Arizona bill sponsor, supporters reverse course; Update: NBC says Brewer likely to veto

posted at 10:41 am on February 25, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Thanks to the attempt to force same-sex marriage into the civil-rights paradigm, businesses in the wedding industry are increasingly faced with a choice between their personal religious beliefs and public-accommodation laws that could force them out of their livelihoods. Arizona’s legislature tried amending the state’s protection of religious belief, but the effort may end up backfiring. With Governor Jan Brewer contemplating whether to sign or veto the bill, a number of Republicans now want the latter — including one of the original sponsors of the legislation:

The chorus of opposition has grown each day, and on Monday, three state senators who voted in favor of the bill changed course and said they oppose it. U.S. Sen. John McCain asked Brewer to veto the measure, as did Apple Inc. and the CEO of American Airlines Group Inc.

State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce sent their letter urging a veto just days after they joined the entire 17-member Senate GOP caucus in voting for the bill.

“I think laws are (already) on the books that we need, and have now seen the ramifications of my vote,” Worsley told The Associated Press. “I feel very bad, and it was a mistake.”

With the three GOP senators joining all 13 Senate Democrats in opposition, there would be enough votes to defeat the measure in a re-vote. But too much time has passed to allow for reconsideration, and the bill was sent to Brewer in a routine transmittal Monday that was accompanied by “boos” from Senate Democrats.

Worsely’s name is on the bill as a sponsor. Both US Senators from the state, Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake, want a veto. So does the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which nominally represents the business interests this bill is supposed to support, because of the fear that the legislation will result in broad discrimination not just against participation in same-sex weddings but gays and lesbians in all businesses — and result in a backlash against the state’s tourism industry. At the same time, though, Georgia’s legislature is now considering a similar bill.

In essence, what we have is a legislative sledgehammer coming in response to the abuse of another legislative sledgehammer, thanks to the redefinition of “tolerance” to “forced acceptance and participation.” In my column for The Week today, I prescribe a lot more old-school tolerance and a healthy respect for personal choice as the antidote:

Most people, including faithful Christians, would and should object to refusing service to gays and lesbians simply on the basis of their orientation and lifestyle. But there is a difference between baking a birthday cake and baking a wedding cake, or photographing a birthday party and a wedding. The latter involves participation in an event that very clearly cuts across the religious beliefs of a great number of Americans, and hardly seems unreasonable for a demurral on that basis. …

The passage of the bill has stoked hyperbolic and amusing commentary on all sides, including debates over whether Jesus would have baked a cake for a gay person. All of this misses the point by a mile, which is the need for tolerance. The religious beliefs of these vendors can and should be assumed to be sincerely held, and under the law the government is required to assume that about religious beliefs. Wedding cakes and photographers are not exactly scarce commodities, nor are they an overriding state interest in the same sense that housing might be in discrimination claims. Both sides have used the legal and legislative systems like sledgehammers, and states have been too eager to impose forced participation rather than foster tolerance and let adults figure out their options.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation. It means allowing people to make their own choices about what they choose to do, and to respect the ability of their fellow citizens to do the same as long as it does no injury to them. What this contretemps shows is that America is getting a lot more intolerant the more “tolerant” we become.

Matt Lewis is on the same page at The Daily Caller:

Opponents of these bills score points when they argue that florists and bakers aren’t exactly granting their imprimatur when they make a cake or put together a flower arrangement for a gay wedding. Additionally, they are correct in assuming that most Christians, whether they agree with same-sex marriage, or not, would still bake the cake. In fact, this could be seen as an example of Christian love.

But this is another example of how this schism cannot be easily brushed aside like so many wedding cake crumbs. In recent years, libertarian-leaning conservatives have largely sided with the gay rights argument. Proud members of the “leave us alone” coalition were apt to side with a group of people who just wanted to be left alone to love the person they love (and what happens in the bedroom is nobody’s business).

At some point, however, “leave us alone” became “bake us a cake. Or else!”

And that’s a very different thing, altogether.

I’m going to avoid getting into a theological debate over the issue of participating in same-sex weddings, because it’s an unresolvable topic. Some Christians might see it as Christian love, while others who read Corinthians might see a parallel to Paul’s ruling on eating meat sacrificed to idols, or even Jesus’ forgiveness of the adulterer with the proviso to “sin no more.” The point is that Christians and those of other religions on that spectrum of belief hold those beliefs sincerely, and that should be enough to allow them to choose when and whether to participate in such events. The right of religious expression takes precedence over the state interest in forcing bakers to produce cakes for same-sex weddings, or photographers to attend them.

David Harsanyi argues that this is why social conservatives should embrace libertarianism:

Should social conservatives “commit themselves” to a political philosophy that not only strives for gay equality, but one that seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections? Should they commit to a philosophy that impels them to fund contraception coverage and abortions — either through direct funding or fungible dollars? A philosophy that continues to force them to send their kids to crappy public educational systems that often undermine their faith-based beliefs? A philosophy that attacks parents who seek alternative means of education, like homeschooling? Or should they be more interested in wedding themselves to a political philosophy that downgrades the importance of politics in everyday life and  allows citizens to structure their communities without interference?

The growing state, after all, not the atheist, is religion’s biggest rival. And, intentionally or not, government is crowding out parts of community life that have traditionally been taken care of by civil society. It’s draining resources once used by communities to implement services and take care of their own. And even more destructive, perhaps, is that government is becoming a source of moral authority for so many.

