeria owners tell you that the Bill Of Rights guarantees them the right to make this decision, what's your

I fail to see how making pizza or a cake violates someone's religious beliefs. I don't think the bible says anything about making a pizza is essential to the practice of religion.

We have allowed Conscientious objectors to not go to war but you can be one w/o saying it violates your religion. I guess the thought is that if you don't want to fight, we are better off not having you on the front lines regardless of why you don't want to fight.n

I don't know if genital mutilation is illegal here but along with social reasons, people use religion as a reason for forcing it on their girls. Are you in favor of allowing people to do that here?

The baker can now sue the state and claim it violates their constitutional right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I fail to see how making pizza or a cake violates someone's religious beliefs. don't think anyone claimed it does I don't think the bible says anything about making a pizza is essential to the practice of religion. that's probably accurate

We have allowed Conscientious objectors to not go to war but you can be one w/o saying it violates your religion. I guess the thought is that if you don't want to fight, we are better off not having you on the front lines regardless of why you don't want to fight. right, so apply this to other activities, think of the bible thumpers as conscientious objectors

I don't know if genital mutilation is illegal here but along with social reasons, people use religion as a reason for forcing it on their girls. Are you in favor of allowing people to do that here? this is relevant how?

The baker can now sue the state and claim it violates their constitutional right. oh good, more law suits
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we could solve all of this by nationalizing pastry and pizza

I fail to see how making pizza or a cake violates someone's religious beliefs. I don't think the bible says anything about making a pizza is essential to the practice of religion.

We have allowed Conscientious objectors to not go to war but you can be one w/o saying it violates your religion. I guess the thought is that if you don't want to fight, we are better off not having you on the front lines regardless of why you don't want to fight.n

I don't know if genital mutilation is illegal here but along with social reasons, people use religion as a reason for forcing it on their girls. Are you in favor of allowing people to do that here?

The baker can now sue the state and claim it violates their constitutional right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I fail to see how making pizza or a cake violates someone's religious beliefs"

hen you haven't given this much thought. These people believe gay marriage is a sin. They believe that their religion dictates that they not participate in, or endorse, sinful activity. Now you know. So now that you know, why isn't their belief protected?

"I guess the thought is that if you don't want to fight, we are better off not having you on the front lines "

Using that logic, and there is logic to it, why the hell does the engaged couple want a baker at their wedding, who does not want to be there?

"Are you in favor of allowing people to do that here?"

The girl ha the right to not get mutilated. The gay couple does not have the right to force anyone to surrender their right to exercise their religion freely.

"The baker can now sue the state and claim it violates their constitutional right."

Not in this case, because the state didn't do anything to the pizzeria owner. It is your fellow world travelers, those who preach tolerance, who forced these people into hiding. How very tolerant...

Paul, you don't agree with their religious objections, neither do I. That doesn't matter. All that matters, is that our constitution guarantees them that right.

I cannot force the Klan to not hold rallies. Similarly, I can't force these people to abandon their religious beliefs. It's not rocket science.

Amazing, American Christians and Christians around the world are having
their heads cut off because of their believes while the Libs are concerned
about whether a couple can get a pizza pie for their wedding.
Just goes ta show ya.

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=60942&d=1428096750

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=60942&d=1428096750

Stupid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=60942&d=1428096750


That's hilarious, except I don't see right-wingers reacting the way the guy in your cartoon is recating. When I see feral anarchy, looting, violent protests, guess which side is doing the bithcing?

Bryan, the protesters here threatened to burn down the pizzeria (and that was a schoolteacher who did that), and th eowners felt sufficiently threatened that they went into hiding. Whoi goes into hiding because of evangelicals? Good luck answering that...

Yes, we should all learn how to debate, by taking our cues from the Occupy Wall Street group, they were quite civilized...

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, I have asked you a few times to address the constitutional issue, and I don't see that you have.

How much more clear could the Bill Of Rights be? If enough people agree with you, we can amend the constitution to say that the government cannot prevent the free exercise of religion, except in cases to prevent discrimination. As it stands today, it doesn't say that. So it's pretty clear.

The ability of one to exercise their religion, does not end, where someone else's feelings are hurt. If we want the Constitution to say that, we can change it.

Why can't the happy couple just find another baker who is thrilled for the business? Isn't that what the liberal principle of "live and let live" would suggest?

Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?

Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?

Nothing I have written changes the fact that the evangelicals want to discriminate in public (as opposed to doing it in a private setting such as church). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion.

Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?

Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?

