Why Stop at Refusing to Bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Marriage?

Gay Wedding CakeLet’s stipulate that reasonable people may disagree on whether business owners should have to serve gays if doing that violates their deeply held religious beliefs.  Should a business owner who opens a bakery on Main Street, for example, have to bake a cake for a couple planning a same-sex marriage – or face a lawsuit if he doesn’t?

And let’s also stipulate that if the baker says, “This goes against what I sincerely believe,” maybe the gay couple should simply say, “Fine, we’ll go someplace else.”

My personal beliefs, as many of you by now know, is that once you open a business to the general public you have to serve the general public.  I would be open to a “conscientious objector” law that allows business owners to turn away vile customers, like Nazis who might want a caterer to bring in food for their annual hate convention.  But when laws are based on deeply held religious beliefs, I get nervous.

Here’s why:  Opposition to civil rights laws was also, at least in part, based on deeply held religious beliefs.  Segregationists justified their bigotry by saying God was against interracial marriage and so it should be illegal.   They didn’t want integration in schools, either, because that also violated their deeply held religious beliefs.  They even justified keeping blacks out of “whites only” restaurants because that offended their religious sensibilities.

And make no mistake, these bigots weren’t just yahoos.  Many held powerful positions in the Old South.  They were men who could make life miserable for black people, and not lose a wink of sleep – because they were only following their deeply held religious beliefs.

In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile ruled against an interracial couple in Virginia that wanted to get married, using religion as the basis for his judgment.  Here’s what he said:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

How’s that for a deeply and sincerely held religious belief.  The “godless” Supreme Court of the United States saw it differently and declared the Virginia law that barred interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Then there was Mississippi governor (in the 1920s and 30s) and later U.S. Senator (1935-1947) Theodore Bilbo, who once said, “I call on every red-blooded white man to use any means to keep the niggers away from the polls.” Bilbo was another bigot with deeply held religious beliefs.

In a book entitled “Take Your Choice:  Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that, “Purity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.”  He also said that allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix” was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation [sic] and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”

Or how about Bob Jones University?  Until the early 1970s, the Christian Bible school would not allow blacks to enroll.  Then Bob Jones changed its policy, allowing black students to attend, but only if they were married.  In 1975, the policy was changed again, this time to allow unmarried black students to attend.  But the school continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.”

That’s when the “anti-religious” IRS stepped in and revoked the school’s tax-exempt status, saying that it would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs.  In 1983, the U.S. Supreme court ruled in favor of the IRS.

So, as you can see, there is a history of bigots using deeply held religious beliefs to justify their bigotry.  That’s why I get nervous when laws allow people to use their interpretation of the Bible to turn away customers from a business that supposedly is open to the general public.

Having said all this, I don’t believe that a baker or a florist or a photographer who doesn’t want to be even a small part of a same-sex marriage is in the same sewer as the bigots of those bad old days.  I’m sure many of them are good people. But if deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs can trump well-established civil rights “public accommodation” laws, then anything is possible.

Why stop at refusing to bake a cake or make a floral arrangement for a same-sex marriage?  If a business owner believes that homosexuality is a sin – an argument that many of my readers have made in no uncertain terms – why should the law require him to serve gays at all?  And while we’re on the subject … or blacks?

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Dan Zimbeck

    as a Christian, I oppopse any business refusing gays service, to often people and religous factions discriminate with hate, byes, bigotry, and vile ungodly attitudes; all enshroud in banner of the religious freedoms. this is entirely , anti-Christian, and anti-Christ. Jesus said “judge not lest you be judged”. Meaning, by the same standards you judge another, you will be judged.Jesus never turned people away, not even those rejected by others.

  • Dan Zimbeck

    to often people and business discriminate use hate, byes, bigotry masked in religious freedom. All these act are anti-chrtiatian, and anti Christ.
    Jesus never turned people away, not even those rejected by others.

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    “Rights” are not absolute. Your “right” to swing your arms ends in proximity to my nose.

    • Dan Zimbeck

      Sir whom ever or what you are, it would be nice to keep comments on point instead of using examples that make no sense, or are not retaliative to the article topic.

    • Chris C.

      Your right to Religious freedom ends at a persons individual rights to live as they see fit in a legal manner.

  • Ryan Nichols

    I’ve seen many signs in businesses that say “we reserve the right to refuse service”. Now I’m not for discriminatory practices, but I’m also not for people being forced to serve. My belief, let the market decide. Let the neighborhoods and towns decide. But to give a person so much power as to be able to shut down someone’s business because they feel they were wronged is wrong.

    • Ross Williams

      [[let the market decide]]

      Correct answer

      [[Let the neighborhoods and towns decide]]

      Incorrect answer.

      By letting each “neighborhood” decide whether or not it will allow rights to be exercised we will have given Constitutional rights the ability to be negated piecemeal, and the nation will be a patchwork of which rights are enforceable where. That is not the way to run a CONSTITUTIONAL democratic republic.

      Democracy is effectively indistinguishable from mob rule vigilantism. A republic simply elevates the mob rule one rung up the power ladder. A CONSTITUTION sets limitations on what the government is permitted to do … to include enforcing the mob-rule desires of a local community stuck in the 1840s. … or which believes it’s stuck in a tyranny of “enlightenment”.