Admittedly, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that social conservatives embrace a laissez-faire political philosophy.  And I’m definitely not Pollyannaish about my fellow human beings. Paul is right to advocate for sentencing reform and a more judicious foreign policy, but he’s also right when he says that libertarianism doesn’t mean “do whatever you want. There is a role for government, there’s a role for family, there’s a role for marriage, there’s a role for the protection of life.” (Abortion is a debate about when life is worth protecting. Despite the misconception by many in the media, there is no single libertarian position.) As is often pointed out, Adam Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before he wrote Wealth of Nations. One does well with the other. There is no conflict between political freedom and faith.

Leave us alone, indeed.

Update: NBC now reports that Brewer is likely to veto the bill:

She vetoed a similar bill earlier, so this would not be a surprise, especially with Republicans switching sides now.

Update: I like this take from my very good friend Elizabeth “The Anchoress” Scalia:

Writing in USA Today, last week, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers compared what some call the “anti-gay marriage” bills to “homosexual Jim Crow laws.” That may be a rhetorical bridge too far. More worth consideration is her claim that “Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.”

Well, yes and no. While Jesus socialized with those the temple priests would condemn, and healed the “unclean” lepers, he used those opportunities to teach about the love of God and the wideness of God’s mercy. A soul opened to God’s love begins to love God in return, and—for the sake of that love, and in honor of that mercy—eventually conforms life and manner to God’s will. …

Jesus is the source of articulated doctrine on both marriage and divorce. The world may disagree—it clearly stopped listening about divorce some decades ago—but the churches are and will remain bound to his teachings.

Meanwhile, if we lose the ability to respect that people can only go as far as their consciences will allow, we risk becoming mired in a muck of illusion, imagining hate where none exists, equating compelled behavior with authentic love, and losing sight of the fact that traveling together sometimes means that we walk the extra mile on one challenging road, and they walk it on the next. Everyone spares a bit of shoe-leather for the sake of the other. This is how love travels.

Jesus observed the law and fulfilled the law. He did not throw the law away, for the sake of love. For the sake of love, he threw himself away. That’s another counterintuitive lesson he gave to us, as we all proceed together, slouching toward “tolerance” and carrying our consciences along the way.

While the Arizona bill has potentially bad and unintended effects, it’s not “Jim Crow.” The Jim Crow laws required businesses to segregate, rather than allow them to do so. It was a system of state-enforced segregation, which pointedly did not allow for individual conscience on the issue. This may well be a bad bill, but Kirsten Powers is off base on that comparison.

Update: Andrew Sullivan finds common ground with Erick Erickson:

That’s my feeling too. I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken – but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, as one reader expressed so well. But we can surely handle it. And should.

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’.

Indeed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8

There is no right to demand someone else’s property or labor.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Can a business discriminate on the basis of race? If so, then your opening premise and what follows is booolsheet.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Could we please retire the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin”? If you are the sort of person who says this, don’t you agree that you also are a sinner? The phrase implies I have my life figured out and you don’t. I don’t know about you, but I know that I often fail to live as God would want me to. And some of the people who get called sinners are people who never chose to be gay, desperately tried for years to become straight, and as a matter of principle live celibate lives. And what does it mean to love? Anything tangible? Love isn’t just the absence of hate. Love is active, not passive. Being loving doesn’t necessarily require condoning homosexual acts, but I think some Christians define love as simply telling gay people they need to change without doing anything more to be a positive, encouraging presence on their lives.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Consider some implications of permitting discrimination. If we allow discrimination against gays what will happen if no business in a county would be willing to do business with them. They could not buy or rent a home, they could not eat or shop anyplace. In short, life can be made unlivable for them. I would submit that such treatment is a violation of their rights.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Actually, no. Otherwise it would have already happened. The discussion is very specific and targeted, that you can’t force someone into an involuntary contract to provide private services. In the baker case in Oregon for example, the baker involved already knew one the of people couple, that they were gay, that they came in and picked up baked goods with no problem. But when asked to bake a cake for a private sacramental ceremony, the baker declined on 1st amendment grounds.

So what you’re really saying, is that you would rather support the actual nullification of 1st Amendment rights because of an imaginary fear that something might happen, which could have happened before, but has not.

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Consider some implications of permitting discrimination. If we allow discrimination against gays what will happen if no business in a county would be willing to do business with them. They could not buy or rent a home, they could not eat or shop anyplace. In short, life can be made unlivable for them. I would submit that such treatment is a violation of their rights.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

So we are going to prevent someone else’s right to freely associate on the basis that it might cause everyone to discriminate?

That is pure statist claptrap.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Consider some implications of permitting discrimination. If we allow discrimination against gays what will happen if no business in a county would be willing to do business with them. They could not buy or rent a home, they could not eat or shop anyplace. In short, life can be made unlivable for them. I would submit that such treatment is a violation of their rights.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

What right? What right to any private association (without the consent of others) does any person have? What if an entire community shunned a particular individual? Should that community be punished, under the law, for not associating with said individual?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:14 PM

When did I lose the right to associate with whomever I choose?

southsideironworks on February 25, 2014 at 1:05 PM

When the left says its incompatible with their desires, at any given time, on any given topic.

