In the wake of Arizona’s SB 1062, “Jim Crow” is the new “Hitler”

posted at 11:31 am on March 1, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

The entire flap over SB 1062 in Arizona has left a lot of people scratching their heads, particularly given the virtual media explosion over the fate of the bill and what it means going forward. As it turns out, there is similar legislation pending in Georgia even as we speak, and even though public clamor has already led to the bill being taken off the calendar, the rampant hyperbole which marked the coverage of Jan Brewer’s decision is not in short supply.

One of the leading shots across the bow was penned for CNN by the two person team of James Richardson and Stacey Abrams. By way of disclosure, I’ve corresponded with Richardson many times over the years when he worked for the RNC and for Governor Haley Barbour. Abrams is apparently the Democrat minority leader in the Georgia Assembly. And when you get a two party, cross the aisle collaboration like this to denounce something, what could possibly go wrong?

Georgia — with its tumultuous past of discrimination — is following Arizona’s recently failed attempt to pass what amounts to anti-gay legislation with the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.

The state may shift from the cradle of the civil rights movement to the vanguard of legalized 21st-century bigotry with the consideration of this legislation, modeled on Arizona’s, that would allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers on the basis of alleged religious conviction.

Being a bit of a pragmatist – or any of a number of other, less flattering descriptions, as I’ve been so often reminded – I don’t know if Jan Brewer signing that bill would have been the best idea or not. Not because the bill was some horrible exercise in oppression (it wasn’t, in my opinion), but because opponents had so rapidly seized the media high ground in the battle, redefined it as they chose, and turned it into a potentially huge political liability in an election year. But none the less, the tactics employed in Arizona – and now in Georgia – are so over the top that they should have given any journalist with even a smidgen of a conscience left pause. This editorial provides an excellent example.

Like the controversial Arizona bill, this broadly written proposal has profound implications — not only for the aggrieved minority it would directly affect but also for the social reputation of the state at large. Those implications will permanently stain us, cementing the lasting ignominy of Jim Crow.

Seriously? Jim Crow? I have to wonder if any of these people actually read the text of the Arizona bill. I mean, unlike the Affordable Care Act – copies of which are being used as construction material in new hydroelectric dams - this one was only two pages long. It wouldn’t be that tough for them to actually read. And if they did, they might reach at least some of the same conclusions that Rich Lowry did.

The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.

They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It’d be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.

The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

I’m really beginning to think that it’s past time we come up with an updated version of Godwin’s Law. Rather than being the first one to mention Hitler when speaking of someone with whom you disagree, perhaps we should be able to stop listening and tune out anyone who immediately invokes Jim Crow as soon as a legislative matter arises which even tangentially touches on issues of race, sexual orientation or gender, because this was just over the top… if not over the rainbow.

Jim Crow laws barred entire segments of the social structure from people based exclusively on race, resulting in separate but very unequal facilities – if any existed at all – for minorities with the express consent of the government and law enforcement. In the case of these laws we’re talking about individual wedding photographers or bakers who may wish to not provide their services as part of a wedding ceremony which goes against their personal and religious beliefs. It gives such vendors the opportunity to defend themselves from attack and fiscal ruin – such as what has already happened in New Mexico – based on that decision. It does not cut off the couple from getting the same service elsewhere. And as Lowry noted in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner, [t]he wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people.

Everyone is welcome to debate the relative merits of these bills on both sides, and particularly given current questions about how heavily the thumb of the government will rest on the shoulders of small business owners, it’s a debate worth having. But let’s cool down on the end of the world hyperbole, shall we? Not everything is the same as Jim Crow laws, no matter how clever you may think that sounds in your op-ed. I swear… some of you people are worse than Hitler.


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

I think you’re getting too hung up on the child and CPS. The issue is before that detail is that a business refused to provide a service. Should that be within their right?

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM

This law was all about wanting to deny services to individuals due to personal religious objections to their lives. “We don’t serve your kind here” is exactly the behavior this bill was meant to protect.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM

As so often, the “liar or idiot?” dynamic comes into play. If you lack the ability to understand the bill, you probably shouldn’t take too strong a position on it. If you lack the integrity to argue honestly about the bill, see above.

Demagoguery makes for crappy but very effective politics, but bad blogging.

Jaibones on March 1, 2014 at 1:43 PM

I’m straight. I went to a gay bar with a gay friend last night. He bought drinks so he chose the location. It was known to the doorman and bartender that I was not homosexual. I brought my straight sister and her husband with us. So much for gay bars not allowing straights in to the establshment.

If you’ve been denied services on that basis you are right to object and agitate for reform.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Your anecdote means exactly nothing to my point that gay bars do this all the time. Because one gay bar admits straights that does not mean that all do…and my point stands. Many do not.

You still skirted around answering the question. Is it wrong when they do it?

Apparently you think so, since you say I have the right to object, but why can’t you bring yourself to say that it’s wrong when they do it?

I don’t really give a damn, because there is no reason for me to go to a gay bar. I have no interest in it, whether they would let me in or not. I don’t care if gays only want to associate with other gays.

The only reason I would have to “object” is if I wanted to sue the establishment for not providing a service to me that I can get at a much more desirable business…which is what the homosexuals who sued the bakers and the photographer should have done. This was never about wedding cakes or photos. It was about attacking Christians and forcing them into involuntary servitude.

They are already going after the churches. I’ve learned something in this whole debacle. There are some people who have absolutely no problem trampling on religious freedom to assure special rights for homosexuals. They disgust me.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM

You SEEM to be saying that these people were specifically targeting Christians to exercise a minority tyranny over the majority. — special rights for gays crusader

I’m not going to SEEM to say it. I’m saying it outright. They deliberately targeted these Christian businesses, so they could sue them and punish them and put them out of business, because they don’t affirm their “relationships.” That’s what the entire “gay rights” movement is all about. Open your eyes, fool.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:49 PM

I think you’re getting too hung up on the child and CPS. The issue is before that detail is that a business refused to provide a service. Should that be within their right?

