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 3 4 5 6 7 8

Can’t defend the religious liberties that made this country great. We might loose the superbowl!

PaddyORyan on February 25, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Bmore

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 2:08 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

Lulz. So much projection and irony in one comment. Golf clap for you everdiso.

HumpBot Salvation on February 25, 2014 at 2:08 PM

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

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:38 PM

You don’t do it by affirming their sins. Loving the sinner doesn’t include saying “I know it is hard to not sin. So why stop?”

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM

It’s like High Speed Rail to Sodom and Gomorrah….
viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 1:56 PM

I think that’s what gets lost in all the attention these things get. These kinds of problems are unprecedented in the history of the West and are indicative of just how far along the trajectory of decline we really are.

The question isn’t whether a business should be able to discriminate according to their religious beliefs; it’s how in the world did we get to this point in the first place?

Cleombrotus on February 25, 2014 at 2:09 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

It’s clear you don’t know what rights are.
Rights don’t come from government or from government coercion.
They are inalienable.

It’s true people have a right to live and work and pursue happiness but that doesn’t require government interference.

And what you’ve been arguing is that you have the right to force someone else to live and work as seems best to you.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM

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

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Like I said earlier, the Muslims will fix all this, for both sides. Heads will roll.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM

And what you’ve been arguing is that you have the right to force someone else to live and work as seems best to you.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM

I don’t think he’s using the word work the same way you are. I think he imagines people have a right to a job.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:10 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

Not only do you have a right to work, you have a right to not work as a job locked wage slave!

/libtard

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:10 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

Just to delineate the limitations of SSM “rights” – You believe that a Rev. , Rb. or Iman (walks into a bar) can refuse to officiate a SSM even if they advertise their services for spaces outside their house of worship, right?

I ask the same thing of all the anti-baker commentators. I’m just trying to figure out where this is all going.

BoxHead1 on February 25, 2014 at 2:10 PM

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:06 PM

The law disallows a number of reasons for denial of employment. I am not going to let you pettifog the argument by pretending I meant the liberal idea of a right all people to have a job.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

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

Exactly.
You have the freedom to go try to get a job (work), and you have the freedom to start your own business, but you do NOT have a “right” to work, because that means someone else can then be forced to hire you – which then violates THEIR rights.
Nobody has a “right” to anything that must come from someone else.

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Its sad reading the hate being spewed by the so called party of tolerance…… they don’t know what they are missing not knowing Him

cmsinaz on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 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

He said slamming the table as he opened his welfare check….

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 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

LOL– I truly hope this is sarcasm and snark..

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:12 PM

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

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 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

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

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

C’mon Verbaldouche, answer the questions.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM

LOL– I truly hope this is sarcasm and snark..

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Nope, he’s a progtard. See the tax headline.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM

and JustTheFacts is still a valid commenter anyway.

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

He’s arguably the absolute worst plagiarist I’ve ever seen here.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7396944

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/10/20/ted-cruz-to-conservatives-hold-senate-republicans-accountable-for-this-lousy-deal/comment-page-2/#comment-2480562

rogerb on February 25, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Yep, and I have a couple more examples of his cut-and-paste posts.

slickwillie2001 on February 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM

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

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

You forgot to ADD — FREE FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. Forcing someone to do something is government interference..

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:14 PM

dentarthurdent on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:06 PM

The law disallows a number of reasons for denial of employment. I am not going to let you pettifog the argument by pretending I meant the liberal idea of a right all people to have a job.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Try to keep up.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:14 PM

This seems on-topic. ZoNation’s commentary on doing away with Christianity.

22044 on February 25, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Can’t defend the religious liberties that made this country great. We might loose the superbowl!

PaddyORyan on February 25, 2014 at 2:07 PM

The Irony being that Progressive Statists are doing everything they can to get rid of football…

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Jesus would also sharpen the knives for child sacrifices, don’cha know.

JohnBrown on February 25, 2014 at 2:15 PM

The law disallows a number of reasons for denial of employment. I am not going to let you pettifog the argument by pretending I meant the liberal idea of a right all people to have a job.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

My comment stands on its own. It goes right back to freedom of association and the fact that the government does not grant rights, but only denies rights. Nobody has a natural law right to work, I.E. to be employed. The employer has his own rights of association in that type of relationship, and the law and the courts are wrong on this point. And if I were an employer I guarantee you no one who I didn’t want working for me would be working for me, and I would never be in violation of the law.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Nope, he’s a progtard. See the tax headline.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM

OMG.. I think he must have the self-awareness of a potato then..