Midas on February 25, 2014 at 1:14 PM

As we have written numerous times, any issues with trolling should be sent to our tips line. Your link and your other supposition turned out to be unsubstantiated though, and JustTheFacts is still a valid commenter anyway.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Do you ever actually answer the tips line?
I sent multiple questions there about my wife trying to register on open reg day – and you guys never responded to a single one.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Consider some implications of permitting discrimination. If we allow discrimination against gays what will happen if no business in a county would be willing to do business with them. They could not buy or rent a home, they could not eat or shop anyplace. In short, life can be made unlivable for them. I would submit that such treatment is a violation of their rights.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

If someone wants to be a racist or a homophobe then no law is going to stop them. People can use “legit” reason to stop service to gay people if they really wanted to like scheduling problems, jacking up prices etc. All the force of law does is cause it to go under ground.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM

As we have written numerous times, any issues with trolling should be sent to our tips line. Your link and your other supposition turned out to be unsubstantiated though, and JustTheFacts is still a valid commenter anyway.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Eh, sometimes you get it wrong.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 1:16 PM

What right? What right to any private association (without the consent of others) does any person have? What if an entire community shunned a particular individual? Should that community be punished, under the law, for not associating with said individual?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:14 PM

At gaypatriot’s site, they said why don’t they just frickin pass a law saying you can’t dislike any gay person.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Consider some implications of permitting discrimination. If we allow discrimination against gays what will happen if no business in a county would be willing to do business with them. They could not buy or rent a home, they could not eat or shop anyplace. In short, life can be made unlivable for them. I would submit that such treatment is a violation of their rights.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

If gays were so looked down upon that no one would voluntarily serve them to this degree then making it illegal would not fix anything. Obviously this isn’t the case in America.

And during Jim Crow – the laws actually enforced segregation. Business owners were not allowed to serve blacks. So the go to situation that “gay rights” advocates like to turn to is in fact a case where the state didn’t allow private businesses to make their own decisions and isn’t analogous to the current situation with gays.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Can a business discriminate on the basis of race? If so, then your opening premise and what follows is booolsheet.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Can? No. Should they be able to? Absolutely. Freedom of association trumps all.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:17 PM

*meant about myself getting it wrong. No disrespect Ed.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 1:17 PM

What right? What right to any private association (without the consent of others) does any person have? What if an entire community shunned a particular individual? Should that community be punished, under the law, for not associating with said individual?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:14 PM

That depends; are they someone the left likes at the moment, or someone the left dislikes?

See, ‘individuals, ‘rights’ and ‘laws’ don’t matter – the whim, particularly of ‘the left’, is what matters.

Midas on February 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Can we retire the “Christian” discussion? A lot of us don’t agree that this law should be written with just the 1st amendment in mind. We also agree that it should be written with property rights and the freedom to associate in mind as well.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Can? No. Should they be able to? Absolutely. Freedom of association trumps all.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:17 PM

And I can guarantee you that the business that refuses to serve a certain race will be “taken care of” in the free market.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

OT – God, this explains so much.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 12:46 PM

ROFLMAO.

Yes, yes it does.

Midas on February 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Can we retire the “Christian” discussion? A lot of us don’t agree that this law should be written with just the 1st amendment in mind. We also agree that it should be written with property rights and the freedom to associate in mind as well.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Freedom of association is part of the 1st Amendment.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Freedom of association is part of the 1st Amendment.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Thanks I meant the Freedom of religion part. :)

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM

What ever happened to the “right to refuse service”?

potvin on February 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM

What ever happened to the “right to refuse service”?

potvin on February 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM

It ‘depends’; remember, ‘equal treatment under the law’, ‘rights’, etc – completely subjective to the liberal whim. Are you conservative? Christian? Anyone may refuse you anything at any time, stfu.

Thanks for your question – next caller, please!

Midas on February 25, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Can a business discriminate on the basis of race? If so, then your opening premise and what follows is booolsheet.
MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Based on existing statutes, no. But freedom of association, property rights, and freedom from involuntary servitude (which is what this involves) are basic human rights. Government typically nullifies basic human freedom through enactment of laws. But just because the government has the power to enact laws to force people into involuntary servitude does not mean that people don’t have the right to free association. These rights are a part of our humanity and can never be legitimately taken away. The government, as it usually does, illegitimately usurps our individual rights. This is why government is evil.

antifederalist on February 25, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Can a business discriminate on the basis of race? If so, then your opening premise and what follows is booolsheet.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM

A business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race.

And in fact some are still allowed to or required to – as long as they discriminate against asians or whites or for blacks.

The reason we have a legal precedent of businesses being forced to not discriminate is because black discrimination had a long long history of slavery and institutional oppression. This isn’t the case for gays. It was supposed to be an exception because the history of blacks in this country warranted it.

But now the exception has become the rule.

And so instead of arguing for liberty and the free exercise of religion, association and speech you’re arguing to make the exception the rule but onlyh for special groups where the government gets to dictate what people do with their time and property and labor.

You’ve never answered the question – does a black baker get to refuse to service a KKK event?
Can the Westboro Baptists be refused service from a gay owner?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:24 PM

And I can guarantee you that the business that refuses to serve a certain race will be “taken care of” in the free market.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Absolutely. There will always be fringe elements that survive by only serving those of like minds, and they still exist today even with anti-discrimination laws on the books. But no business would ever be truly successful turning away people based on skin color. What MaryJaneBrutus doesn’t get is that society already polices itself. And despite the law people act in their own self interest, and that includes defying the law in many, many cases. Bigots deny service despite any damn law.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:24 PM

You’ve never answered the question – does a black baker get to refuse to service a KKK event?
Can the Westboro Baptists be refused service from a gay owner?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Of course, what’s wrong with that? In fact, it’s their right, and is expected and encouraged!

Thanks for your questions, next caller, please…

Midas on February 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Freedom of association is part of the 1st Amendment.
NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

And the 13th Amendment has something to say about involuntary servitude:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

antifederalist on February 25, 2014 at 1:26 PM

This is no different from no shoes, no shirt, no service. The only exception is those who choose to be barefoot can’t sue a business and ruin the owners life.