      For better or worse, a citizen who starts a business is permitted to deny entry to anyone he wishes to deny entry to. It is just as wrong for “the community” to compel him to serve those he wishes not to as it is for “the community” to declare that those people cannot be served by ANYone.

      We have progressed beyond the community declaring that “they” [whomever "they" may be] cannot be served by ANYone … Jim Crow was “the community” declaring certain persons to be unservable; we have NOT progressed to the point where we allow individuals to make their own individual choices, even if they are bigoted choices.

      • Ryan Nichols

        The left thrives on setting the narrative that they will punish the bigoted. Problem is they too are bigoted. So what’s behind the narrative? Power, control, so in professing their willingness to stand up for a gay person’s rights. They stomp on someone else’s rights. But they don’t care, after all they control the narrative. And in their narratives you’re a bigot.

        • Dan Zimbeck

          Perhaps so, but only pointing out bigotry, when bigotry raises or exposes its head.

        • Chris C.

          The left is bigoted against what?Racism?How is protecting people from sexual or racial discrimination bigoted.Perhaps you should read the definition of the word.The only narrative is that people who are gay are not bothering you,or discriminating against your religion in any way,shape or formThey are excercising their right to live their lives as they were born.The fact your religion doesn’t like homosexuals does not make that a right of yours.You can still practice your Religion.With your logic,Muslims should be permitted to discriminate against “infidels”,because THEIR Religion says they can.

      • Dan Zimbeck

        Right on Mr. Ross Williams, well stated.

    • Dan Zimbeck

      Well that’s just part of our democracy, and the market place, if the business refuses service,by discriminatory measures, then eventually it loses.

    • Chris C.

      That’s what the South did to black people.You CANNOT refuse to serve someone because you are a racist piece of garbage

      • Ryan Nichols

        First that’s not what the “south” did. That’s what some people in the south did. Second I’m fairly, no I’m positive that we no longer live in those times. So maybe you’d think people would stop using that garbage as a comparison to today. But i suppose if you’re for government running our lives and making our decisions, you’ll say anything to get your fill in the blank.

  • dld

    If one believes that homosexual marriage is wrong then why is this compared to racial issues? It is indicated in the bible that God made them male and female and I never saw anything in the bible about God being against interracial marriage. Because some Christians believed that at one time or still do is their right whether right or wrong. As far as homosexuality, it used to be called a sexual preference and now it is called sexual orientation. Where is the scientific proof that people were born this way? If people want to live that life style, that is their choice. If people believe that homosexuality is wrong based on religious beliefs then that is their privilege since we have freedom of religion. What is next? If people don’t believe in abortion based on religion or whatever, will that be detrimental to them? I think that I already know the answer to that one because it’s already being used in politics if people don’t believe in abortion and it is referred to a war on women.

    • Dan Zimbeck

      If one actually studies the Gospel of Jesus Christ;
      It is extremely possible Jesus blessed an ancient gay relationship, using them as an examples of faith; in Matthew, and Luke, ( the centurion soldier and his slave or Pais). 600 years before the writing of Matthew traditionally believed around 33 ad. the term used was” Paddeka”(a literal reference to the jr. partner in a homosexual relationship). The term is a diminutive of Pais, which means, the use of pais would have the understanding of the people of that day;
      of a homosexual or( in our day a gay) a relationship.

      Now the actual Greek lexicon does not define Pais as such;
      which brings into question, When was the lexicon produced and has there been
      any updates to reflect current word studies, creating expanded definition meanings
      (those answers I do not have). By how the lexicon continues to define Pais, my
      guess would be no. So being Christianity is a faith based (meaning we are
      justified; made righteous by our faith), and not a religion. I believe what Mr.
      Sir Kenneth dove, has written; in regards to the real Biblical understanding of the centurion passage in Matthew; because he is;

      1. A renowned Biblical scholar,

      2. An authority on Greek society of that time,

      3. and an authority on the Greek language used at that ime (who has studied and written on
      these subjects).

    • Chris C.

      Your freedom of Religion NEVER trumps a persons rights to individual freedom.As stated above,using your warped and nonsensical logic and reasoning,people of the Muslim faith should be permiteed 20 wives and thew right to practice Sharia law and enforce jihad against infidels.This Religious freedom argument is paper thinand apparently only applies in people such as yourselfs minds as long as that religion is Christianity.We have a non secualar Govwernment,constitutionally and Relgious freedom does not mean imposing your Religious views on others.PERIOD.

  • heatherGirl

    I think people are confused about this. This is about someone refusing service to groups liberals approve of……
    Does anyone think that a bakery that refuses to bake a cake for the Nation Riffle Associations anniversary party or maybe the annual meeting of a right to life group, would get the same response from the liberal left OR the media?
    They would not be demanding that the bakery bake the cake….. they would be praising them for taking a stand on gun control! They would call them hero’s.
    This issue is only about anyone who dares to not provide a service to people or groups liberals approve of……

    • JMax

      Neither the NRA nor the right to life people are protected groups so would not be protected by laws of accommodation. Therefore the “liberal left or media” would have no issue one way or another with the baker’s choice. I assume you would.

      • KStrett

        There are no protected groups in the constitution! You are special pleading!