Nothing I have written changes the fact that the evangelicals want to discriminate in public (as opposed to doing it in a private setting such as church). I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion.

"Jim, So what was the reason that the evangelicals in Indiana NEEDED a law passed that specifically allowed them to discriminate?"

well, let's see. Oh yeay...those on your side of the issue, immediately descended into violent anarchy in th enext nanosecond afetr hearing that someone had the chutzpah to disagree with them. I agree the state law shouldn't be needed, as the constitution is very clear.

"Can't we say the same thing about the baker - live and let live?"

And how is th ebaker iinterfering with the ability of the hapy couple to "live"? Is the baker threatening to firebomb the hall where th ewedding takes place? Or is he simply asking that he not be forced to attend that which he feels is immoral? I hate to break it to you, but the happy couple can easily find bakers, photographers, etc who would be glad for the business.

"{the evangelicals want to discriminate in public "

First, I'm not sure that's true. They want to discriminate in their business pursuits. If you own a bakery, the bakery isn't public property. It's a private business, Obama hasn't seized it all - yet.

Second, where in the constitution does it say that freedom of religion ceases to exist on public grounds?

"I don't claim to be an expert on the Constituion"

That doesn't mean you have to pretend it doesn't exist, every time it suits you...

Here it is...you tell me how this doesn't guarantee the right of a Christian baker to say "no thanks, but good luck" to the offer of working at a gay wedding...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Paul, the Klan is allowed to hold non-violent rallies at public parks (freedom of speech guarantees them that right). So if the Klan has a constitutionally-protected right to discriminate in public, so does a born-again Christian baker.

The Bill Of Rights guaranytees these freedoms, even if someone else's feelings get hurt. That's the way our country works.

I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc I'm more concerned with the fact that Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots and wanted the specific right to discriminate whether they think they have a constitutional right or not. You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate? Now that they no longer have that law (bc the largest employees in Ind. -Eli Lilly, Anthem/Wellpoint, NCAA, etc. argued they didn't want their employees potentially exposed to that discrimation) why aren't they going to claim that their constitually given right to practice their religion is being hurt?

I laugh at your posts which mention vitriol, yet you clearly have more "vitriol" than anyone else on this site.

I think what is being missed here by those throwing accusations of discrimination against the Memory Pizza owners is that they said they have no problem serving gay customers but would not want to cater a gay wedding because same-sex marriage violates their Christian faith.

In that they are willing to serve gays refutes the accusation that they "discriminate" against their orientation. That they would not, however, cater a gay wedding is not a refusal to serve the orientation, but to participate in their behavior.

Proprietors are allowed to remove customers from their store if they behave in ways that offend the owners. If a couple enters a pizzeria and orders a pizza, the proprietor is beholden to sell them one. If a couple, gay or straight or indefinite, act in overtly amorous or overly affectionate ways, a proprietor is allowed to ask them to stop or leave the premises. If a wedding party, gay or straight or indefinite, marches into a pizzeria, without the owner's permission and sets up a wedding ceremony and demands pizza to serve them, the owner has every right to make them leave and not serve them. If, on the other hand, the owner agrees to such a wedding, then she is willing to materially participate in the ceremony. But why should someone be forced to participate in a wedding outside of her store if she shouldn't be forced to participate in one in her store?

Weddings are not, as far as we know, a genetic orientation. They are behaviors in which people of all stripes can willingly engage or not. If a behavior, which is not necessary to ones "orientation" is opposed by someone else's beliefs, why should that someone be forced to participate in that objectionable behavior?

The difference between serving your wares to those of various "orientations" and in participating in the behavior of those with differing orientations is critical. It is fundamental to a society based, among other things, on individual rights and freedom of association--ultimately, fundamental to freedom itself.

Selling pizzas has inherently the goal that they be eaten and enjoyed--if for no other reason than to get repeat customers. But there are quirks and potentialities which are either out of the proprietors hands, or are part of her individual proclivity. What happens to the pizza when it leaves the shop is outside of the proprietor's persuasion. But if the buyer says that it is going to be used to feed the alley rats, or a host of any other nefarious uses, I doubt that the law, nor most anyone else, would object to the proprietor not selling the pizza. That is not to compare gays, or straights, or indeterminates, to alley rats, but to point out that there can be numerous instances in which the pizza seller can refuse to sell the pizza.