Ellis on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Can a business discriminate on the basis of race? If so, then your opening premise and what follows is booolsheet.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Not the same thing at all.
You can pretty well tell which race someone is when you see them.
There is no physical attribute that absolutely identifies a gay person.
So you’re looking for protection of a class of people who cannot be directly identified unless they tell you that they are in that class.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

You’ve never answered the question – does a black baker get to refuse to service a KKK event?
Can the Westboro Baptists be refused service from a gay owner?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:24 PM

MaryJaneBrutus is all about the flavor of the moment.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Could we please retire the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin”? If you are the sort of person who says this, don’t you agree that you also are a sinner? The phrase implies I have my life figured out and you don’t. I don’t know about you, but I know that I often fail to live as God would want me to. And some of the people who get called sinners are people who never chose to be gay, desperately tried for years to become straight, and as a matter of principle live celibate lives. And what does it mean to love? Anything tangible? Love isn’t just the absence of hate. Love is active, not passive. Being loving doesn’t necessarily require condoning homosexual acts, but I think some Christians define love as simply telling gay people they need to change without doing anything more to be a positive, encouraging presence on their lives.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I won’t retire that phrase because it doesn’t imply what you claim it does – it in no way says that someone holds themselves blameless before God.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Consider some implications of permitting discrimination. If we allow discrimination against gays what will happen if no business in a county would be willing to do business with them. They could not buy or rent a home, they could not eat or shop anyplace. In short, life can be made unlivable for them. I would submit that such treatment is a violation of their rights.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Why, would you start discriminating against gays if it were legal?

You and your fellow gay-sex bigots insist you won’t discriminate. Then why are you so worried if other people do? Don’t you have the ability to bake them cakes, arrange flowers, rent or sell houses, etc.?

Seriously. Why are you so worried about everyone discriminating against gays if you insist you won’t do it?

Short answer: because this isn’t about gays. In fact, you are a bit of a homophobe yourself. You’re just using gays as a convenient excuse to attack peoples’ religious beliefs.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Consider some implications of permitting discrimination. If we allow discrimination against gays what will happen if no business in a county would be willing to do business with them.

Then what is preventing a member of that community from opening a business to cater to that community?

They could not buy or rent a home, they could not eat or shop anyplace. In short, life can be made unlivable for them.

How realistic is that? That in a nation of 320M+, there’s no one who will be ‘tolerant’ of their choice of a partner or their sexual ‘preference’? While some will not wish to conduct business with them, there will always be those who will if for no other reason than to make money in a marketplace that according to you would have little competition within it.

I would submit that such treatment is a violation of their rights.

They do not have the right to not be offended. Furthermore their rights are not superior to someone else’s rights just because they are part of a minority community. The entire concept of forcing someone’s recognition of someone’s choice or preference or lifestyle is little more than tyranny.

MLK spoke of not judging someone on the basis of the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I contend that in the case of ‘gay rights’, it’s fundamentally no different.

There is a mutual respect that must be achieved, but breaking out the sledgehammer, using the law to force someone to think / act in a manner that disrespects their rights, is not a way to build mutual respect. The ‘in your face’ approach also does nothing to build mutual respect. It reflects a complete and utter contempt and arrogance towards someone else’s rights. It reflects a complete and utter contempt towards an individual’s freedom and liberty.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 1:28 PM

And I can guarantee you that the business that refuses to serve a certain race will be “taken care of” in the free market.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Precisely. The extraordinary measures of anti-discrimination laws are no longer necessary. But the left wont let them go.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:29 PM

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Could a baker refuse to bake a cake for an anal wedding that was requested to be made shaped like male body parts?

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 1:30 PM

It is NOT your role to judge or condemn these people.

John the Libertarian on February 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

But it apparently is YOUR role to judge others.

It is self-ascribed “Christians” like you that are the problem with the world. You are not to judge, lest you be judged. Let he without sin throw the first stone…..Step down off your throne, you narcissist.

John the Libertarian on February 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

So tell us, spoiled brat; if judging is so bad and awful, how come you get to do it to us?

That’s all this is about. You are a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum. You have no intention of living under the rules you attempt to impose on us. Your only concern about our Christian beliefs is in using them to demonize and manipulate us to do your bidding.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Those who want to force a business to cater for whatever reason should consider the flip side. As a consumer would you like to be forced to do business you object to. Goes on all the time in other countries.

CW20 on February 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Already in place with Obamacare.

Mitoch55 on February 25, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Why, would you start discriminating against gays if it were legal?

You and your fellow gay-sex bigots insist you won’t discriminate. Then why are you so worried if other people do? Don’t you have the ability to bake them cakes, arrange flowers, rent or sell houses, etc.?

Seriously. Why are you so worried about everyone discriminating against gays if you insist you won’t do it?

Short answer: because this isn’t about gays. In fact, you are a bit of a homophobe yourself. You’re just using gays as a convenient excuse to attack peoples’ religious beliefs.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Great question.

If the only thing standing between gays being thrown out into the streets are anti-discrimination laws then why aren’t we seeing this in place where they don’t exist?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:33 PM

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Try to keep up. I responded to the other dude’s insipid post. The one claiming that a biz may refuse service for any reason to anyone.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:34 PM

QUESTION FOR THOUGHT:

What if the baker refused to supply juvenile birthday party goods to a known pedophile?

Would we be hearing a similar level of wailing about “discrimination”??

landlines on February 25, 2014 at 1:34 PM

QUESTION FOR THOUGHT:

What if the baker refused to supply juvenile birthday party goods to a known pedophile?