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:16 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

Yes, it’s horribly written – so oppose it.
Indeed any biz dumb enough to run their affairs this way will fail.
And yes – let them put a nice long list in their window of all the groups and people it will refuse service to.
One baker can hang their ‘No Gays’ sign – and another can hang their ‘No KKK’ sign.
Let’s see who sells out of sourdough first.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 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

Your concern-trolling for my sexual orientation amuses the hell out of me.

Do you know what Dan Savage calls me for being conservative, Christian, and gay?

A Jewish Nazi and a meth user who is “damaged” and should be shunned and ostracized by other gay people.

Do you know what Dan Savage and his buddy Michelangelo Signorile, both of whom have the endorsement of the Barack Obama Party, say should happen for my voting Republican?

That I should be stripped of my right to vote and kill myself.

Do you know what Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, and the rest of the gay and lesbian community say about my faith?

Read through the comments here of house bigot “bandit13″ and you’ll get an idea.

Do you know what Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, and the rest of the gay and lesbian community say about my family?

They want them dead because they are and vote conservative.

Seriously. At what point do you and your fellow concern trolls who are all about lecturing US to change our behavior go after these bigots who are calling for people to die because of their faith and political beliefs?

My short answer: You are a bigot who is carrying out your own personal vendetta against Christians by using gay people. And now I’m calling you on it. Either you f’ing hold them responsible for their behavior the same way, or you’re a lying hypocrite.

Do you get that?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 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

So you are against the idea of the government forcing businesses to serve minorities?

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 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

How many homosexuals do you personally know who fit that profile?

Cleombrotus on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM

The law disallows a number of reasons for denial of employment. I am not going to let you pettifog the argument by pretending I meant the liberal idea of a right all people to have a job.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Except the broadening of anti-discrimination laws IS founded on liberal arguments.

Freedom of religion, association, speech were curtailed because the situation and history of blacks in society required extraordinary measures for a limited time.

Now these extraordinary measures are now supposed to be common place and applied to more and more special groups. Only liberal arguments can be used to expand the infringement of actual rights in the pursuit of fighting “discrimination” to provide people with “work” or whatever else.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM

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

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

But their rights do not supersede the rights of others to live, work, or practice their religions / religious beliefs. You seem to believe and accept that they do…and that your point of view is superior to others.

In other words, you endorse and support tyranny – not freedom or an individual’s rights.

And does that tyranny include forcing the black owners of a restaurant to rent the use of their banquet room for a meeting of the local KKK chapter?

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Yes, it’s horribly written – so oppose it.
Indeed any biz dumb enough to run their affairs this way will fail.
And yes – let them put a nice long list in their window of all the groups and people it will refuse service to.
One baker can hang their ‘No Gays’ sign – and another can hang their ‘No KKK’ sign.
Let’s see who sells out of sourdough first.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM

So, what you’re saying is that gays don’t need anti-discrimination laws.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM

I wrote earlier about how most of our rights and freedoms inevitably come into conflict with each other.

Shove your tyranny clap trap in the orifice of your choice. I won’t allow you to waste another moment of my life.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Try to keep up.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Yeah guys and gals – try to keep up with MJBrutus not addressing the issues you raise or answering your questions.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

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.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 2:07 PM

What about men who find through no choice of their own that they are attracted to other mens wives and not their own wife? Shouldn’t their sexual persona be accepted as well and not shunned or made to feel unwelcome?

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Yes, it’s horribly written – so oppose it.
Indeed any biz dumb enough to run their affairs this way will fail.
And yes – let them put a nice long list in their window of all the groups and people it will refuse service to.
One baker can hang their ‘No Gays’ sign – and another can hang their ‘No KKK’ sign.
Let’s see who sells out of sourdough first.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM

I don’t have to oppose it. I don’t live in Arizona. And yes, I have no problem with the market taking care of any business who chooses to pick and choose their customers. I tend to think that if one baker turns down a gay couple there are probably two more in town that will take them.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM

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

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Not analogous.
I think you want to ask (and support) can a Muslim owned deli refuse to make sandwiches for Christians.

And your ‘should a vegan restaurant have to sell steaks’ line’ –
You’re not making sense. That’s akin to asking ‘should a cab driver be forced to clean a swimming pool’.