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM

I don’t think I’m getting hung up on the child and CPS because it appears that the business thought there was positive harm in that cake. The stories I googled implied that they thought they would be participating in child abuse if they provided the cake as requested. That’s….. Absurd but central to their objection.

I just don’t see anyone here claiming positive harm to anyone if these bakers provide a wedding cake to gay couples just as they would for straight couples.

Should it be within the right of business owners to refuse services? Yes it should. But what you’re really talking about there is reforming public accommodation laws. I already said I support that. I also said I believe that this was not such a reform.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:49 PM

I’m straight. I went to a gay bar with a gay friend last night. He bought drinks so he chose the location. It was known to the doorman and bartender that I was not homosexual. I brought my straight sister and her husband with us. So much for gay bars not allowing straights in to the establshment.

If you’ve been denied services on that basis you are right to object and agitate for reform.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Your anecdote means exactly nothing to my point that gay bars do this all the time. Because one gay bar admits straights that does not mean that all do…and my point stands. Many do not.

You still skirted around answering the question. Is it wrong when they do it?

Apparently you think so, since you say I have the right to object, but why can’t you bring yourself to say that it’s wrong when they do it?

I don’t really give a damn, because there is no reason for me to go to a gay bar. I have no interest in it, whether they would let me in or not. I don’t care if gays only want to associate with other gays.

The only reason I would have to “object” is if I wanted to sue the establishment for not providing a service to me that I can get at a much more desirable business…which is what the homosexuals who sued the bakers and the photographer should have done. This was never about wedding cakes or photos. It was about attacking Christians and forcing them into involuntary servitude.

They are already going after the churches. I’ve learned something in this whole debacle. There are some people who have absolutely no problem trampling on religious freedom to assure special rights for homosexuals. They disgust me.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM

If you shopped around for a gay bar that would not admit you, as the cake-scammers did, I’m sure you would find one.

PS: He’s straight? Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt.

slickwillie2001 on March 1, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Come up with another religious freedom bill… but call it the “Saving Homosexuals from Jim Crow TEA partiers” and then pass the freaking bill. Then tell everybody you did it for the children.

JellyToast on March 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM

They are already going after the churches. I’ve learned something in this whole debacle. There are some people who have absolutely no problem trampling on religious freedom to assure special rights for homosexuals. They disgust me.
JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Actually, JannyMae, it’s worse than that.

People like dieudonne do not actually care about gays and lesbians. What they care about is using them to attack religious beliefs. Bigots like dieudonne actually call for gays and lesbians who vote against them to be stripped of their right to vote and to kill themselves, and refer to Christian and conservative gays as “Jewish Nazis”, “Uncle Toms”, and mentally ill. They only want to use and abuse gays and lesbians for their own hateful ends.

All this is is dieudonne acting out his hatred of religious beliefs and religious believers, particularly Christians. Dieudonne openly calls for and demands that Christians be stripped of their rights, and he uses gays as his excuse. He is a sick and twisted person, quite incompatible with our country’s Constitution.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:52 PM

You still skirted around answering the question. Is it wrong when they do it?

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I said if you were denied services for being straight it was right for you to object and agitate for reform. Any honest reading understands that that means it’s wrong.

If you are hung up on phrasing – its wrong for gay bars to exclude straights. It’s descriminatory and America is not about “we don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Thank you. I’m a Christian so I do have religious concerns about the current situation with the LGBT community and gay marriage.

But along with that, I’m also very much so an American who is concerned about seeing conscience protections undermined in American society. Our founding fathers were no strangers to abuse of government and tyranny at the hands of government. They very specifically wrote religious liberty and conscience protections into our legal structure in America as a means of protecting against tyranny from government and attempting to ensure that a stable moral force might be sustained in society as a whole.
On that point, I have huge concerns and think it would be beyond foolish to give away those conscience protections too easily.

If the LGBT community had indicated that it was willing to consider taking a different approach, then the situation might move in a different direction from this point forward. But I honestly don’t see that happening.

lineholder on March 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM

I just don’t see anyone here claiming positive harm to anyone if these bakers provide a wedding cake to gay couples just as they would for straight couples.

Should it be within the right of business owners to refuse services? Yes it should. But what you’re really talking about there is reforming public accommodation laws. I already said I support that. I also said I believe that this was not such a reform.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Bull. It’s a matter of religious conscience for the bakers. You don’t decide what anyone’s religious conscience prohibits. THEY DO.

Double bull. Public accommodation laws don’t apply to SPECIAL services. The homosexual couples didn’t walk into the bakery and get told they couldn’t buy a box of donuts. They wanted a gay THEMED product created.

You’re not doing very well here.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Forced commerce is not an American ideal.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:36 PM

It is now! We threw that one away the moment the ACA passed.

As a country, we are officially boned.

somewhatconcerned on March 1, 2014 at 1:56 PM

PS: He’s straight? Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt.

slickwillie2001 on March 1, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Yes. I’m straight. Straight people should be abe to hold my opinions in good conscience without having their sexuality questioned.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:57 PM

If you are hung up on phrasing – its wrong for gay bars to exclude straights. It’s descriminatory and America is not about “we don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM

So, any form of discrimination is wrong? I’m not sure you want to go there. Maybe you’d better think it through before you do….

I don’t believe for two seconds that you would defend the right of Fred Phelps to go into a homosexual owned bakery and demand that he create a cake that says “God hates fags.” I have no doubt you would say that would be causing positive harm. But religious freedom, which is protected by the first amendment? Screw it. Gays have special rights and must be accommodated.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:59 PM

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:55 PM

They wanted the same services that would be provided to a straight couple.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 2:00 PM

I open my business in a hour. As always, it has been interesting and a good day to all. :)

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 2:02 PM

All this is is dieudonne acting out his hatred of religious beliefs and religious believers, particularly Christians. Dieudonne openly calls for and demands that Christians be stripped of their rights, and he uses gays as his excuse. He is a sick and twisted person, quite incompatible with our country’s Constitution.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Of course he is. I have no doubt of that.