Would we be hearing a similar level of wailing about “discrimination”??

landlines on February 25, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Progressives are working on having that re-classified as a disability…they’re also working on lowering the age of consent.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM

I won’t retire that phrase because it doesn’t imply what you claim it does – it in no way says that someone holds themselves blameless before God.
gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

If I wanted to affirm that I also am a sinner, I wouldn’t use that phrase.

In any case, how do you love the sinner? Practically speaking, that is.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Try to keep up. I responded to the other dude’s insipid post. The one claiming that a biz may refuse service for any reason to anyone.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:34 PM

No you didn’t. This is your first post since 1:12.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

It is self-ascribed “Christians” like you that are the problem with the world. You are not to judge, lest you be judged. John the Libertarian on February 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Huh. Yet from the same passage to which you allude:

St. Matthew
1:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
~

If we are not supposed to judge anything or anyone ever no matter what world without end, how are we supposed to be able to tell who the swine and dogs are?

I guess I shouldn’t be casting my pearls before swine…

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

oops – That’s from 7 not 1.

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 1:39 PM

I responded to the other dude’s insipid post. The one claiming that a biz may refuse service for any reason to anyone.
MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Could a baker refuse to bake a cake for an anal wedding that was requested to be made shaped like male body parts?

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Could we please retire the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin”? If you are the sort of person who says this, don’t you agree that you also are a sinner? The phrase implies I have my life figured out and you don’t. I don’t know about you, but I know that I often fail to live as God would want me to.

Okay.

So in that case, would you agree that you don’t have grounds to tell someone to stop raping children because you’ve sinned too?

Or is it possible for someone to be a sinner and still recognize and call out sin?

And some of the people who get called sinners are people who never chose to be gay, desperately tried for years to become straight, and as a matter of principle live celibate lives. And what does it mean to love? Anything tangible? Love isn’t just the absence of hate. Love is active, not passive. Being loving doesn’t necessarily require condoning homosexual acts, but I think some Christians define love as simply telling gay people they need to change without doing anything more to be a positive, encouraging presence on their lives.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

If gay and lesbian people need a “positive, encouraging presence”, why then do they support antireligious bigots like Dan Savage who call for the murder of conservatives and Republicans?

By the way, do you agree that the mere practice of your faith causes gays and lesbians to have sex with underage children, spread HIV, use drugs, and the like? Because Dan Savage and the gay and lesbian community do.

Do you agree that your going to church and that your witnessing the Gospel causes gay and lesbian people to kill themselves? Because Dan Savage and the gay and lesbian community do.

I want to see just how willing you are to suppress yourself to be gay-supportive. Go ahead and show us that you ignore Jesus and the Scriptures rather than be called “homophobic”.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:41 PM

I get it! Commerce by Coercion. Sweet! So I take it that the Gubbermint will soon force restaurants to abandon their policy of no service without shoes and shirts?

Brock Robamney on February 25, 2014 at 1:41 PM

If someone wants to be a racist or a homophobe then no law is going to stop them. People can use “legit” reason to stop service to gay people if they really wanted to like scheduling problems, jacking up prices etc. All the force of law does is cause it to go under ground.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM

The alphabet activists for SSM and Abortion also hope to legislate laws that undercut religious affiliations.

Basic divide and conquer.

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 1:42 PM

so in the case of this particular law, the free market principle worked. there was pressure rom the arizona tourist board and the NFL about how arizona would be financially hurt if this law passed. this is sorta great. +1 free market principles. -1 arizona still allowing the open discrimination against gays and lesbians.

brushingmyhair on February 25, 2014 at 1:44 PM

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:41 PM

I swear sometimes the different factions of Christianity makes my head explode. So what Minnesotaslinger is saying is that I am not supposed to judge the bimbo that we are doing a dependency and neglect on that put meth in her own babie’s bottle? Yeah now I know why I am agnostic.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:44 PM

If I wanted to affirm that I also am a sinner, I wouldn’t use that phrase.

In any case, how do you love the sinner? Practically speaking, that is.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Well, unlike the left I don’t define someone who is gay using the tenets of identity politics. If someone is gay then that’s one aspect to who they are but it’s not – or shouldn’t be – something that completely defines who they are. Now, some gays do purposely define their entire being as GAY!!!11!!1!. But I don’t choose to participate in that.

Practically speaking how would you love an adulterer in your social circle?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Really? Is this what you spend your time thinking about?

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM

..businesses in the wedding industry are increasingly faced with a choice between their personal religious beliefs and public-accommodation laws that could force them out of their livelihoods.
– Ed

How so?
And as the anemic support for this bill has shown, what good would it do for any business to hang a ‘Gays Not Allowed’ sign in their window?
I’m happy to see the push-back on this silliness from many conservatives. But yet still we have to hear the ‘your intolerant to not tolerate my intolerance’ line.
To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

If I wanted to affirm that I also am a sinner, I wouldn’t use that phrase.

In any case, how do you love the sinner? Practically speaking, that is.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

That’s easy.

Do you believe people should die because they screw up?

Do you agree that people should be killed for believing the wrong thing?

If the answer is no, then you’ve got the basic concept of loving the sinner down pat. It’s essentially having the power to separate a person’s essential humanity from their actions, and it is the root of tolerance and understanding.

Now, I’ll flip that back on you.

The gay and lesbian community supports and endorses bigots like Dan Savage and Allan Brauer who state that Republicans and conservatives and their families should die.

The gay and lesbian community supports and endorses bigots like Michelangelo Signorile who state that gays and lesbians who vote Republican should be stripped of their right to vote and kill themselves.

Do you think this reflects tolerance? Do you think this reflects love — or hate?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

If I wanted to affirm that I also am a sinner, I wouldn’t use that phrase.