Your bits need some work.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM

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

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

The Arizona law would not prevent them from doing so.

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 2:23 PM

‘should a cab driver be forced to clean a swimming pool’.

Your bits need some work.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM

How’s that new pool job working out for you?

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 2:24 PM

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

Good to know Ed. Thanks very much for taking time to consider the possibility. Frankly you won’t have to worry with me much. I’m out of the troll hunt business. Folks here seem to love em! I will make a note of your findings. ; )

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Yes, it’s horribly written – so oppose it.
Indeed any biz dumb enough to run their affairs this way will fail.
And yes – let them put a nice long list in their window of all the groups and people it will refuse service to.
One baker can hang their ‘No Gays’ sign – and another can hang their ‘No KKK’ sign.
Let’s see who sells out of sourdough first.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM

So, what you’re saying is that gays don’t need anti-discrimination laws.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Well, I’ve never been a big fan of that slope.
But are you saying those who are anti-gay (or anti-whatever) need discrimination laws?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:25 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

The only morality that is being enforced on a person at the expense of individual rights and liberties is that which says ‘you much sign a contract to provide services at private events that you object to.’

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 2:25 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.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Funny, it never seemed to imply that to me. It’s just a way of saying you can care about someone or respect that person and treat him fairly without condoning every last action or view point he holds. That is all it means.

TigerPaw on February 25, 2014 at 2:26 PM

I wrote earlier about how most of our rights and freedoms inevitably come into conflict with each other.

Shove your tyranny clap trap in the orifice of your choice. I won’t allow you to waste another moment of my life.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Except you’ve never really articulated what rights these gay couples have that are being balanced against the bakers rights of religion, association, and speech.

So on the one hand we have the freedoms of religion, association, and religion and on the other the gay couples have a right to….cake? Not being denied a service? None of these are rights. You don’t have a right to make someone else do something for you. You’re balancing out freedoms of religion, association, and speech with things that aren’t rights.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Not analogous.
I think you want to ask (and support) can a Muslim owned deli refuse to make sandwiches for Christians.

And your ‘should a vegan restaurant have to sell steaks’ line’ –
You’re not making sense. That’s akin to asking ‘should a cab driver be forced to clean a swimming pool’.

Your bits need some work.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Selective dishonesty from verbaldishonesty. Remember this one from me?

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

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Have these folks been denying services to couples remarrying following a divorce?

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Well, I’ve never been a big fan of that slope.
But are you saying those who are anti-gay (or anti-whatever) need discrimination laws?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:25 PM

What’s a discrimination law? You mean like Jim Crow where government demanded that businesses discriminate against blacks?

I don’t think there should be discrimination or anti-discrimination laws. I believe in freedom.

nobar said it well:

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

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

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

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Not analogous.
I think you want to ask (and support) can a Muslim owned deli refuse to make sandwiches for Christians.

And your ‘should a vegan restaurant have to sell steaks’ line’ –
You’re not making sense. That’s akin to asking ‘should a cab driver be forced to clean a swimming pool’.

Your bits need some work.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Actually they don’t but I’ll revise it so a simpleton like you can better understand. If I walk into a super market and pick up a ham and take it to check out, and the Muslim checkout guy refuses to sell it to me on religious grounds, how is he is not discriminating against me as a non Muslim pork eater?

Oh I know, know, it’s because non Muslim pork eaters aren’t a victim class for leftists like you to exploit for votes.

And before you claim this doesn’t happen….I’ll leave you with this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

I wrote earlier about how most of our rights and freedoms inevitably come into conflict with each other.

And I wrote how the law prioritizes those rights…but since it didn’t fit your viewpoint, you ignored it and tried to move the goalposts.

Shove your tyranny clap trap in the orifice of your choice. I won’t allow you to waste another moment of my life.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 2:20 PM

What, no answer to the question if the black owners of a restaurant should be forced by law to let the local KKK chapter use their banquet room for a meeting?

Tyranny is exactly what you are advocating…using the force to law to ensure that the only acceptable beliefs are the one’s that you embrace and advocate.

Your anger is little more than a confirmation of being called out for your intellectual bankruptcy, hypocrisy, and trolling jacobin agenda.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Have these folks been denying services to couples remarrying following a divorce?

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

So you are saying that only religious people have the right to freely associate and property rights?

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:30 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

Actually you have it quite backwards, not surprising, you’ll get better at this.