The hatred displayed by his side of this debate is absolutely disgusting, all the while they’re screaming “BIGOT!!” at Christians. Hate emails. Death threats to business owners. Jan Brewer being called vicious names, even though she complied with their demand that she veto the bill?

It’s all about hatred and bigotry toward Christians.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 2:02 PM

If the LGBT community had indicated that it was willing to consider taking a different approach, then the situation might move in a different direction from this point forward. But I honestly don’t see that happening.
lineholder on March 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM

You’re right, it won’t.

Mainly because the whole thing is being driven by selfish bigots and pricks like dieudonne who see this as their way of destroying churches, religious belief, and any form of non-governmental morality in this country.

This was never about gay rights. It has and has always been about antireligious bigotry. Dieudonne and his ilk treat gays the same way that they do black people, locking them into a cycle of government dependency and telling them scary stories about how “they gonna put you back in chains”. They reward neurotic victimization and beat any gay person who talks back to them into submission.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Yes. I’m straight. Straight people should be abe to hold my opinions in good conscience without having their sexuality questioned.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Why? Your fellow gay-sex bigots question the sexual orientation of anyone who disagrees with you.

Will you condemn that, or make it clear that you’re a hypocrite?

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 2:05 PM

They wanted the same services that would be provided to a straight couple.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 2:00 PM

You didn’t in any way refute what I said. The Christians had a religious conscience objection to endorsing a same sex marriage. That is permitted, according to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That’s why states have reinforced that by passing their own Religious Freedom protections.

Gay rights don’t trump religious freedom, much as you wish they did.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 2:07 PM

dieudonne,

I think you misspelled your name.

The proper spelling is duodenum. That’s the first section of the small intestine.

For someone with his head implanted so far up his rectum, I can understand how you may have misread the map. It must be really dark up there.

ZeusGoose on March 1, 2014 at 2:09 PM

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 2:03 PM

I know it’s going to look like I have ulterior motives here, but I’m going to take a shot at this anyway. I absolutely abhor the way the black community is oppressed by so-called “leaders” of the black community who profess to have the best interest of people who are black in mind. I’m the same way with women…it drives me nuts to watch PP encourage and perpetuate an environment where women are encouraged to put sexual needs first and foremost in their lives (as if all they have to offer is between their legs)

What options do you have to keep that from happening? And how can I help?

lineholder on March 1, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Yes. I’m straight. Straight people should be abe to hold my opinions in good conscience without having their sexuality questioned.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:57 PM

It’s alright, really. Most of our trolls are homosexuals.

slickwillie2001 on March 1, 2014 at 2:12 PM

dieudonne on March 1, 2014

…what bathroom did you pee in?

KOOLAID2 on March 1, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I open my business in a hour. As always, it has been interesting and a good day to all. :)

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 2:02 PM

I bet you do. You don’t want a lot of angry gays outside the bath house, waiting to get in!

ZeusGoose on March 1, 2014 at 2:15 PM

In the wake of Arizona’s SB 1062, “Jim Crow” is the new “Hitler”

And discrimination is the new racism.

22044 on March 1, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Forced commerce is not an American ideal.
anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:36 PM

It is now! We threw that one away the moment the ACA passed.
As a country, we are officially boned.
somewhatconcerned on March 1, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Slight distinction: it is law but nowhere near an American ideal.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 2:03 PM

I have to go out for a while. I am sincere in what I said.

lineholder on March 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Does this mean I have to change the name of my pet crow? When I rescued him as a little baby, fifteen years ago, he just looked like a Jim to me. So, that’s what I named him. I had also toyed with the name Adolph, but it just didn’t seem to fit his personality.

What to do? What to do?

Oh, the avianity!!!!

ZeusGoose on March 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

What the Muslim cashiers say to the Americans who buy bacon in Minneapolis.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2014 at 2:28 PM

But none the less, the tactics employed in Arizona – and now in Georgia – are so over the top that they should have given any journalist with even a smidgen of a conscience left pause.

Why? You’ve already admitted that when this happens, we should cave, so of course they do it. And like Pavlov’s dog, folks like you say we should drop it every single time.

xblade on March 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM

I’ve never seen that sign. And yes, there has often been a problem with that sentiment. That’s why we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and countless state and local laws barring invidious discrimination in public accommodations.

righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Ah, you mean Affirmative Action and all that rot. LBJ understood how to buy votes. As for “public accommodation”, those accommodations are run by private parties, and I still say that coerced commerce is unConstitutional.

I submit that the state itself cannot discriminate, but that private citizens have every right to discriminate.

That’s why you are free to NOT patronize a particular establishment, as the gays did to El Coyote Cafe here in Los Angeles. Certainly you are not for being required to buy things from people you don’t like???

Well, if you think you have that right, then why do you think that the guy on the other side of the counter ought to be denied the right to refuse to sell to you?

Gays still can’t be married in the Catholic Church — they might be able to be “married” at city hall, but the First Amendment — which has at its basis a freedom of association — still holds in churches. And if the First Amendment still holds in churches, then saying that it is restricted to those particular buildings is both a prohibition of free exercise of same, and an establishment of religion by the state.

In other words, if a church can discriminate against you, I can in my private life as well. And if I can’t discriminate against you, than neither can a church. That’s the grist in the First Amendment, for any other finding by the state constitutes an establishment of religion.

unclesmrgol on March 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM

The AZ law also stamped discrimination with the “express consent” of government and law enforcement, did it not?