        Redefining marriage proponents argue the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause dictates homosexual couples have the right to get married because the laws must be applied equally to everyone.

        On one hand, ss couples get to redefine marriage because the laws must be applied equally to everyone but on the other only protect groups have certian rights that others do not.

        Your thinking is extremely convoluted and illogical!

        • JMax

          My thinking is logically and legally sound.

          There are a lot of things that are not in the Constitution but are settled law, judicial review being one example.

          “Redefining marriage proponents argue the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause dictates homosexual couples have the right to get married because the laws must be applied equally to everyone.”

          There are no proponents of redefining marriage. “Redefining marriage” is a red herring.

          Advocates of gay marriage say that the 14th Amendment requires a compelling reason (due process of law) to deny someone equal treatment. No compelling reason has been given.

          Certain groups that have often been discriminated against have protections against discrimination.

          These are two separate issues.

          • KStrett

            “judicial review being one example.”

            Judicial review is how we have slowly incrementally drifted away from the constitution over the period of about 100 years. Original intent is how the constitution was taught and viewed prior to this.

            “There are no proponents of redefining marriage.”

            Yes there is and you are incapable of defending your position.

            “Advocates of gay marriage say that the 14th Amendment requires a compelling reason”

            They are citing the equal protection clause. Meaning you must have all laws applied equally.

            Secondly, your argument presupposes discrimination without making the case for it.

            “These are two separate issues.”

            No they are not. Your position shows rank hypocrisy.

            You can’t refuse to bake a wedding cake for two men or women. Why? Because homosexuals are a protected group.

            But you can refuse service to the NRA. Why? They are not a protected group.

            All laws must be enforced equally, therefore homosexuals have the right to redefine marriage but a store doesn’t have the right to deny services to homosexuals but the same store does have the right to deny services to the NRA.

            Why?

            Because homosexuals have protected group status which is no where to be found in the constitution and the NRA doesn’t.Therefore, you can discriminate against the NRA but not homosexuals.

            The constitutional concept of rights applying to all people has just be flushed down the toilet and certian groups have special rights that the common people do not.

            On top of that, you are making that argument while citing all laws must be applied equally but they don’t. Your position is self contradictory.

            A business has the right to serve who they chose or they don’t. You cannot argue a business has to serve group A but they don’t have to serve group B.

          • JMax

            Judicial review was established 211 years ago. Without it the Bill of Rights would be worthless.

            “Yes there is and you are incapable of defending your position.”

            I have defended it quite well. Sorry you don’t accept logic.

            “They are citing the equal protection clause. Meaning you must have all laws applied equally.”

            I’m sorry if you can’t understand that equal protection is predicated on due process of law which provides that people can be treated differently if there is a compelling public interest in doing so. Otherwise anyone could marry anyone, anyone could vote, anyone could drink.

            “Secondly, your argument presupposes discrimination without making the case for it.”

            I don’t know what that means. I believe the case for treating minors differently (discrimination) is self-evident.

            “Your position shows rank hypocrisy.”

            No it doesn’t.

            “But you can refuse service to the NRA. Why?”

            Because that denial of service is not based on race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, or sexual orientation, that’s why.

            “which is no where to be found in the constitution”

            There are NO laws in the Constitution.

            “certian groups have special rights that the common people do not.”

            Blacks, women, disabled people, Jews, Italians, and gays aren’t common people?

            “you are making that argument while citing all laws must be applied equally”

            I have never cited that at all. I’m specifically saying the opposite.

            “You cannot argue a business has to serve group A but they don’t have to serve group B.”

            I can, I have. The congress has, all states, and many local jurisdictions have.They are called laws of public accommodation. Learn it, love it, live it.

          • Ross Williams

            [[due process of law which provides that people can be treated differently if there is a compelling public interest in doing so]]

            Find the “compelling interest” exemption in the 5thAM.

            Don’t bother, it isn’t there. Which means that the “compelling interest” notion was made up; which means that anyone who CITES “compelling interest” is rationalizing why he doesn’t need to abide by Constitutional limitations on government power.

            Anyone CAN drive, anyone CAN marry, anyone CAN drink. The government is not permitted to get involved. I don’t know why this is so difficult.

            The fact that people with guns enforce limitations on these rightful actions only necessarily speaks to the use of force to impose limitations and NOT on the defined authority of the government to set the limits in the first place.

            The government is not permitted to declare certain demographics to be free from having bigots be rude to them; a private citizen is permitted to close his doors to anyone he doesn’t like, regardless why he doesn’t like him; the fact that the guy owns a business makes no CONSTITUTIONAL difference … for the same reason of Equal Protection.

            The fact that the government CLAIMS there is a Constitutional difference only means that the government has no clue what the Constitution says, and has to resort to the use of its guns upon its citizens to impose the power to claim the distinction.

          • JMax

            Are you one of those guys those people in Idaho shooed out of town?

            You may or may not be aware that there has been about 220 some odd years of jurisprudence since the Constitution was adopted. Much of the way in which this jurisprudence has been decided is not specifically found in the text of the Constitution yet has been adopted by the courts at all levels and is considered settled law. You can read about “compelling interest” here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest

            “Anyone CAN drive, anyone CAN marry, anyone CAN drink. The government is not permitted to get involved. I don’t know why this is so difficult.”