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM

So on the one hand we have the freedoms of religion, association, and religion and on the other the gay couples have a right to….cake?
gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Bingo..

Not to mention, a cake they can very well get from a baker down the road.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Substitute “Guns” for “Gays” and you will get a totally different reaction. If you had strong personally held beliefs against guns, should you be forced to provide services to an NRA convention?

monalisa on February 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

When this starts happening in the US you can’t bet that leftists like verbaldouche and his friends at the ACLU will line up to defend Muslims.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Have these folks been denying services to couples remarrying following a divorce?

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

2204, here’s another for your list.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Have these folks been denying services to couples remarrying following a divorce?

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

That’s much much harder to determine than the spouses are the same sex.

Aside from that is it the job of the state to ensure that business owners adhere to their religious principles uniformly in how they live their lives?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:34 PM

If I walk into a super market and pick up a ham and take it to check out, and the Muslim checkout guy refuses to sell it to me on religious grounds, how is he is not discriminating against me as a non Muslim pork eater?

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Why is the selling-of-pork to anyone object Muslim working at this store that sells pork to people?
You’re just off with your analogies.

In your analogy, the objecting wedding services photographer has knowingly accepted money to take pictures at a gay wedding – and once he’s there, he refuses to snap a photo of the couple.
Follow?

Your just just have some seriously confused hypothetical characters populating your scenarios.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

When this starts happening in the US you can’t bet that leftists like verbaldouche and his friends at the ACLU will line up to defend Muslims.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Actually you can bet Phelps and company will sue a gay business, and it will be funny to see all these people saying that EVERYONE has a right to service back track.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Substitute “Guns” for “Gays” and you will get a totally different reaction. If you had strong personally held beliefs against guns, should you be forced to provide services to an NRA convention?

monalisa on February 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Forget providing services to an NRA convention, if we’re going to be consistent here then businesses cannot deny concealed carry or open carry patrons on their premises and all the states must recognize your concealed carry permit.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM

I don’t think there should be discrimination or anti-discrimination laws.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Then you oppose the bill.
Good.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Bingo..

Not to mention, a cake they can very well get from a baker down the road.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Yeah, it’s just like the contraception mandate.
If the government isn’t making someone give it to you then somehow you’re being denied access to it.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

When this starts happening in the US you can’t bet that leftists like verbaldouche and his friends at the ACLU will line up to defend Muslims.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

I don’t recall the final disposition of the ‘Muzzie Minneapolis-airport cabbies refusing passengers with seeing-eye dog’ case. Anyone?

slickwillie2001 on February 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Then you oppose the bill.
Good.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM

No.

The bill is a protection against anti-discrimination. It’s not a discrimination bill (e.g., it doesn’t demand discrimination, it just preserves the right of the people to discriminate).

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Immigration laws are discrimination laws…. a good thing.

That’s why the nation is in deep excrement for ignoring those (and our invaders).

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 2:40 PM

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Your question doesn’t make sense. All I’m asking is if these people are providing services to people who are remarrying following a divorce, thereby “endorsing” adultery as it has been stated in the Old Testament and reiterated by Jesus in the New Testament? Certainly having to provide services to people in this situation would violate their religious faith, would it not?

Look, I think this whole cabal is a joke. It’s a lousy law. The practice of Christianity is not impeded by baking a cake for someone. The only freedom being impeded is the freedom to discriminate against those whose lives you view as sinful in the course of running a publc business…

Newsflash: That’s UN-Christian.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

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

This happening a lot here –
but that is not analogous.
You’d be more accurate to compare a doctor who won’t provide abortion services with a minster who won’t officiate a gay wedding.
Both are equally protected at being ‘forced’ to provide the service.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

2204, here’s another for your list.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Thanks. My notes are generally casual and don’t really add up to a list. :) More just for my own understanding.

22044 on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Your just just have some seriously confused hypothetical characters populating your scenarios.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Then why don’t you answer the other ones that have been put forward.

Must a black photographer offer their services for a KKK rally?

Must a restaurant popular in the gay community with gay owners be required to rent out their space and services to the Westboro Baptist church?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Why is the selling-of-pork to anyone object Muslim working at this store that sells pork to people?
You’re just off with your analogies.

In your analogy, the objecting wedding services photographer has knowingly accepted money to take pictures at a gay wedding – and once he’s there, he refuses to snap a photo of the couple.
Follow?

Your just just have some seriously confused hypothetical characters populating your scenarios.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

You’re such a Fluking dishonest coward.