And you’re wrong that with this bill “we’re talking about individual wedding photographers or bakers.” It applied to all public accommodations.

righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM

No, the AZ law stamped freedom of association with the express consent of the government and law enforcement.

Every business is a “public accommodation”. Why are we forcing businesses to act in ways which are counter to their owners’ religions?

That’s the leftie way of establishing their own religion — one in which they have freedom of expression, but others do not.

I pity the gay hotel owner who will now be forced to sell rooms to Westboro Baptist Church, but that’s the way of the future, right?

I pity the black photography who cannot refuse a commission to photograph a KKK cross burning, but that’s the way of the future, right?

Or, rather, it’s your way, not mine.

unclesmrgol on March 1, 2014 at 2:45 PM

You’re saying I don’t have that sign in my business. Is that what your saying? And that you’ve never encountered that sign before in any bar?
anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Correct.

righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 2:52 PM

No you don’t and no they’re not. The reason is because you can’t refuse service to anyone you want. I understand you don’t like that, but that’s been the law for half a century. You lost this battle long ago.
 
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM

 
I’m not following why you want to require a black business owner (and staff) to host a private party for the KKK in his soul food restaurant.
 
Would you mind clearing that one up for us?

rogerb on March 1, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Hey, does anyone know what ever came of the kerfuffle back in about 2007 or so, when Muslim can drivers were refusing to transport passengers who had alcohol in their bags or who had dogs (even service dogs)? Seems like their right to refuse service on religious grounds was upheld, even though it left passengers stranded at the airports waiting for a non-Muslim cabbie to come around. I think it was probably Minneapolis since they have a very large Somali population.

aero on March 1, 2014 at 3:34 PM

*cab drivers, not can drivers

aero on March 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM

You’re saying I don’t have that sign in my business. Is that what your saying? And that you’ve never encountered that sign before in any bar?
anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Correct.
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Are you the blind man who tries to convince someone there is no sun or are you the gullible sap he convinced?

Here is a link where you can purchase the very common sign that are in many bars and restaurants all over the country (including my business):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0022VT47U

If that doesn’t satisfy you, you can always google images that sign and see countless examples of them in businesses.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 3:51 PM

They wanted the same services that would be provided to a straight couple.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 2:00 PM

So, you’re saying as a 57 year old man, I should expect to go into an OB/GYN doctor’s office and demand a prostate exam? And if I’m referred some other doctor, I should sue the OB/GYN?

Or if I take my Ferrari into a VW dealer and demand service, I should sue them if they tell me that they can’t and wont work on my car? Isn’t that just ethnic car discrimination?

You are an idiot of immense proportions, with a brain of microscopic dimensions.

ZeusGoose on March 1, 2014 at 4:05 PM

“We don’t serve your kind here” is exactly the behavior this bill was meant to protect.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM

So, one could safely assume, then, that you will begin agitation to have the ‘Religious Freedom’ law which has been on the books in Arizona for 15 years, AND the federal ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ repealed.

Solaratov on March 1, 2014 at 4:21 PM

No you don’t and no they’re not. The reason is because you can’t refuse service to anyone you want. I understand you don’t like that, but that’s been the law for half a century. You lost this battle long ago.

righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM

You’re wrong. Almost every bar in Missouri has that sign someplace in or on their establishment. And most restaurants. And a lot of stores.

Or are you going to assert that a bar must serve someone who’s too drunk? That a gun dealer must sell a gun to anyone who comes in?

You’d better take a look around…because that sign appears a lot more often than you’re willing to admit.

And..it’s legal.

Solaratov on March 1, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Ive not heard anyone claim that gay wedding cakes is abusive to children.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM

No…just the whole homosexual “life style”.

Solaratov on March 1, 2014 at 4:55 PM

I’m not following why you want to require a black business owner (and staff) to host a private party for the KKK in his soul food restaurant.

Good one.

More:

Hire a gay wedding photographer in Topeka and tell him the ceremony will be at Westboro Baptist Church. Does he have the right to do refuse?

Hire a Jewish wedding planner and tell him the men of the wedding party will be wearing Schutzstaffel dress uniform, the bride will march down the aisle to the Horst-Wessel-Lied, and he’s to plan the rest of the festivities around that.

The Monster on March 1, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Same troll, different day.

*yawn*

JetBoy on March 1, 2014 at 5:28 PM

So, you’re saying as a 57 year old man, I should expect to go into an OB/GYN doctor’s office and demand a prostate exam? And if I’m referred some other doctor, I should sue the OB/GYN?

Or if I take my Ferrari into a VW dealer and demand service, I should sue them if they tell me that they can’t and wont work on my car? Isn’t that just ethnic car discrimination?

You are an idiot of immense proportions, with a brain of microscopic dimensions.

ZeusGoose on March 1, 2014 at 4:05 PM

no one is saying that you idiot

brushingmyhair on March 1, 2014 at 5:32 PM

They are running a public accommodation. The cab driver shouldn’t be able to expect your baggage to accord with his private religious beliefs in a city licensed business.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Try again, loser. POTUS is even helping Muslims in Illinois!

ladyingray on March 1, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Same troll, different day.

*yawn*

JetBoy on March 1, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Nice to see you admitting you’re a troll, for a change. Maybe we’re making progress and someday we’ll cut through your denial about what the homoactivists really want to accomplish.

Then again, you seem to be fine with all of it, so….maybe that wouldn’t be progress at all.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

I know it’s going to look like I have ulterior motives here, but I’m going to take a shot at this anyway. I absolutely abhor the way the black community is oppressed by so-called “leaders” of the black community who profess to have the best interest of people who are black in mind. I’m the same way with women…it drives me nuts to watch PP encourage and perpetuate an environment where women are encouraged to put sexual needs first and foremost in their lives (as if all they have to offer is between their legs)

What options do you have to keep that from happening? And how can I help?

lineholder on March 1, 2014 at 2:10 PM

There really aren’t any good ones. :)

The simple problem is this: people have to choose between being responsible for their own problems or blaming “homophobia”, and the vast majority of people lack the intelligence and self-confidence to do the former rather than the latter.