            So you are good with a 3 year old driving? An 8 year-old drinking? A driver operating a motor vehicle on city streets at 150 MPH? The government can and has gotten involved. The states have laws against all of these things which have been nearly universally upheld because there is a compelling interest in public safety to do so.

            “The government is not permitted to declare certain demographics to be free from having bigots be rude to them”

            Tell that to any judge in any jurisdiction in the United States. You will be laughed out of court.

            ” a private citizen is permitted to close his doors to anyone he doesn’t like, regardless why he doesn’t like him”

            A person who sells goods and services to the general public is not a “private citizen”.

            “The fact that the government CLAIMS there is a Constitutional difference only means that the government has no clue what the Constitution says”

            The courts know what the Constitution says. They study it, they practice it, they make legal decisions based on it.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Are you one of those guys those people in Idaho shooed out of town?]]

            You are invited – once again – to grow up yourself.

            [[there has been about 220 some odd years of jurisprudence]]

            Much of it not Constitutionally supportable. But you know that.

            [[not specifically found in the text of the Constitution yet has been adopted by the courts at all levels and is considered settled law]]

            If it’s “not specifically found in the Constitution” then it’s not Constitutionally supportable.

            Is it?

            The answer you are avoiding having to think about it is, “Yes, Ross, it is NOT Constitutionally supportable. It is another in a long, long line of examples of how government takes more power for itself than it was ever defined to have.”

            [[you are good with a 3 year old driving?]]

            You haven’t read the Constitution, have you?

            Don’t worry, most loyyers and judges haven’t either.

            It’s very simple … which puzzles me why you can’t grasp it since you’re so simple yourself, but here it is [and I've spelled this out before, here, for those simpletons like you and the K Strett bozo who both insist on perverting the Constitution to your own poisonous perspective]:

            9thAM: we didn’t write down all your rights, it would have taken too much ink
            10thAM: unless the power was given to the US government, the government has no authority in the matter [i.e., driving, owning/running a business, marrying who you want, et-friggin-cetera - virtually EVERYthing a person can do] and the power belongs to the states or to the people

            14thAM: …and on second thought, the states cannot be trusted with that undefined power, either, and so it belongs to the people.

            Now, that is what the Constitution SAYS. If you are among those dimwitted despots who believes that the Constitution does not mean what it SAYS, but instead means what generation after generation of power-whoring “justice” “interprets” it to mean, then you are, in effect, saying that 2+2=”whatever you want it to be at any given time”.

            That is not to say that I am happy with all of the ramifications of what the Constitution SAYS, but it IS to say that until the damned thing is changed PROPERLY then an honest government is obliged to do what it SAYS and not what it is “interpreted” to be.

            I see no allowance for “interpretation” in Art III.

            Do you?

            No … you do not.

            That said, the states ARE given power to address all of those “non-enumerated” rights – such as driving, and drinking, and driving WHILE drinking. They simply cannot outright DENY the exercise of those rights by anyone, but they can regulate it. By doing such things as creating skills tests for driving. If a 3 y.o. can pass the skills test … then he can drive.

            [[A person who sells goods and services to the general public is not a "private citizen".]]

            Then what is he? There is only;

            1] government, or agent thereof, and

            2] free citizen.

            Are you suggesting that a merchant is an agent of the government?

            Exactly how for into rationalization are you willing to go to prop up your psychotic theory?

          • Chris C.

            Not one person wants chuches to be forced to marry homosexuals.However,whether it turns your stomach or not,some of them are.By choice.The right fights any kind of progress socially tooth and nail and has been for many decades.From slavery,to civil rights,to prayer in schools to anything THEY disagree with,constitution be damned.I don’t give a rats patoot whether a bakery bakes a cake or not.If they don’t want to,go elsewhere.I would be frightened of what was in the cake if you made them and why bother to do that.
            The fact is,the argument about baking a cake is just a smoke screen.This argument is about people being able to observe their Religious beliefs,whether they interfere with a persons individual rights.If it were a Mulsim bakery refusing to bake a cake for a Christian wedding,the crying from the right would be epic.THE RIGHT IS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS AS A POINT OF FACT.I don’t understand them either,however they are not bothering me and have the same right to happiness as we all do.Live and let live.Lumping Democrats under one tent is as wrong headed as doing it with the right,which I do as well.The fact is,if we all concerned ourselves with our own happiness and situations,rather than attacking others,we wouldn’t have these absurd discussions.

        • Chris C.

          Mr. Strett your thinking is convoluted.Only the ‘Christian” definition of marriage is acceptable to you.Under your premise,we should allow Muslims to marry as they see fit and be able to exercise Muslim law,because that is their Religion.The right would whine and cry,as they do about EVRYTHING, and call them terrorists.Homosexuals marrying don’t affect you one iota.The right wants Government out of peoples lives,yet they want to project their Religious beliefs and morality on everyone else.The word is hypocrite and that is what you are.

      • Ryan Nichols

        Nobody should be a protected group. That’s part of the problem. And you’re completely full of it if you think that if this was a nra convention that the lefts media wouldn’t support the Baker. The only reason the left cares about this instance is because they are the party of discrimination. They can’t live without it. They need it. Without it, what do they have?