In any case, how do you love the sinner? Practically speaking, that is.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Does you being a sinner make homosexual acts non-sinful?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:47 PM

“A coalition of black pastors announced on Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that they are launching a campaign to gather one million signatures on a petition calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for violating his oath of office by trying “to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda.”

“President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have turned their backs on the values the American people hold dear, values particularly cherished in the black community: values like marriage, which should be strengthened and promoted, rather than weakened and undermined,” says a statement by the Coalition of African American Pastors that has been posted online with their impeachment petition.

“Our nation calls for the building up of a healthier marriage culture; instead, our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children,” says the coalition.

“In pursuing this intention, the president and his administration are trampling the rule of law.Attorney General Holder in particular has used the influence of his office and role as the chief law enforcement figure in our nation to try to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda,” says the coaltion. :Millions of voters in 30 states have voted to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but Attorney General Holder is attempting single-handedly to throw those votes away!

“For abandoning the oath he swore in taking office and his duty to defend the common good, Attorney General Holder should be impeached by Congress,” says the coalition. “CAAP is calling on all men and women of good will to sign the following petition urging Congress to take action against the Attorney General’s lawlessness today!”

The Rev. Bill Owens, founder and president of CAAP, said that political leaders in Washington have not held Holder accountable.

“Yet our leaders in Washington are letting him get away with his illegal conduct and doing nothing meaningful to hold him accountable,” said Owens. “Our campaign to gather one million signatures of citizens calling for Holder’s impeachment is intended to create a groundswell of support, giving congressional leadership the encouragement necessary to remove this dangerous ideologue from public office.”

Owens stressed that the petition is meant for all citizens regardless of race or creed.

“Marriage is an institution that benefits all of society; therefore every citizen has an interest in protecting marriage from these brazen attacks,” Owens said.

On Tuesday, Holder told a gathering of state attorneys-general that it’s okay if they don’t defend laws in their states that prohibit same-sex marriage:

“Now, any decisions at any level not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare. They must be reserved only for exceptional – truly exceptional – circumstances. And they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements, hinging instead only on firm constitutional grounds,” Holder said.

“But in general, I believe we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation. And we must endeavor in all of our efforts to uphold and advance the values that once led our forebears to declare unequivocally that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.”

The CAAP petition for the impeachment of Holder is addressed directly to the U.S. Congress.

“I write today to urge you to take immediate action against the Attorney General of the United States for his lawless attempts to undermine states sovereign laws regarding marriage,” says the CAAP petition. “Attorney General Holder should be impeached for abandoning his duty to uphold and defend the law and for pushing a radical agenda on the states in a manner out of keeping with the obligations of his office.”

“I urge you to bring impeachment against Eric Holder for his reckless attempts to undermine our states’ constitutional marriage laws and the voices and values of millions of voters,” the petition says.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/black-pastors-impeach-holder#sthash.FKE0lkcV.a1tSltGI.dpuf

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Andrew Sullivan weighs in

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Practically speaking how would you love an adulterer in your social circle?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Wouldn’t that be what makes them, and you, adulterers?
;)

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Really? Is this what you spend your time thinking about?

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM

That’s pretty tame to what perversity typically occurs in a Homosexual Pride Parade.

sentinelrules on February 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

No

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Really? Is this what you spend your time thinking about?

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Why don’t you answer the question? You think you’re so cute when you throw your questions out there expecting us to be stumped, but we answer honestly with a solid foundation in understanding our rights. So why can’t you answer these simple questions yourself?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM

It is NOT your role to judge or condemn these people.

John the Libertarian on February 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

But it apparently is YOUR role to judge others.

It is self-ascribed “Christians” like you that are the problem with the world. You are not to judge, lest you be judged. Let he without sin throw the first stone…..Step down off your throne, you narcissist.

John the Libertarian on February 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

So tell us, spoiled brat; if judging is so bad and awful, how come you get to do it to us?

That’s all this is about. You are a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum. You have no intention of living under the rules you attempt to impose on us. Your only concern about our Christian beliefs is in using them to demonize and manipulate us to do your bidding.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Right on, right on, northdallasthirty.

KickandSwimMom on February 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Freedom of association necessitates that bigots must be free to be bigots. Guaranteed freedom doesn’t exist for the people who you’ll defend, it exists for those that you won’t.

nobar on February 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

I swear that I have to repeat this at least 1 every hour, because everyone seems incapable of learning what it means.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM

The classical liberal approach was to make this nation one that is based on the fact that we are Americans… without identities that are based on race, or gender, or one’s national origin.

Out of many, one.

Not judging a person on the basis of the color of their skin, or their gender, or where they are from, or even whom they choose as a life-partner…but on their actions and their character.

A respect for differences as opposed to highlighting and expanding those differences in the canard around identity politics to further specific agenda’s to fundamentally transform this nation in the name of ‘social justice’ or ‘tolerance’ that isn’t tolerant or ‘fairness’ that isn’t fair.

But in that call for respect, much of it is predicated on disrespect to different opinions, views, and religious beliefs.

Christianity is openly attacked by the secular left because it remains the belief foundation of not only the majority in this country, but Judeo-Christian beliefs and values are at the foundation of this nation’s beliefs and values. It must be discredited and diminished if one is to achieve a fundamental transformation of society. It must be discredited and diminished if one is to establish an utopia on earth – where thoughts and actions are mandated by an elite who ‘know better’ and the freedom and liberty of the individual are considered obsolete and outmoded.