At the same time, though, what that means is that the people who DO break the mold are good conservatives. They just have to be convinced to take responsibility for their own lives.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Nice to see you admitting you’re a troll, for a change. Maybe we’re making progress and someday we’ll cut through your denial about what the homoactivists really want to accomplish.

Then again, you seem to be fine with all of it, so….maybe that wouldn’t be progress at all.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Keep reaching for those stars, JannyMae. Perhaps your skull is extra thick today…since you conveniently forget I’ve said a few hundred times that the gay activists and liberal Left gay groups, and Lefty gays, don’t speak for me, and I adamantly disagree with them.

But hey…just like most liberals, you sure do have your narrative, and no amount of facts can ever make you understand that. As always, you and everyone else here at HotAir are always in my prayers. And maybe you can do the same.

‘nite.

JetBoy on March 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM

I don’t always agree with JetBoy, but he’s no troll.

ladyingray on March 1, 2014 at 6:38 PM

You’re saying I don’t have that sign in my business. Is that what your saying? And that you’ve never encountered that sign before in any bar?
 
anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

 
Correct.
 
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 2:52 PM

 
If that doesn’t satisfy you, you can always google images that sign and see countless examples of them in businesses.
 
anuts on March 1, 2014 at 3:51 PM

 

…The reason is because you can’t refuse service to anyone you want…
 
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM

 
I’m not following why you want to require a black business owner (and staff) to host a private party for the KKK in his soul food restaurant.
 
Would you mind clearing that one up for us?
 
rogerb on March 1, 2014 at 2:59 PM

 

Or are you going to assert that a bar must serve someone who’s too drunk? That a gun dealer must sell a gun to anyone who comes in?
 
You’d better take a look around…because that sign appears a lot more often than you’re willing to admit.
 
And..it’s legal.
 
Solaratov on March 1, 2014 at 4:52 PM

 
righty45, we need your law degree here, please. These should be pretty easy.

rogerb on March 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM

And lest you think it is just property rights, association and religious rights.. See the state of Massachusetts who recently took away a teenage boy because he was gay, and they assumed his Christian, Conservative parents would not be supportive, so they took him away BEFORE it became a problem..

No parental rights when the gay mafia gets involved either..

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372087/legal-kidnapping-melissa-moschella

Are responsible and loving parents safe from having their children taken away from them by government agents? The Joneses had always thought so, until recent events taught them otherwise.

During his junior year in a public high school in Massachusetts, Tom Jones (pseudonym), suffering from effects of a childhood trauma inflicted by a bully in school, for which he had been receiving counseling for many years, confided to his school guidance counselor that he believed he was gay. Although she knew that Tom was already seeing a therapist, the counselor, without informing his parents, referred him to a gay youth organization, where Tom was told not to trust conventional therapy but to seek counseling from them, and was encouraged to reject his faith and his family. The result was an exacerbation of Tom’s distress and the development of self-destructive behaviors.

One Friday morning, emotionally confused and angry after a romantic breakup, Tom called his guidance counselor, who illegally picked him up at his home — again without his parents’ knowledge — and drove him to school. Mrs. Jones eventually found Tom in the school’s guidance office, where the counselor refused to allow her to take her son home, threatening to place him in the custody of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) unless she allowed him to spend the weekend at a friend’s home and agreed to seek family counseling from DCF — all this despite the fact that school officials had previously acknowledged that the Joneses were exceptionally loving and responsible parents, and that they already had a team of therapists working with Tom.

The following Monday, a social worker from DCF visited the Joneses, and, although they had explained the background issues and emphasized how much they loved their son, the social worker branded them “unaccepting parents” in their son’s presence. She told them that Tom could not go home with them and instead took him back to stay with the friend with whom he had spent the weekend, despite well-founded protests from his parents that the environment was unhealthy. The social worker also manipulated Mrs. Jones into signing a form requesting counseling from DCF by insinuating that failure to sign would delay the return of her son. On the basis of this form, which was signed under duress and which indicates that counseling was the only service to which his parents agreed, DCF now claims that its intervention was a response to the family’s voluntary request

melle1228 on March 1, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Exactly, melle1228.

This is the same thing we see with “conservative” JetBoy’s “Equality Florida” group protecting and spinning for the pedophile Kaitlyn Hunt by smearing the parents of the child she molested as being “antigay” and demonizing them for telling Kaitlyn Hunt to stay away from their child.

This is the way the bigots work. Gay-sex marriage supporters demonize and seek to strip Christians of all of their rights, and the bigot gays like JetBoy clap and cheer.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM

This is the same thing we see with “conservative” JetBoy’s “Equality Florida” group protecting and spinning for the pedophile Kaitlyn Hunt by smearing the parents of the child she molested as being “antigay” and demonizing them for telling Kaitlyn Hunt to stay away from their child.

This is the way the bigots work. Gay-sex marriage supporters demonize and seek to strip Christians of all of their rights, and the bigot gays like JetBoy clap and cheer.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM

You really are a classic troll. Do you ever tell the truth? Nope…because you simply cannot comment with even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty. And that’s just not in your narrative.

But as always, you’re good for shiz and giggles…as a self-running parody.

JetBoy on March 1, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Your anecdote means exactly nothing to my point that gay bars do this all the time. Because one gay bar admits straights that does not mean that all do…and my point stands. Many do not.

You still skirted around answering the question. Is it wrong when they do it?

Apparently you think so, since you say I have the right to object, but why can’t you bring yourself to say that it’s wrong when they do it?

I don’t really give a damn, because there is no reason for me to go to a gay bar. I have no interest in it, whether they would let me in or not. I don’t care if gays only want to associate with other gays.