        • JMax

          “Nobody should be a protected group.”

          So a restaurant should be able to refuse service to black people or Jews?

          I didn’t say that people wouldn’t support the baker. I said that they would have no “issue” with it because there is no legal issue about it.

          • Ryan Nichols

            I believe businesses should be able to refuse service if they choose yes. And let the business suffer the consequences of bigotry if they so choose. As is often said let the free market punish them. I don’t support businesses who discriminate, and I wouldn’t spend my money at one. And that’s how millions of people feel. But who are we to say to someone. I know you’re a religious person, but you must be part of my atheist reception. That isn’t right.

            My opinion on this particular case. This gay couple should have just respected the religious beliefs and took their money somewhere else. Not try and punish the baker.

          • JMax

            So if there is only one diner in town, how does one let the free market right the situation? What if there is only one merchandise store in a county. Blacks go to the next county?

            The civil rights issues were settled fifty years ago. This included laws of public accommodation which exist in almost every jurisdiction and public level- federal, state, county, and city in the nation. Nobody seemed to have a problem with these laws until many (not all) of these jurisdictions started including sexual orientation as a protected class. Now to justify discrimination against gays, it is suddenly in vogue to say 50 years of settled law that we didn’t object to regarding blacks, Jews, and Italians is now objectionable.

            A cake doesn’t participate. It is delivered.

          • Ryan Nichols

            Why do people have to respect someone’s sexual orientation and not someone’s religious orientation? Why is the left on an all out attack of religion? And don’t say there isn’t, there’s case after case, instance after instance of liberal and progressive people doing it.

            And a baker of the wedding cake is involved in the wedding. What about the dj? What about the coordinator? Heck, what about a church? Should they all be forced to be part of something they disagree with? It’s madness. Just as you earlier said. The gays have jumped on the discriminatory train, and they are using it to persecute other’s religious beliefs.

            You throw out 50 year old hypotheticals. This is all just a small part of a huge moment looking to punish and demonize religious people.

          • JMax

            Bah low nee.

            “Why is the left on an all out attack of religion? And don’t say there isn’t”

            There isn’t.

            “Heck, what about a church? Should they all be forced to be part of something they disagree with?”

            What about a church? A church is a private, religious entity. It is not subject to the laws of public accommodation. It is perfectly free to limit marriages performed to members of their church under the tenets of that church. This will never change because exercise of one’s religion outside the public sphere is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

            But states and localities have created laws and regulations for businesses that wish to serve the public. These laws include public safety rules, employee safety and fair treatment rules, and public accommodation rules. When a business gets a license to sell goods and services in their community and state, they agree to abide by these laws regardless of their religious “orientation”. That’s the way it works all over the country and has for decades. It is the trade off business owners VOLUNTARILY agree to when they open a business to the public.

            Whether you like it or not, many jurisdictions include sexual orientation in the laws of public accommodation. They always have included “religious orientation” which means “religious orientation” IS respected.

            “The gays have jumped on the discriminatory train, and they are using it to persecute other’s religious beliefs.”

            I don’t know where you think I said this earlier because it’s simply not true. A gay baker cannot deny service to a Christian on the basis of religion. And many gays have religious beliefs that allow gays to marry. What about respecting their religious beliefs.

            “Should they all be forced to be part of something they disagree with?”

            The are not forced. They voluntarily agreed to abide by the rules of their business license. If they no longer wish to do so they can voluntarily turn in their license and either create a membership bakery or find another line of work.

            “This is all just a small part of a huge moment looking to punish and demonize religious people.”

            I suppose you and your kind of Christians are not punishing gays for daring to celebrate their commitment to each other. I suppose you and your kind of Christians are not demonizing gays by calling them perverted, sick, and sinful.

          • Ryan Nichols

            You can write a book, doesn’t change the facts. There are liberal groups who travel the nation to peal religion out of any place they feel is within their reach. Taking separation of church and state to separation of Americans from their religious freedom. The biggest problem with liberals is they are blind. They refuse to acknowledge any wrong perpetrated by other liberals.

          • JMax

            “You can write a book, doesn’t change the facts.”

            There are no facts presented here to change. Just the self-victimization of people who refuse to understand that cultures change.

            “There are liberal groups who travel the nation to peal religion out of any place they feel is within their reach.”

            Bands of liberal gypsies? Can you name some and any of their successes?

            Liberals aren’t blind. They just don’t care to “see” the world through your delusion.

          • Chris C.

            Name the groups Ryan Nichols.Name one that does as you say.Thats what you on the right do.You make claims you cannot substantiate.You are liars

          • JMax

            Here’s a good article on religious “persecution”:

            http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/persecuted-christian-conservatism-now

            Excerpt:

            Modern Christian conservatism is a querulant movement. With the culture leaving them behind on so many issues, right wing evangelicals feel ignored by a society they resent, becoming aggrieved and indignant as they are left behind. Their sense of lost privilege and esteem in a country that no longer recognizes the moral force of their agenda drives them to enforce that program on the rest of us by law and litigation, for our own good, to restore what they see as the natural order of American society.

        • Chris C.

