Syrians throwing gays of of buildings, ISIS beheading Coptic Christians, Obama ignoring the Constitution and doing his best to make Congress irrelevant …. and people freak out because what is OBVIOUSLY the only baker in the state of Indiana won’t make a certain type of wedding cake. I fear for our country.
^Nice of you to start off addressing where the U.S. will be shortly, but with the folks behind laws like this being the ones who burn the Constitution, and start the camps for those who don’t subscribe to THEIR sole (of over 30,000) Christian sect.
All of you left wing nut jobs, just read the bill before you comment. That way you will know the truth rather than what the lying talking heads of ABC, NBC, CBS and MSLSD tell you it says or does or might do.
Of course, you all attack FOX news but probably never watch it.
Let me ask our liberal colleagues a hypothetical, that isn’t really hypothetical. If this were blacks refusing to let whites come attend, how would the media react? Would they even react? And how would you react? If you’re saying refusal of them to serve a “protected class” is discrimination, then so is exclusion of whites from an all-black event. What was the media and liberal response to one such event ? A dull echoing silence. Hypocrites.
I do not think it is the news head that is on fire unless it is the right wing news. The right has lite itself on fire and business are doing the lighting.
I think this article does a good job explaining my concerns. It’s of a conservative bent, admittedly, but the basic premise of the article is that it has switched from liberating peoples to oppressing others. That’s where I’m coming from. I’m not saying that discrimination is a good thing; I’m saying that by them criminalizing free will, you are eroding the basic premise of this country. I’m quite certain the Christian wedding cake baker is not the only person qualified to bake cakes in the area. Instead of making a deal out of this, and creating this massive firestorm, they could have gasp just gone somewhere else. We’re not talking about institutionalized discrimination, like in public schools, drinking fountains, etc. We’re talking about an individual refusing to violate her code of ethics and providing a service in what she considers a sin. In her mind, it is effectively forcing her to commit a sin by contributing to the union. And who’s to say she is wrong? As to the blacks-only assembly, do a quick google search. “Blacks only illinois” and it should pop right up. And the silence from the media about that event was deafening. Which is part of the reason I am so wrapped around the axle on this, because the media and many liberals in general are raging hypocrites.
You realize that liberals think the right wing are hypocrites. So the hypocrite argument is nothing to get to worked about. There are “liberal” militants, especially gay people who have been vilified by society and their families and still are. Some over compensate. Anger issues.
Is it not hypocritical to be worked up about death threats on a pizza establishment and not on a women’s health clinic where abortion could be performed? For me I am against all death threats or attempts to close down legal businesses and harass customers of those business of any kind. My view of pizza or women’s health has no bearing on another person right to choose and their free will. This is were the right tends to be hypocritical across the board. They are fine imposing their religious views on society as a whole gay marriage, women’s health, but when they feel their free will is being imposed on they call foul.
For me and a lot of liberal I know, we are for everyone being able to believe what they want as long as it does not unfairly impose on another. While a business may have a certain political or religious belief if they are open to the public they should serve all. I would be against a gay bakery discriminating against serving a religious person or vice a versa. Would you like it if people discriminated against you?
You want to live in a free society with free will than you can not discriminate. If discrimination is allowed to happen we will not live in a free society. A free society breaks down when we refuse to talk, listen or serve one another. No one will be free in their own little corners.
The media is not liberal that is a right wing myth that thinks any media that they do not find agrees with them is well liberal. There are liberals that think the media is all right wing and the president is right wing. I looked at the article and small shit like that happens all the time all over the nation on both right and left sides. Doesn’t mean the national media should cover every single one right or left.
I agree that it could have been worked out between a religious baker and a gay customer without the religious freedom law of Indiana. The law caused the fire storm and most of it is coming from businesses not liberals. The problem is the Indiana law went beyond the federal law and protection. The law went intentional to shielding discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. Why do you think they had to rewrite part of it. There is no reason for the Indiana law to exist other than political because religious freedom already exist. I still have no idea what the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts really does.
I would defend a religious baker to have religious symbols, play religious music and preach in their business, but if their business is open the public they must still serve the public. We live in a civil society.
There is no criminalizing of free will, but I can not impose my free will on yours in the public space of a free civil society. If I was a baker, I would bake a cake for you, anyone religious, or a gay married couple. You do not win people to your beliefs or gain their respect by being hostile to them.
You make a blanket statement with no specifics arguement.
The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
The US constitution applies to what the government can and can not do. Not how how people interact with each other.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 -“In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;4 therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
Nothing wrong with that. The Indiana law tried to go further by government shield public businesses from the consequences of what they do to one another, though they say that wasn’t the intent. Why do they need a state law when there is already a federal law other than political.
Repeat Freedom of Religion is the government not making laws that violate religous freedom. People in the US can practice their religious freedom but they can’t hide behind it. Through history, religion has been used to justfiy all sort of things like slavery, other people not being fully human, lynching, etc. In a civil society in public places you can not hide behind your religion and discriminate without the posibility of consquences. You have the right to excercise your freedom of religion and discriminate and the other person can sue you. If religious freedom without reprocusions were allowed ISIS would have a field day. The world would be a terrible place to live.
It is deplorable that people treat people the way they do. It is terrible that people discriminate, or do not allow people to marry the people they want to, and it is terrible that people sue each other over everything and not try and work things out or find other alternatives.