The only reason I would have to “object” is if I wanted to sue the establishment for not providing a service to me that I can get at a much more desirable business…which is what the homosexuals who sued the bakers and the photographer should have done. This was never about wedding cakes or photos. It was about attacking Christians and forcing them into involuntary servitude.

They are already going after the churches. I’ve learned something in this whole debacle. There are some people who have absolutely no problem trampling on religious freedom to assure special rights for homosexuals. They disgust me.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Everything you write has no point of contact with reality. I hope no one believes a word you write about gay bars, since your contact with gay bars is the fantasies in your head.

thuja on March 1, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Sodom’s Gatekeeper knows reality.

Murphy9 on March 1, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Keep reaching for those stars, JannyMae. Perhaps your skull is extra thick today…since you conveniently forget I’ve said a few hundred times that the gay activists and liberal Left gay groups, and Lefty gays, don’t speak for me, and I adamantly disagree with them.

But hey…just like most liberals, you sure do have your narrative, and no amount of facts can ever make you understand that. As always, you and everyone else here at HotAir are always in my prayers. And maybe you can do the same.

‘nite.

JetBoy on March 1, 2014 at 6:32 PM

I call ‘em like I see ‘em. You have consistently failed to criticize the actions of activists, while claiming they “don’t speak for you.” You accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with you on gay marriage of bigotry.

I know you are fooling yourself, but you’re not fooling anyone else, and your ad hominems don’t lend you any credibility. Your posting history speaks for itself.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Everything you write has no point of contact with reality. I hope no one believes a word you write about gay bars, since your contact with gay bars is the fantasies in your head.

thuja on March 1, 2014 at 9:26 PM

So, there are no gay bars who refuse to serve heterosexuals? Is there where you’d like to go with your denial of reality?

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 9:57 PM

I don’t always agree with JetBoy, but he’s no troll.

ladyingray on March 1, 2014 at 6:38 PM

I know many here defend him, but I’ve never understood why. He’s the one who called another commenter a troll. I was just turning on back on him, but he most certainly IS a troll on this subject.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM

^^turning IT back on him.

Seriously, the only conservative position I’ve ever seen JetBoy take is on abortion. He’s calling ME a liberal?

Too freaking funny.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 10:04 PM

So, there are no gay bars who refuse to serve heterosexuals? Is there where you’d like to go with your denial of reality?

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 9:57 PM

If such a bar does exists, it is an aberration, not the norm.

It would be illegal to do that in states which ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and there is always someone looking to sue in America. Is it possible that there is a gay bar somewhere in red state America that is refusing to serve heterosexuals? I suppose it is possible, but I don’t see the economic motive. Why don’t you give one example of gay bar like that? If you know they exist, you should be able to name one.

thuja on March 1, 2014 at 10:18 PM

If such a bar does exists, it is an aberration, not the norm.
It would be illegal to do that in states which ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and there is always someone looking to sue in America. Is it possible that there is a gay bar somewhere in red state America that is refusing to serve heterosexuals? I suppose it is possible, but I don’t see the economic motive. Why don’t you give one example of gay bar like that? If you know they exist, you should be able to name one.
thuja on March 1, 2014 at 10:18 PM

(Rolls eyes)

Really, how many more times do I have to post this?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Both you and JetBoy are brainwashed gay-sex bigots who blame all of your problems on Christians.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:36 PM

(Rolls eyes)

Really, how many more times do I have to post this?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Both you and JetBoy are brainwashed gay-sex bigots who blame all of your problems on Christians.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:36 PM

I hate responding you, because you lack even the most rudimentary skills at logic. A gay bar refusing to serve legislators who vote against gay rights is not discriminating against straight people. Not only aren’t 99.99999% of straight people welcome, but an idiot gay legislator who agrees with bigotry would not be welcome.

thuja on March 1, 2014 at 11:54 PM

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Got it. And thanks

lineholder on March 2, 2014 at 12:01 AM

I hate responding you, because you lack even the most rudimentary skills at logic. A gay bar refusing to serve legislators who vote against gay rights is not discriminating against straight people. Not only aren’t 99.99999% of straight people welcome, but an idiot gay legislator who agrees with bigotry would not be welcome.
thuja on March 1, 2014 at 11:54 PM

Ah, but you see, bigot, you and your fellow bigots shrieked that it was wrong to refuse service to people whose views you disliked FOR ANY REASON.

Now you’re backtracking and spinning and exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

Why can’t you love by your own rules, pig?

northdallasthirty on March 2, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Ah, but you see, bigot, you and your fellow bigots shrieked that it was wrong to refuse service to people whose views you disliked FOR ANY REASON.

Now you’re backtracking and spinning and exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

Why can’t you love by your own rules, pig?

northdallasthirty on March 2, 2014 at 12:16 AM

Whatever.

thuja on March 2, 2014 at 12:18 AM

I don’t know if Jan Brewer signing that bill would have been the best idea or not. Not because the bill was some horrible exercise in oppression (it wasn’t, in my opinion), but because opponents had so rapidly seized the media high ground in the battle, redefined it as they chose, and turned it into a potentially huge political liability in an election year.

Leftists always rapidly seize the media high ground, redefine conservative issues as they choose, and try to turn it into a potentially huge political liability for Republicans. This is what they do, it is their method of opperation. They do this on every conservative issue. If this is all it takes to scare you off then you are hopeless.

But let’s cool down on the end of the world hyperbole, shall we? Not everything is the same as Jim Crow laws, no matter how clever you may think that sounds in your op-ed.

Wow, maybe you are hopeless. Earth to Jazz, begging the left to “cool down” is like begging a dog to stop barking, they don’t understand your request and simply ignore it.