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

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:43 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

Probably the worlds most widely used out-of-context Biblical quote…

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

This is the result of the hijacking and redefinition of the words “Marriage”, “wedding”, “husband” “wife” etc. All these words have some roots in religion.

I think if it was called commitment ceremony, civil union, partners whatever…most people would wouldn’t have any issues.

monalisa on February 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

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

The left would like to force that doctor to do that abortion. They certainly want a pharmacist who disapproves of abortion causing contraceptives to have to dispense it.

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Why is the selling-of-pork to anyone object Muslim working at this store that sells pork to people?
You’re just off with your analogies.

In your analogy, the objecting wedding services photographer has knowingly accepted money to take pictures at a gay wedding – and once he’s there, he refuses to snap a photo of the couple.
Follow?

Your just just have some seriously confused hypothetical characters populating your scenarios.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Lol no they’re not. You just don’t like that they expose your lack of intellectual honesty and hypocrisy.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Your question doesn’t make sense. All I’m asking is if these people are providing services to people who are remarrying following a divorce, thereby “endorsing” adultery as it has been stated in the Old Testament and reiterated by Jesus in the New Testament? Certainly having to provide services to people in this situation would violate their religious faith, would it not?

Look, I think this whole cabal is a joke. It’s a lousy law. The practice of Christianity is not impeded by baking a cake for someone. The only freedom being impeded is the freedom to discriminate against those whose lives you view as sinful in the course of running a publc business…

Newsflash: That’s UN-Christian.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

So when you run a public business the state gets to decide whether your religious beliefs are sincere or valid?
The state gets to decide that you forfeit your rights of association and speech? It’s not unusual for photographers and bakers to consider what they do art – so now the state can compel your speech to celebrate something just because you run a “public business”?

Being in the public square means you have to be a defacto arm of implementing the state’s policies on social issues?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM

This happening a lot here –
but that is not analogous.
You’d be more accurate to compare a doctor who won’t provide abortion services with a minster who won’t officiate a gay wedding.
Both are equally protected at being ‘forced’ to provide the service.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

My above above at 2:43 came before I saw this response.

This doesn’t explain why the baker doesn’t have the same right. Baking the cake is also performing a service. Or taking photogrsphs, like the photog who was told she couldn’t deny her service because, the ghey.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM

You’re such a Fluking dishonest coward.

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

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM

I’ve noticed verbaluce does this whenever he/she cannot comfortably answer a question – dodges and refusal to actually engage on the issues.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Then you oppose the bill.
Good.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:37 PM

No.

The bill is a protection against anti-discrimination. It’s not a discrimination bill (e.g., it doesn’t demand discrimination, it just preserves the right of the people to discriminate).

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Oh – you want to have it both ways.
Or to put it another way, you want to eat the cake as well as have the anti-gay baker not make it.
Or leave it out in the rain…after it took so long to bake it.
Or something like that.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:47 PM

All I’m asking is if these people are providing services to people who are remarrying following a divorce, thereby “endorsing” adultery as it has been stated in the Old Testament and reiterated by Jesus in the New Testament? Certainly having to provide services to people in this situation would violate their religious faith, would it not?

That is up to them to decide as they see fit.

The only freedom being impeded is the freedom to discriminate against those whose lives you view as sinful in the course of running a publc business…

It isn’t a public business, it’s private.

Newsflash: That’s UN-Christian.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Are you applying for the position of Grand Inquisitor Of The True Faith?

If not then leave others to decide their own religious views.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

The left would like to force that doctor to do that abortion. They certainly want a pharmacist who disapproves of abortion causing contraceptives to have to dispense it.

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM

That’s a good point. I forgot pharmacists can refuse to sell abortifacients.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

My short answer: You are a bigot who is carrying out your own personal vendetta against Christians by using gay people. And now I’m calling you on it. Either you f’ing hold them responsible for their behavior the same way, or you’re a lying hypocrite.
Do you get that?
northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Huh????? Wow.

Just to be clear, I’m a lifelong Christian who agrees with both the Church and the conservative wing of the GOP on almost everything except GLBT issues. As I already stated, I’m very much not a fan of Dan Savage, and for pretty much all the kinds of things you mention. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think the Church has been fair to GLBT persons. Some people I know at my church and elsewhere who take a more traditional view than I do are absolutely wonderful people. That doesn’t mean though that I won’t express my own opinion when I think they’re wrong. Most Christians criticize their Church for something, or at least churches in general, and I do to. That doesn’t mean, however, that I want the Church to fail. Quite the opposite.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Why is the selling-of-pork to anyone object Muslim working at this store that sells pork to people?
You’re just off with your analogies.