That is where the individual proclivity of the seller is important and not always to be forbidden by force of law. Beyond the inherent goal that his pizzas are sold to be eaten and enjoyed, he has a material participation in the production and sale of his pizzas. If he has a religious world view that prohibits his participation in behaviors which contradict his religion, denying him the freedom not to associate in those behaviors is denying him one of the most basic tenets of liberty. Even though it violates a most basic individual right, it may be understandable in abstract terms of "equality" that the simple sale of his wares to anyone who wishes to buy them be protected, including the buyers "right" to equal treatment. But how is it comprehensible that the seller must not only sell his wares, but participate, against his will, in the behaviors to which his products will be used?

Bigotry abounds on all sides. Gay bigotry and Christian bigotry may well collide in constant and differing ways. Is the answer, then, to eliminate differences into a homogenous society where there are none? If bigotry is inherent in some form or other in all of us, including Spence and PaulS, should we strive to eliminate all difference by force of law so that everyone is in a state of perfect "equality"? Perhaps we all could be Spence. How perfect is a world without bigotry? What would happen to the sacred cow of evolution? Is Nirvana such a good and perfect thing?

Vive la difference!

In a liberal society based on individual rights and freedom of association, the law must allow all bigots who do not trample on others bigotry to flourish. The Pizzeria declining to cater a gay wedding does not deny the gays the ability to have a wedding or to have a gay identity, or orientation. The force of law making the pizzeria participate in the gay wedding against the owners Christian beliefs or go out of business, denies the ability to have a pizzeria with their own Christian identity, or orientation.

In a truly liberal, or tolerant society, we should be able to view this as this gay business woman does: http://www.newnownext.com/lesbian-business-owner-felt-amazing-donating-to-anti-gay-pizza-fund/04/2015/

I knew Jim would make my point valid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here is the law in case you care to read it. Hmmmmm doesn't seem to mention evangelicals or gays. Couldn't even find the word pizza :)
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How have religious freedom laws worked for Rastafarians ? Are they free to practice their holy weed ceremonies ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if the people who support this law believe in evolution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc I'm more concerned with the fact that Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots and wanted the specific right to discriminate whether they think they have a constitutional right or not. You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate? Now that they no longer have that law (bc the largest employees in Ind. -Eli Lilly, Anthem/Wellpoint, NCAA, etc. argued they didn't want their employees potentially exposed to that discrimation) why aren't they going to claim that their constitually given right to practice their religion is being hurt?

I laugh at your posts which mention vitriol, yet you clearly have more "vitriol" than anyone else on this site.

"I haven't addressed the issue of the constition bc "

bc you cannot respond to that, because there is no response...

"Evangelicals are a bunch of bigots "

First, it was the Christians in this country who led the fight against slavery and segregation. So if they are bigots, they aren't very good at bigotry. Second, having made that blanket statement, you forfeit any and all right to accuse anyone of painting everyone with the same broad brush. You often criticize me for doing that, yet somehow, it's OK when you do it.

"You haven't answered the question why they needed a law passed that allowed them discriminate?"

Yes, I did. You yourself are living, breathing (mouth-breathing) proof that there are people who would deny them their constitutional rights.

I wonder if the people who support this law believe in evolution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems as if you're being discriminatory and bigoted in that you lump everybody who supports the law into the same belief.

I suspect most of the supporters do believe in evolution in some form or other. The irony, to me, is that the greater the freedom, the greater the potential for evolution, and on a greater scale. And the more restrictive or homogenous the mix, the less there exist the conditions for evolution. This certainly, if not more so, applies to law. The more that differences are restricted, or abolished, the more a system of societal homogeneity is produced. So the law in question here actually promotes the opportunity for societal evolution more than would its opposite, the restriction of one of the parties in disputes arising from differences of opinion and belief.

Another irony is that the more that "equality," the homogeneity of society, is required, the greater number of more minutely detailed laws must be compiled since the differences which exist in the human genome would present an ever expanding potential for "discrimination." And so a corresponding codex which could cover all contingencies of difference would have to be created. And, if it were possible to create such a compilation of restrictions, there would concomitantly be created, in effect, a society of robots. That's why the Constitution in its simplicity as a legal foundation is far more evolutionary in its potential, at least for human freedom, than is the massive and ever expanding growth of regulations promulgated by our Progressive regulatory agencies.

Sticking to the present legal condition, however, I would say that the trajectory of evolution is more one of devolution. If we continue to eliminate the possibilities for differences of opinion, we will continue to devolve into a more singular society, ironically, of original biblical proportion--a political and psychological Garden of Eden. A society in which only one opinion is allowed. And isn't that, after all, the utopia that Progressives and Socialists aspire to?