Dollayo on March 2, 2014 at 12:24 AM

The gays made this bill out to be after them It wasn’t but what do the gays do? they make it a big crisis that we are all out to get them… No , thbill was to protect religious freedom given to us in the Constituton from God …

Bullhead on March 2, 2014 at 12:48 AM

I call ‘em like I see ‘em. You have consistently failed to criticize the actions of activists, while claiming they “don’t speak for you.” You accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with you on gay marriage of bigotry.

I know you are fooling yourself, but you’re not fooling anyone else, and your ad hominems don’t lend you any credibility. Your posting history speaks for itself.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Either you have selective memory, or you’re simply dense. I constantly criticize the gay activist groups…not just here, but on other sites, and just about any time I’m out and about. I must be doing something right, since I’ve been banned from the few LGBT forums I’ve been to…I don’t spend much time on them anyway.

I could explain it all to you, but seeing as you…and most liberals…couldn’t care less for actual facts and reasoning, I’d only be wasting my time. I’ve been through it all at least a hundred times. It would be nice tho when the troll patrol accuses me of supporting this or that, that they at least try to provide an example to back it up.

But as always, I won’t hold my breath waiting.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Ah, but you see, bigot, you and your fellow bigots shrieked that it was wrong to refuse service to people whose views you disliked FOR ANY REASON.

Now you’re backtracking and spinning and exposing yourself as a hypocrite.

Why can’t you love by your own rules, pig?

northdallasthirty on March 2, 2014 at 12:16 AM

You ask me an irrelevant question to what I was discussing and you use insulting language. Unfortunately, the question itself is a good question. I think the gay bar’s strategy is unfortunate, because if they want to take action there is a better course. Let everyone come, take photos of the legislator you don’t like and post them on the bar’s website and claim that the bar is so awesome even homophobic legislators want to come. It’s what I would do if I owned a gay bar.

thuja on March 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

So, I took heat last night for daring to stand up to His Royal Gayness of HotAir, Jetboy. This is why I called him a troll on the subject of “gay rights” issues:

CPAC Chair Al Cardenas said in an interview last week that GOProud has acted inappropriately as guests in years past.

What a load of pure bull. If Cardenas had a conscious, he’d boot the AFA and FRC…their inane anti-gay rhetoric sets the gold standard for “inappropriateness”, and it’s unbecoming and an embarrassment to conservatives.

JetBoy on March 8, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Jetboy claims to be a Christian and a conservative, but he supports GOProud no matter what they do. GOProud is not a conservative organization. It’s nothing more than a gay rights advocacy masquerading as Republicans.

JetBoy also wants to silence pro-family institutions for defending traditional marriage. Anyone who doesn’t agree with his “gay marriage is wonderful” point of view is “anti-gay.”

I am Christian and conservative, and JetBoy is an avowed enemy of Christian conservatives. He accuses other people of trolling? What hypocrisy.

JannyMae on March 2, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I know many here defend him, but I’ve never understood why. He’s the one who called another commenter a troll. I was just turning on back on him, but he most certainly IS a troll on this subject.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Let’s see…your buddy northdallas is a troll because he only seems to frequent every gay-themed thread, is consistently insulting, calls numerous people “bigot”, and makes flat-out lies about myself and other commenters on a regular basis.

Yet you applaud that kind of behavior. That says quite a bit about your lack of character and intellectual honesty.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM
Which is, I suppose, why gay-sex bigots like you do it already.
northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Stop helping them by using “gay” in that way. The proper spelling is ghey. Gay refers to an emotion not a deviant sexual act.

Nutstuyu on March 2, 2014 at 2:18 PM

So, there are no gay bars who refuse to serve heterosexuals? Is there where you’d like to go with your denial of reality?

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 9:57 PM

If such a bar does exists, it is an aberration, not the norm.

thuja on March 1, 2014 at 10:18 PM

I’ve never been to the gay bars in my area, but I know plenty of straight women who have been to them, as has my ex ( by mistake, long story), and none of them tem were denied service.

And I live in the so-called Bible Belt…

ladyingray on March 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Why would anyone buy, and likely eat, a cake from someone who doesn’t want to bake it for you?

samharker on March 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Why would anyone buy, and likely eat, a cake from someone who doesn’t want to bake it for you?

samharker on March 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM

To be able to caused a mess and a stink and file a lawsuit. Anything to make things difficult for those who don’t believe the way you do and don’t want to serve you for religious reasons.

onesheep on March 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM

To be able to caused a mess and a stink and file a lawsuit. Anything to make things difficult for those who don’t believe the way you do and don’t want to serve you for religious reasons.

onesheep on March 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Hypocrite.

ladyingray on March 2, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Apparently the courts have spoken on this matter and we mere citizens are peeing into the wind…

If these rulings stand, if the most basic freedom to abstain from participating in activities your religion tells you are sinful is now largely gone, then the progressive barbarians are no longer at the gate… they’ve entered your home, taken control of your life and have carte blanche to force you to do whatever it is they demand – or face ruinous consequences otherwise. Such is the kindling with which revolutionary fires are often started…

Gay Wedding Cakes, Religious Freedom and the Return of Slavery in America

http://www.Imperfectamerica.com

imperfectamerica on March 2, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Ah, but you see, bigot, you and your fellow bigots shrieked that it was wrong to refuse service to people whose views you disliked FOR ANY REASON.
Now you’re backtracking and spinning and exposing yourself as a hypocrite.
Why can’t you love by your own rules, pig?
northdallasthirty on March 2, 2014 at 12:16 AM
You ask me an irrelevant question to what I was discussing and you use insulting language. Unfortunately, the question itself is a good question. I think the gay bar’s strategy is unfortunate, because if they want to take action there is a better course. Let everyone come, take photos of the legislator you don’t like and post them on the bar’s website and claim that the bar is so awesome even homophobic legislators want to come. It’s what I would do if I owned a gay bar.
thuja on March 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

So then we could get some photos of that ghey couple in NM and claim our bakery is so awesome even Christophobic gheys want to come there?