There is something fundamentally wrong with embracing and leveraging tyranny in the canard of achieving more freedoms and rights. There is something fundamentally wrong with claiming to being interested in freedom and rights by seeking to divide and leverage identity politics. There is something fundamentally wrong with the jacobins of the progressive left. The ends do not justify the means.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Freedom of association necessitates that bigots must be free to be bigots. Guaranteed freedom doesn’t exist for the people who you’ll defend, it exists for those that you won’t.

nobar on February 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Beautiful.. And I will repeat it again…

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM

..businesses in the wedding industry are increasingly faced with a choice between their personal religious beliefs and public-accommodation laws that could force them out of their livelihoods.
– Ed

How so?
And as the anemic support for this bill has shown, what good would it do for any business to hang a ‘Gays Not Allowed’ sign in their window?
I’m happy to see the push-back on this silliness from many conservatives. But yet still we have to hear the ‘your intolerant to not tolerate my intolerance’ line.
To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

How so? Because some people can legitimately claim that supporting and being part of a celebration of gay marriage goes against their religious conscience (it also goes against their freedom of association and their freedom of speech) and that it’s not the state’s job to define what that is.

And I don’t think the state should get involved – so there is nothing “I” wouldn’t allow to “NO _____ ALLOWED” because it’s not my place in society to demand another citizen use their property and labor in ways that I deem proper.
If a business decided to not serve me because of my religious beliefs, color, whatever I wouldn’t seek redress from the state. I’d go somewhere else.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Freedom of association necessitates that bigots must be free to be bigots. Guaranteed freedom doesn’t exist for the people who you’ll defend, it exists for those that you won’t.

nobar on February 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

I swear that I have to repeat this at least 1 every hour, because everyone seems incapable of learning what it means.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM

And it bears repeating.

Also, verbaluce – would you force a black photographer to work for a KKK rally? Or a gay caterer to serve the Westboro Baptist Church?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:52 PM

The gay lobby is a powerful one and it’s sad to see people cave so easily to this pressure..of course being afraid of being called a bunch of names…people are getting sued left and right by aggressive gay people just looking for a law suit..this is on purpose! this is an attack on Christianity!

Why no outrage at the muslim countries in the world that routinely hang homosexual people? like Iran who uses cranes for that..this world is in a seriously messed up place now and only God and his son Jesus can save it

sadsushi on February 25, 2014 at 1:52 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

MaryJaneBrutus already asked this childish question, and if you bothered reading our posts you’d know the answer already. Freedom of association means freedom of association, period. And before you scream “Segregation!” read Ed’s last update, and the very first comment in this thread.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 1:53 PM

I’m not sure about the substance of the AZ bill. I was , though, encouraged that the lawmakers felt there was enough of a groundswell – against the LGBT activists push to de-fang the 1st – that lawmakers felt it necessary to respond. That is encouraging.

What’s the over under on when the first Minister is sued for refusing to officiate a SSM? I guarantee that if the baker is no longer able to refuse service the Preacher is soon to follow.

Also, I wish there were LGBT activists on this thread because I want to know what they think about a Rev. or Pr. refusing to officiate a SSM – whether it should be legal or not. If you want to know where this is heading ask the activists. They will tell you.

The libs here are mealy mouthed and will say in 2011 “We don’t want to force anyone to do anything. We just want to have the state recognize gay marriage rights because love and born that way… that’s all.” and in 2014 “We are against the Jim crow bakers that are oppressing gays by not doing gay themed cake decorations!”.

The hardcore activists will tell you where this is heading. The mobys here will pretend that this the last event on the fight card. It’s not. This is still the prelims.

BoxHead1 on February 25, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Freedom of association necessitates that bigots must be free to be bigots. Guaranteed freedom doesn’t exist for the people who you’ll defend, it exists for those that you won’t.

nobar on February 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Beautiful.. And I will repeat it again…

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I agree. Very well said.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:53 PM

The left like to compare this to Jim Crow. Seems to me that gays using government to force business owners to violate they consciences is more comparable.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 1:53 PM

How so?
And as the anemic support for this bill has shown, what good would it do for any business to hang a ‘Gays Not Allowed’ sign in their window?
I’m happy to see the push-back on this silliness from many conservatives. But yet still we have to hear the ‘your intolerant to not tolerate my intolerance’ line.
To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

No.

And that’s what you don’t get, stupid child.

Probably because you liberals really are malicious and stupid bigots. As MJBrutus, your fellow liberal says, you admit that, without laws forcing you NOT to discriminate, you and your fellow liberals would. You have no capability whatsoever to accept other beliefs, no ability whatsoever to live and let live. You are mentally and morally incapable of providing service to someone with whom you disagree personally because of your liberal brainwashing that requires you to hate others unless they agree with you.

We are not similarly limited. We prioritize freedom of choice over compulsion and convenience. The fact that you and your fellow liberals would not choose to serve black or gay people unless forced is not our problem; it is yours.

Admit that you are an indecent and immoral person who needs the government to control your behavior, and we will consider laws that do so. But if you want to claim you’re not a racist or homophobe, then step up to the plate and acknowledge that you would not discriminate even if there were no laws to prevent it.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Wouldn’t that be what makes them, and you, adulterers?
;)

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Don’t judge me! =)

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Regarding KKK rallies.
No one should provide catering services for those, if they don’t want to.

22044 on February 25, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Wouldn’t that be what makes them, and you, adulterers?
;)

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Don’t judge me! =)

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:54 PM

LOL– I just want to know if it is okay in the Christian world for me to judge the woman who is putting meth in her own baby’s bottle?

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:56 PM

It’s like High Speed Rail to Sodom and Gomorrah….