          The left discriminate?Thats really funny.You’re a real clown pal.I listened to that slob Rush Limbaugh last week and he attacked people who are Democrats the entire show with name calling,and all the stuff the right says and does all the time.There is a reason it was the right fighting against slavery and later against the civil rights act and every other law pertaing to protecting people from discrimination.The right hates immigrants,never mind their ancestors ALL were immigrants.The GOP is the party og hate…..and lies

      • Chris C.

        Assume away….because that’s exactly right.

    • Chris C.

      that’s BULLSHIT.If a Muslim wanted you to wear a Burqa walking down the street,because their Religion demands it,would you be required to do so.Refusing service to someone shouldn’t be a big deal.There are plenty of other bakeries that will do the job,so go to one of them.However your religious views have zero importance to me.You would NEVWER in a million years,allow Muslims to enforce their views on us,based solely omn their Religious beliefs and the argument that Christians should,is hypocritical and stupid.You claim liberals would make a big deal about something with not one example of it actually happening.GIVE ONE OR YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE LIVING ON FANTASY ISLAND.

  • Topnife

    This is indeed a troublesome distinction, fraught with the possibility of bigotry. In the end, wouldn’t it be better for all, if the bakers (or photographers, or others) were to respectfully state that the prospective client’s request places them in an ethical dilemma, and that they are concerned that they could not do their best, due to their strong personal and moral disagreements with providing the requested service. Who wants a wedding cake (something that you are expected to eat!) baked by someone who detests you? Who wants their wedding recorded thru the eyes of a disapproving and negative photographer? In the end, this was an obvious political confrontation, designed to place the proprietors in a negative light, by activists whose farthest thought was a celebration of their union. In the end, they were the despicable bigots.

  • mrtapeguy

    Bernie, I almost always agree with you AND I support same-sex unions. That being said, there actually are some Biblical comments about homosexuality and none about race. In the New Testament these references are few and far-between and I don’t agree with them but regardless, at least these people have SOME basis (albeit misguided) for their discrimination.

    There is also a difference between a business open to the public (such a restaurant) and a service provider who utilizes his own facilities. In the end, I don’t see why liberals believe we need these laws. Let the guy discriminate and allow the market to react accordingly. We have Yelp, Angie’s List, Google etc. – the reviews will be posted and clientele will react accordingly without the govt.

  • Brad Gillespie

    I run a business, but it’s as a builder, and not as a storefront. I’m not sure what it would take for me to decide that I wouldn’t build something for someone who wanted it, but it sure is a right that I would regard as mine — the right not to build something for someone, based on whatever reason I want. Just because I sell to the public doesn’t mean the public, or the government, owns me or what I do. Bernie uses the racist judge and a university as examples, but these aren’t valid examples of private vendors, since the judge represents the public/state, and the university thrives on federal funding. I don’t.

  • Sidney Terhune

    Great fan of Bernie but he missed the big pix when he wrote “open to the public, must serve the public”. Apparently he has never owned a small business like I have for 40 years. In my business, religion is NOT a factor. Every coin has 2 sides. If a customer walks n my barber shop & stinks like he hasn’t bathed n a year, I will cut his hair. But if he reeks of grass or drunk, I will not. As an owner, I have a right to select my customers. On the other side of the coin, that customer has a right to try another barbershop. That’s called free enterprise. It will no longer b free if some says I have to cut everybody’s hair with no exceptions.

  • Keith

    Bernie fails to make the distinction between behaviors and the biology of race. There is a HUGE difference and yet comparing the two has been the most successful way to justify the normalization of sexual dysfunction.

  • Marvin Katzen

    I’m traditional America. I’m not a bigot. I cling to my guns and religion. I vote for conservatives no matter what religion or race. I consider homosexuals no less human than anyone else, but I refuse to bake a cake for such “wedding”,

  • http://www.sabbsa.org/ terryread

    Bernie,

    I get nervous when someone discounts the significance of any participation in a same-sex “wedding”, describing it as “small part of a same-sex marriage”. As a Bible believing Christian, I believe a marriage to be a sacred covenant between a man and a woman instituted by God. Jesus believed the same (Mark 10:6). After Moses led the nation of Israel out of Egypt, would God have said it was O.K. to participate in the pagan ceremonies of the Canaanites as long as
    it was only a small part?
    Bernie, I am trying to learn from your own Jewish history!

    Terry Read

  • Willow

    Should a doctor or Catholic hospital that serves the community have to perform abortions and euthanasia where it is legal – no religious exemptions. Should churches who perform weddings be forced to perform gay weddings (polygamy when that comes too) – no religious exemptions

    Gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage. Interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage – The coming together of a man and a woman to protect and raise their biological children.

    • Ross Williams

      [[Gay marriage is not the same as interracial marriage]]

      You don’t get points for being right; you get points for being pertinent.
      You are not pertinent. Therefore being right cannot be determined.
      Interracial marriage “changed the definition of marriage” in the same way that gay marriage does. When the definition requires no racial intermixing, then allowing interracial marriage “changes the definition”.

      Such definitions, which impose a GOVERNMENTAL limitation on who can avail themselves, are not allowed by our Constitution, which requires EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.”

      I.e., the laws cannot make such distinctions.

      That is the exact same reason why the government cannot properly make distinctions as to whom may be denied service by a merchant. ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE are allowed to be denied service by merchants today. To declare some people off-limits exceeds the authority of the government to require.