In your analogy, the objecting wedding services photographer has knowingly accepted money to take pictures at a gay wedding – and once he’s there, he refuses to snap a photo of the couple.
Follow?

Your just just have some seriously confused hypothetical characters populating your scenarios.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Lol no they’re not. You just don’t like that they expose your lack of intellectual honesty and hypocrisy.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I wouldn’t say I’m the one being exposed here…
But send me some more analogies – they’re kinda fun.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I’ve noticed verbaluce does this whenever he/she cannot comfortably answer a question – dodges and refusal to actually engage on the issues.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:47 PM

That’s why he’s a Leftist.

You don’t have to think if you’re a Leftist… just feel.

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Oh – you want to have it both ways.
Or to put it another way, you want to eat the cake as well as have the anti-gay baker not make it.
Or leave it out in the rain…after it took so long to bake it.
Or something like that.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:47 PM

My position is pretty clear.

I think freedom of religion, association and speech should be respected to the greatest degree possible by the government.

Forcing bakers and photographers to serve people they don’t want to is an obvious violation of all of these.

So, to the degree which the AZ law protects the freedom of association, religion and speech I support it.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

It makes perfect sense to me. A business owner should be able to turn away anyone for any reason for the same reason that a gay couple should be free to live their lives free from government interference. People should have the right to their property and to freely associate. If people wish to do business in the free market, then they will follow the sensibilities of the free market. If the free market does not like what it deems bigotry, then the free market will put that business out of business. If a business refuses service to a gay couple, the profit motivation will ensure that two other businesses will step in to offer services to that gay couple. The government getting involved in anything is bad business and will back fire on ANY victim group who uses it.

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM

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

This happening a lot here –
but that is not analogous.
You’d be more accurate to compare a doctor who won’t provide abortion services with a minster who won’t officiate a gay wedding.
Both are equally protected at being ‘forced’ to provide the service.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

NC has makes a fine analogy. So I have an answer to my question upthread, you believe that the minister is a protected class(and a doctor to, I guess) as well as a a gay but a baker is not protected in the same way.

Well, is the Minister still protected even if he performs the ceremony outside of church grounds? If my cake shop doubles as the “church of cake” can I refuse service?

BoxHead1 on February 25, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Why is the selling-of-pork to anyone object Muslim working at this store that sells pork to people?
You’re just off with your analogies.

How is that analogy different from Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis choosing to not drive / provide service to those carrying alcohol or with dogs?

Or the case from December 2013 where Marks & Spencer was forced to apologize to a consumer when a Muslim checkout employee refused to sell them alcohol? Or when Muslim workers went after Tesco, another UK supermarket company, trying to get Tesco to stop selling alcohol because it violated their religious beliefs?

You still haven’t answered the question if a black restaurant owner should be forced by law to have to rent their banquet room to the local KKK chapter for a meeting?

You can’t even stop moving the goalposts on the wedding photographer, by building a case where the photographer has accepted the funds and refused to provide the service. In the example provided, no money has exchanged hands – and the Muslim checkout clerk refuses to ‘sell’ the item.

You’re just spinning to try to avoid answering a question that if honestly answered, would demonstrate your hypocrisy – that while all are equal, some are more equal than others.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 2:52 PM

he ONLY performs the ceremony outside of church grounds. Say he doesn’t have a church.

BoxHead1 on February 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM

So, to the degree which the AZ law protects the freedom of association, religion and speech I support it.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM

You’d have the makings of an argument if the bill didn’t specifically single out a group. And for that reason, it’s written badly (wrongly) – as you somewhat acknowledge.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM

My short answer: You are a bigot who is carrying out your own personal vendetta against Christians by using gay people. And now I’m calling you on it. Either you f’ing hold them responsible for their behavior the same way, or you’re a lying hypocrite.
Do you get that?
northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 2:17 PM

This pretty much sums up the whole left and the gay bully lobby. Take it from one of their main spokeswoman.

http://news.yahoo.com/lesbian-activist-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-144222847.html

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Your question doesn’t make sense. All I’m asking is if these people are providing services to people who are remarrying following a divorce, thereby “endorsing” adultery as it has been stated in the Old Testament and reiterated by Jesus in the New Testament? Certainly having to provide services to people in this situation would violate their religious faith, would it not?