Nutstuyu on March 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Stupid iPhone

Nutstuyu on March 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM

A Clash of Rights: Freedom of Religion Versus Marriage Equality

Will gays become everything that they claimed to hate in others? Will they become homosexist Nazis? Will they and their supporters demand compliance and conformity with the tenets of their ‘religion’? Henry VIII, Bloody Mary, and Oliver Cromwell tortured and murdered those that believed in a faith other than theirs. Will this end similarly or have we learned the lessons which gave rise to this great country?

By the way, as much as I despise the first two, I am considering representing some Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, vocal traditional marriage supporters. Let’s see how the LGBTQQIAAP community feels about having to photograph a Neo-Nazi wedding (they really do exist)? How would Cat Cora, a lesbian, feel about baking the wedding cake for a couple, who insisted that it say ‘One Man, One Woman, The Only True Marriage’?

Think about it: How would Sylvia’s in Harlem feel if it were forced to host a white supremacist gathering? How would a Holocaust survivor, who creates wedding cake works of art, feel if she were forced to bake a cake for the despicable couple above or face a lawsuit and possibly fines because she discriminated against them in refusing? How would any baker feel if Heath Campbell placed an order for five birthday cakes for his children: Adolf Hitler Campbell, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Honszlynn Himmler Jeannie Campbell, Heinrich Hons Campbell, and Eva Braun Campbell – to be festooned with swastikas? Shouldn’t a baker have a right to decline without the fear of a lawsuit or government sanction?

As a lawyer, I decline to accept cases routinely. Sometimes, it is the facts of the case, but, other times, it is the client. I have to work with him or her and, if I feel as though that will be impossible, then Ihave a right to ‘discriminate’ by not accepting the matter. I have never nor would I decline based upon skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, etc, but I have refused for many other reasons, including body odor (!) and the failure to actively participate in the discovery process. Should I be sued for discriminatio?

While I am in favour of SSM, I will always defend the religious and their right to practise over-and-above SSM even though I happen to be an atheist.

Resist We Much on March 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

As a lawyer, I decline to accept cases routinely. Sometimes, it is the facts of the case, but, other times, it is the client.
 
Resist We Much on March 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM

 
You’re clearly breaking the law since we were assured by another attorney on this thread that it’s been against the law for him to turn away clients for half a century, racist. Homophobe. Whatever.

rogerb on March 2, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Can Muslim taxi drivers refuse to allow someone with alcohol or pork products in their cabs?
ladyingray on March 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM

They are running a public accommodation. The cab driver shouldn’t be able to expect your baggage to accord with his private religious beliefs in a city licensed business.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Yes, ladyingray they can refuse and diedonne is a anti-Christian, pro-muslim hypocrite. See hyperbole CAN work both ways, you just have to be willing to do it.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800

AppraisHer on March 2, 2014 at 9:57 PM

You’re clearly breaking the law since we were assured by another attorney on this thread that it’s been against the law for him to turn away clients for half a century, racist. Homophobe. Whatever.

rogerb on March 2, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Heheh. RWM is absolutely correct though. I’m a lawyer as well. I would never, ever accept a case from a gay couple to sue a Christian bakery, photography studio, etc. Just like I would not accept a case from a Christian to sue a Jewish deli for not making him a ham sandwich.

Othniel on March 2, 2014 at 11:33 PM

Cab driver, drive your cab. Baker, bake your cake. Don’t concern yourselves with what’s in the luggage or why they are eating the cake. If you are incapable of doing those things you are likely in the wrong business.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Hey, I get it. If you’re a business owner, that means you’re no longer allowed to be religious.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution; when did we give up our religious freedoms if we owned a business? Was that a recent Amendment to overrule the First Amendment, or is that one of the “penumbras” of the “evolution” of the document that isn’t actually written anywhere?

I’m just curious what other actions remove your rights under the Constitution. Is it just owning a business, or are the tons of actions that suddenly mean you don’t have rights?

gekkobear on March 3, 2014 at 1:33 AM

I am so sick of the “let’s cut down on the hyperbole” pseudo-wise peace-brokers among us. They serve to boost THEIR OWN EGOS with this crap. And it is crap.

Here is the proper tesponse, and it came from gay conservative, Tammy Bruce: GAY GESTAPO.

Yep, that’s right, those who led the hysteria and lies about this bill are the, GAY GESTAPO.

Because being civil in the face of TOTALITARIANS will get you nowhere fast. They have to be shamed with their own dirty tactics, because otherwise, they have no shame.

A pox on the pseudo peacemakers who think civility is more important than principle. You suck.

mountainaires on March 3, 2014 at 5:40 AM


By way of disclosure, I’ve corresponded with Richardson many times over the years when he worked for the RNC and for Governor Haley Barbour.

Unless you’re related, or one paid the other for work, you don’t need to disclose anything.

Let’s see…your buddy northdallas is a troll because he only seems to frequent every gay-themed thread, is consistently insulting, calls numerous people “bigot”, and makes flat-out lies about myself and other commenters on a regular basis.

Yet you applaud that kind of behavior. That says quite a bit about your lack of character and intellectual honesty.

JetBoy on March 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Man, textbook projection.

Akzed on March 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM

So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a “businessmen’s haircut”.

Akzed on March 3, 2014 at 9:04 AM

You know what all this reminds me of? Mos Eisley.

Yes, I’ll never forget that powerful moment when the cantina bartender told Luke “we don’t serve their kind here”, and rather than telling his droids to wait outside, stating that they “don’t want any trouble”, Luke the stalwart agitator and advocate took that cantina to court and won the right for his droids to get shot up or chopped to pieces like any other patron of that cantina.

A regular Atticus Finch, he was.

The Schaef on March 3, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2