      • KStrett

        “Interracial marriage “changed the definition of marriage” in the same way that gay marriage does.”

        Thedefinition of marriage is one man and one woman. Interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage. Interracial marriage bans were a restriction on an existing right.

        Two men or women getting married is changing the definition and the right of marriage. You are comparing an unconstitutional restriction on a right with a new right that has been invented out of thin air. This is comparing apples to oranges or the category error logical fallacy.

        • Ross Williams

          [[Thedefinition of marriage is one man and one woman]]

          In some places it was, yes. In most it was not.

          [[You are comparing an unconstitutional restriction on a right with a ... ]]

          Let me finish that sentence for you so you can be correct for once in your participation here:

          I am comparing an unconstitutional restriction on a right with ANOTHER unconstitutional restriction on a right.

          There, now don’t you feel better?

          • KStrett

            “In some places it was, yes. In most it was not.”

            You keep saying the same thing without addressing my point.

            If the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman in most places in the past, what was it?

            Please provide examples of two men or woman marrying each other in the 1700,1800, and 1900s. If you cannot do this, you must concede the definition of marriage is one man and one woman.

            “I am comparing an unconstitutional restriction on a right with ANOTHER unconstitutional restriction on a right.”

            No you are not.

            Two men or women getting married is changing the definition and the right of marriage. You are comparing an unconstitutional restriction on an existing right with a new right that has been invented out of thin air. This is comparing apples to oranges or the category error logical fallacy.

            You are comparing the existing right of marriage with an invented new right to redefine marriage.

            If that is you position you must believe polygamists have the exact same right homosexuals do to redefine marriage, correct?

          • Ross Williams

            [[If the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman in most places in the past, what was it?]]

            Do you not remember the hubbub about a decade ago? Gsys went into the county clerks’ offices in several states saying, “Lookit, dudette, the law doesn’t say we CAN’T, so you gotta let us have a license”? Remember?

            Remember how most clerks refused anyway, and were sued until the states frantically changed their laws? How some clerks gave out the license but the states frantically changed their laws?

            Or did you only start paying attention when it became sexy enough for you to get your self-righteous woody over it?

            [[Two men or women getting married is changing the definition and the right of marriage]]

            It’s not a definition that is allowed to exist in a nation that has Equal Protection.

            Period.

            Go throw your hypocrisy at someone new.

            .

            …and brush up on your logical fallacies. Most of them are “category” issues.

          • KStrett

            If the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman in most places in the past, what was it?

            Please provide examples of two men or women marrying each other in the 1700,1800, and 1900s. If you cannot do this, you must concede the definition of marriage is one man and one woman.

            “It’s not a definition that is allowed to exist in a nation that has Equal Protection.”

            In other words, everyone has an equal right to marry whomever they want.

            If that is your position you must believe polygamists have the exact same right homosexuals do to redefine marriage, correct?

          • JMax

            I think you are confusing the “definition” of marriage with the “practice” of marriage. Do you have a sources for a legal definition of marriage prior to 50 years ago?

          • KStrett

            Ross is attempting get out of his position on a technicality. His argument is this:

            If a state didn’t define marriage as one man and one woman, therefore the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman.

            His argument is fallacious. Just because a state didn’t explicitly define marriage that doesn’t mean the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman.

            Secondly, If the definition of marriage has not been one man and one woman, it follows logically that it must have been something else.

            If marriage meant something else, what was it?

            “Do you have a sources for a legal definition of marriage prior to 50 years ago?”

            You are
            1. Attempting to sift your explanatory burden to me.
            2. The argument is fallacious to begin with.

            If the definition of marriage has not been one man and one woman until recently it must have been something else, right?

            Please give me examples of marriage meaning something other than one man and one woman.

            We both know you can’t do this.

            Do you believe polygamist have the exact same fundamental right homosexuals do to redefine marriage?

          • JMax

            The legal definition of marriage in the United States has traditionally been people with a marriage license. Ever look at your federal tax form? Does it refer to “husband” and “wife”? No, it refers to “spouse”.

            There is no intent nor desire to “change the definition” of marriage. The intent is allow two people of legal age who want a license to get a license and for that license to be recognized by the government.

            “Just because a state didn’t explicitly define marriage that doesn’t mean the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman.”

            It was assumed based on tradition, not on definition.

            “If the definition of marriage has not been one man and one woman, it follows logically that it must have been something else.”

            Yes, the definition is two people with a license.

            “You are…attempting to sift your explanatory burden to me.”

            No, you are insisting that the definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman, and I’m asking you to back up that assertion with some sort of documentation.

            “Please give me examples of marriage meaning something other than one man and one woman.”

            There are thousands of legally married same sex couples in the US and thousands more in other countries. Same sex marriages are legal in something like 16 states now and are recognized by the Federal Government. Obviously marriage can mean something other than one man and one woman.

            “We both know you can’t do this.”

            I just did.

            As to polygamists, I’m not concerned about them. If they can show that they are being denied equal protection of the law without a compelling public or societal interest for that denial, they should give it a shot.

          • KStrett

            “Does it refer to “husband” and “wife”? No, it refers to “spouse”.”