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Oh, I see.

You want to interpret other peoples’ religious beliefs for your own personal convenience.

Tell us, dpduq, when did you assume the authority to decide if other peoples’ beliefs were of value or not?

And since you insist that no one else has the right to judge if you’re a good Christian or not, why are you behaving hypocritically?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I wouldn’t say I’m the one being exposed here…
But send me some more analogies – they’re kinda fun.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Then why don’t you answer the other ones that have been put forward.

Must a black photographer offer their services for a KKK rally?

Must a restaurant popular in the gay community with gay owners be required to rent out their space and services to the Westboro Baptist church?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:42 PM

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I wouldn’t say I’m the one being exposed here…
But send me some more analogies – they’re kinda fun.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM

You’re the one who time and time again refuses to answer honestly. Instead you dodge and pretend the analogy doesn’t work simply because you can’t honesty say you’re for discriminating against Christians.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM

You’d have the makings of an argument if the bill didn’t specifically single out a group. And for that reason, it’s written badly (wrongly) – as you somewhat acknowledge.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM

I addressed this in my first response to you.

You’re pretending like this bill is coming from a vacuum with no context.

Gays are currently the only group suing people and demanding anti-discrimination laws and status.

So of course the bill specifically targets them – they’re the ones who are pushing this.

Somehow, because I think that all anti-discrimination laws should be done away with I can only support laws which do that all of that in one fell swoop? And as I’ve already said, you’d just come back and call that law homophobic as well as racist and sexist.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Oh, I see.

You want to interpret other peoples’ religious beliefs for your own personal convenience.

Tell us, dpduq, when did you assume the authority to decide if other peoples’ beliefs were of value or not?
northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 2:54 PM

JetBoy told me that a priest friend of mine was wrong for not attending the wedding as a guest of my (ex-Catholic) sister outside the church to a non-Catholic. JetBoy took it upon himself to in essence tell a priest that his view on religion was wrong.

Leftists are so…arrogant in this way.

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM

You’re the one who time and time again refuses to answer honestly. Instead you dodge and pretend the analogy doesn’t work simply because you can’t honesty say you’re for discriminating against Christians.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM

+1

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:58 PM

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Lol, there are plethora of analogies for him to choose from. He’s backed into a corner and the only way out is to deflect.

Typical really.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

I would advise you to not respond to or even read anything northdallasthirty posts. I’m not totally sure whether he’s a liar, a troll or just one of the most confused people walking the Earth but his statements are totally self-contradictory so he’s regarded as an unserious person whom you’re better off not dealing with. To listen to him he claims to be a gay man but will then claim Dan Savage speaks for all gay people, or attending some rather odd street fairs in San Francisco is typical behavior for the gay community and what gay people are really interested in when in fact he should be living proof to himself that the things he says aren’t true. If we’re to take him at his word then the level of cognitive dissonance that must go on in his head is mind boggling. Whatever the case actually is, he’s not worth spending any time on. I skip his posts without reading them and you would be well advised to do the same.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM

You’d be more accurate to compare a doctor who won’t provide abortion services with a minster who won’t officiate a gay wedding.
Both are equally protected at being ‘forced’ to provide the service.
verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

A baker who refuses to facilitate a gay wedding on religious grounds is no different from a Pastor who refuses to facilitate a gay wedding on religious grounds. It’s the same thing.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM

This concept that I somehow “hate” gays because I stand by my religious convictions is ludicrous. I’m really sorry that gays don’t agree they sin. I admit my sins. They don’t. It’s my right to not serve them if I don’t agree with their stance. Just like the whole divorce thing. Christians struggle with the issue and know it’s wrong and most admit to it. Many ask for forgiveness for their sin, and receive it, and do their best to not make the same mistake again, which is what we’re told to do: “Go and sin no more”. That’s not what gays are demanding. They demand we not say it’s a sin, that we accept it despite our own convictions, and now, apparently, that we provide for their weddings and lifestyles our religion be damned. The analogies you apologists keep trying to twist yourselves into a pretzel to justify your own warped views of Christianity don’t apply. And frankly, loving and serving others doesn’t mean letting them continue to sin. So, truly, take your lecturing of your warped views of the faith and go pound sand, because you’re spreading false teachings and will answer for that.

tyketto on February 25, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7 8