Darque Hellmutt about 9 years ago
Syrians throwing gays of of buildings, ISIS beheading Coptic Christians, Obama ignoring the Constitution and doing his best to make Congress irrelevant …. and people freak out because what is OBVIOUSLY the only baker in the state of Indiana won’t make a certain type of wedding cake. I fear for our country.
Dtroutma about 9 years ago
^Nice of you to start off addressing where the U.S. will be shortly, but with the folks behind laws like this being the ones who burn the Constitution, and start the camps for those who don’t subscribe to THEIR sole (of over 30,000) Christian sect.
Gerald Henley about 9 years ago
All of you left wing nut jobs, just read the bill before you comment. That way you will know the truth rather than what the lying talking heads of ABC, NBC, CBS and MSLSD tell you it says or does or might do.
Of course, you all attack FOX news but probably never watch it.
Wraithkin about 9 years ago
Let me ask our liberal colleagues a hypothetical, that isn’t really hypothetical. If this were blacks refusing to let whites come attend, how would the media react? Would they even react? And how would you react? If you’re saying refusal of them to serve a “protected class” is discrimination, then so is exclusion of whites from an all-black event. What was the media and liberal response to one such event ? A dull echoing silence. Hypocrites.
PainterArt Premium Member about 9 years ago
I do not think it is the news head that is on fire unless it is the right wing news. The right has lite itself on fire and business are doing the lighting.
Wraithkin about 9 years ago
I think this article does a good job explaining my concerns. It’s of a conservative bent, admittedly, but the basic premise of the article is that it has switched from liberating peoples to oppressing others. That’s where I’m coming from. I’m not saying that discrimination is a good thing; I’m saying that by them criminalizing free will, you are eroding the basic premise of this country. I’m quite certain the Christian wedding cake baker is not the only person qualified to bake cakes in the area. Instead of making a deal out of this, and creating this massive firestorm, they could have gasp just gone somewhere else. We’re not talking about institutionalized discrimination, like in public schools, drinking fountains, etc. We’re talking about an individual refusing to violate her code of ethics and providing a service in what she considers a sin. In her mind, it is effectively forcing her to commit a sin by contributing to the union. And who’s to say she is wrong? As to the blacks-only assembly, do a quick google search. “Blacks only illinois” and it should pop right up. And the silence from the media about that event was deafening. Which is part of the reason I am so wrapped around the axle on this, because the media and many liberals in general are raging hypocrites.
PainterArt Premium Member about 9 years ago
You realize that liberals think the right wing are hypocrites. So the hypocrite argument is nothing to get to worked about. There are “liberal” militants, especially gay people who have been vilified by society and their families and still are. Some over compensate. Anger issues.
Is it not hypocritical to be worked up about death threats on a pizza establishment and not on a women’s health clinic where abortion could be performed? For me I am against all death threats or attempts to close down legal businesses and harass customers of those business of any kind. My view of pizza or women’s health has no bearing on another person right to choose and their free will. This is were the right tends to be hypocritical across the board. They are fine imposing their religious views on society as a whole gay marriage, women’s health, but when they feel their free will is being imposed on they call foul.
For me and a lot of liberal I know, we are for everyone being able to believe what they want as long as it does not unfairly impose on another. While a business may have a certain political or religious belief if they are open to the public they should serve all. I would be against a gay bakery discriminating against serving a religious person or vice a versa. Would you like it if people discriminated against you?
You want to live in a free society with free will than you can not discriminate. If discrimination is allowed to happen we will not live in a free society. A free society breaks down when we refuse to talk, listen or serve one another. No one will be free in their own little corners.
The media is not liberal that is a right wing myth that thinks any media that they do not find agrees with them is well liberal. There are liberals that think the media is all right wing and the president is right wing. I looked at the article and small shit like that happens all the time all over the nation on both right and left sides. Doesn’t mean the national media should cover every single one right or left.
I agree that it could have been worked out between a religious baker and a gay customer without the religious freedom law of Indiana. The law caused the fire storm and most of it is coming from businesses not liberals. The problem is the Indiana law went beyond the federal law and protection. The law went intentional to shielding discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. Why do you think they had to rewrite part of it. There is no reason for the Indiana law to exist other than political because religious freedom already exist. I still have no idea what the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts really does.
I would defend a religious baker to have religious symbols, play religious music and preach in their business, but if their business is open the public they must still serve the public. We live in a civil society.
There is no criminalizing of free will, but I can not impose my free will on yours in the public space of a free civil society. If I was a baker, I would bake a cake for you, anyone religious, or a gay married couple. You do not win people to your beliefs or gain their respect by being hostile to them.
PainterArt Premium Member about 9 years ago
You make a blanket statement with no specifics arguement.
The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
The US constitution applies to what the government can and can not do. Not how how people interact with each other.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 -“In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;4 therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
Nothing wrong with that. The Indiana law tried to go further by government shield public businesses from the consequences of what they do to one another, though they say that wasn’t the intent. Why do they need a state law when there is already a federal law other than political.
Repeat Freedom of Religion is the government not making laws that violate religous freedom. People in the US can practice their religious freedom but they can’t hide behind it. Through history, religion has been used to justfiy all sort of things like slavery, other people not being fully human, lynching, etc. In a civil society in public places you can not hide behind your religion and discriminate without the posibility of consquences. You have the right to excercise your freedom of religion and discriminate and the other person can sue you. If religious freedom without reprocusions were allowed ISIS would have a field day. The world would be a terrible place to live.
It is deplorable that people treat people the way they do. It is terrible that people discriminate, or do not allow people to marry the people they want to, and it is terrible that people sue each other over everything and not try and work things out or find other alternatives.