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 1:56 PM

If a business decided to not serve me because of my religious beliefs, color, whatever I wouldn’t seek redress from the state. I’d go somewhere else.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM

As you should since you aren’t infatuated with the politics of victimhood.

No one has a constitutional protection against being offended.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM

“you have freedom of association as long as you don’t refuse to associate with our victim groups”

-leftists.

This reminds of the Henry Ford saying “sure you can have any color you want as long as it’s black.”

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”
 
verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

 

I’m unclear on why you want to require black restaurant owners to rent their conference room for a KKK meeting.
 
Can you explain your position, please?

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

No

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Then let’s see a bill crafted and presented that says that –
instead of one that specifically addresses religious beliefs and services related to a marriage.
Or do you support legislation be used to target a specific group on behalf of another specific group?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

The left like to compare this to Jim Crow. Seems to me that gays using government to force business owners to violate they consciences is more comparable.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 1:53 PM

This.

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Do you know this law only applies to expressive services? It merely protects religious business owners from being forced to participate in gay weddings. Like the photographer. Or are you just too lazy to read the law and bash it because that’s what you zombies do? Heard mentality strikes again.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

LOL– I just want to know if it is okay in the Christian world for me to judge the woman who is putting meth in her own baby’s bottle?

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:56 PM

I’d say absolutely yes.

Christians are allowed – actually commanded – to judge righteously.
But we’re also called on to love everyone. That doesn’t mean we don’t condemn sin or fail to act to stop great moral wrongs (like feeding meth to a baby).

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:01 PM

It is self-ascribed “Christians” like you that are the problem with the world. You are not to judge, lest you be judged. Let he without sin throw the first stone…..Step down off your throne, you narcissist.

John the Libertarian on February 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

expel the wicked man from among you … so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord”(1 Cor. 5:13, 5).

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. – Matthew 7:2

“For you hate discipline, and you cast My words behind you. “When you see a thief, you are pleased with him, and you associate with adulterers. – Psalm 50:17-18

Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. – John 7:24

And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? – Luke 12:57

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 2:01 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

I’m unclear on why you want to require black restaurant owners to rent their conference room for a KKK meeting.

Can you explain your position, please?

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Come on, Verby, an answer please….

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Should a vegan who owns a restaurant that caters to the vegan market be forced to serve steaks at a wedding full of meat eaters? If no then why not verbaldouche?

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Then let’s see a bill crafted and presented that says that –
instead of one that specifically addresses religious beliefs and services related to a marriage.
Or do you support legislation be used to target a specific group on behalf of another specific group?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

To what ends? We already know that the courts and Congress have gutted the freedom of association clause when it comes to race. Religion though is specifically enumerated, and has not yet been totally trumped by political correctness. Please explain something to us. Why can a doctor refuse to do abortions on religious grounds, but a baker can not refuse to make a wedding cake for something he/she is religiously opposed to?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

You conservatives just love your big government enforcing morality at the expense of individual rights and liberties.

everdiso on February 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Then let’s see a bill crafted and presented that says that –
instead of one that specifically addresses religious beliefs and services related to a marriage.
Or do you support legislation be used to target a specific group on behalf of another specific group?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

What other groups are trying to claim anti-discriminatory special status? What other groups are suing for being discriminated against?

Don’t act like this is occurring in some sort of vacuum.

And yes – I would support a more broadly crafted bill. But lefties would just claim it’s racist and homophobic and sexist instead of just homophobic.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Should a restaurant owner be allowed to refuse service to NAMBLA members wanting to use one of their banquet rooms for a meeting?

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Then let’s see a bill crafted and presented that says that –
instead of one that specifically addresses religious beliefs and services related to a marriage.
Or do you support legislation be used to target a specific group on behalf of another specific group?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

No, I think the bill is poorly written. I think the bill should be that you can discriminate for any reason due to freedom of religion/freedom of association and freedom of property. I think the bill wouldn’t be necessary though if gays wouldn’t have made it necessary. Go to another damn baker if one doesn’t want to service you. Stop using the force of law to force yourselves down private citizens throats. This bill wouldn’t be needed if that hadn’t been happening.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:04 PM

LOL– I just want to know if it is okay in the Christian world for me to judge the woman who is putting meth in her own baby’s bottle?

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 1:56 PM

I would say yes.
But that’s just me….

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 2:04 PM

To those who support this, is there anything they wouldn’t allow to fill in this blank?
“NO ______ ALLOWED”

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Should a Muslim owned deli be forced to serve pork sandwiches?

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

You conservatives just love your big government enforcing morality at the expense of individual rights and liberties.

everdiso on February 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

\sarc

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Such as Christians who hate gays. No law requires that they be free from offense.

People do have a right to live and work, though, and that includes gays.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Such as Christians who hate gays. No law requires that they be free from offense.

People do have a right to live and work, though, and that includes gays.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Nobody has a right to work.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:06 PM

How does voicing concern that we treat a lot of gay and lesbian people wrong necessarily mean that one supports Dan Savage and other people like him? Why treat groups as monolithic? I’m not out to defend Dan Savage. My concern is mostly centered on people who grow up in the church, having a sincere love for God, and them they find through no choice of their own that they are attracted to their own gender and not the other gender. They then strive with a lot of prayer and Bible-reading trying to be godly and desperately trying to be straight, but it never happens. And then they may go years keeping their secret from those they love most, worrying about what their family and church and friends might think if they knew the truth. This is what I’m concerned about.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 2:07 PM

You conservatives just love your big government enforcing morality at the expense of individual rights and liberties.

everdiso on February 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Some do. But if you pay attention to the posts, most here don’t want big government intrusion.
I would prefer government stay out of it and let people have the freedom to do business as they please.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8