            You are grasping at straws and being disingenuous. Spouse means person of the opposite sex. It means husband or wife. That is how spouse was
            defined.

            “There is no intent nor desire to “change the definition” of marriage.”

            You are completely ignoring everything I said and continuing on with the same fallacious argument.

            If a state didn’t explicitly define marriage as one man and one woman, therefore the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman.

            Just because a state didn’t explicitly define marriage that doesn’t mean the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman.

            I have already shown that Ross’ position is fallacious.

            “Yes, the definition is two people with a license.”

            This is completely false. The definition of marriage was not two people with a license. It is one man and one woman.

            You changed the definition of marriage before hand in a slight of hand trick to show discrimination.

            “No,you are insisting that the definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman, and I’m asking you to back up that assertion withsome
            sort of documentation.”

            The definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman. It is self evident. Two men or two women have never been able to marry until recently.

            If you want to argue that is incorrect please provide evidence that my contention is wrong, instead of shifting your explanatory burden to me.

            You cannot do this and you know it. You don’t want to admit that the rhetoric/ propaganda coming from the gay activists is incorrect. You cannot admit that gay people getting married is redefining marriage.

            “There are thousands of legally married same sex couples in the US and thousands more in other countries.”

            This is a red herring.

            “As to polygamists, I’m not concerned about them. If they can show that they are being denied equal protection”

            You are dodging the question.

            If group A is being discriminated because they are being denied the right to do X, all groups who are being denied the right to do X, are being discriminated against too.

            You have to believe polygamist are being discriminated against because they can’t change the definition of marriage too or you are being a hypocrite.

            Your response amounts to arguing that black people have the right to vote but you are not concerned about Hispanics. If Hispanics can show that they are being denied equal protection compelling public or societal interest etc…..

            Right apply to everyone not groups.

            I ask you again:

            1. Do you believe polygamist have the exact same fundamental right homosexuals do to redefine marriage?

            2. If marriage meant something other than one man and one woman until recently , what was it?

            3. Where were homosexuals getting married in the 1700, 1800, and 1900s in the United States?

          • JMax

            “Spouse means person of the opposite sex.”

            No it means the person you are married to.

            “That is how spouse was defined.”

            Now it means “either member of a married pair in relation to the other.”

            “If a state didn’t explicitly define marriage as one man and one woman,
            therefore the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman.”

            This is a logical fallacy. It could be that “one man and one woman” was only one of several ways in which a marriage might exist.

            “The definition of marriage was not two people with a license. It is one man and one woman.”

            Prior to recently passed laws, where did such a definition exist?

            “The definition of marriage has always been one man and one woman. It is
            self evident. Two men or two women have never been able to marry until
            recently.”

            This is false. Here is evidence:
            http://marriage.laws.com/gay/same-sex/history-same-sex-marriage

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

            Be that as it may, the fact that they CAN marry now proves that the “traditional” marriage no longer has sole possession of the word. For millennia humans could not fly. Now they can. Things change.

            “You cannot do this and you know it.”

            Once again I just did.

            “You cannot admit that gay people getting married is redefining marriage.”

            I can’t “admit” something that isn’t true.

            “If group A is being discriminated because they are being denied the
            right to do X, all groups who are being denied the right to do X, are
            being discriminated against too.”

            This is not the case. The state may deny rights to certain groups of people if it has a compelling interest to do so. This has been the case for polygamy, incest, driving, drinking, smoking, etc. To date no body has been able to demonstrate a compelling interest for the state to deny due process, equal protection, and marriage to same sex couples.

            “You have to believe polygamist are being discriminated against because
            they can’t change the definition of marriage too or you are being a
            hypocrite.”

            States have made excellent arguments that there is a compelling interest to the state to deny polygamist marriage. I am not a hypocrite.

            “Your response amounts to arguing that black people have the right to vote but you are not concerned about Hispanics.”

            Pffft!

            1. I reject the premise of the question. There is no redefining marriage involved. Do they have a right to marry? Let them make their case.

            2. Marriage meant a legal compact between two people to live together as a couple, share assets, and have legal family and financial rights.

            3. They weren’t getting married legally which is not to say that they and others didn’t consider themselves “married”. Where were all the mixed race marriages in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s in the US?

          • KStrett

            You are not answering my questions!

            “1. I reject the premise of the question. There is no redefining marriage involved. Do they have a right to marry? Let them make their case.”

            You can not just reject a premise. You have to show it is false. If two men or woman getting married is not redefining marriage, when have gay couples even been able to marry each other in America’s history other than recently?

            You can not show this because homosexual couple have never been able to get married other than recently. You conceded this!

            Citing gay couples marrying in Rome 2000 years ago doesn’t work. Citing recent changes in marriage that have usually been because of judicial activism doesn’t work either as I specifically said other than recently.

            Your own logic chain dictates that polygamists have to be discriminated against because they want to do the exact same thing homosexual couples want.

            You say homosexual couples are being discriminated against, therefore polygamists have to be discriminated against because they are being denied the exact same right to marry whom they want too.

            You will not answer the question because it either

            1. Makes you completely hypocritical.

            or

            2. You are forced to admit you want the total deconstruction of the institution of marriage and you are forcing your view on the rest of the culture.

            “2. Marriage meant a legal compact between two people to live together asa couple, share assets, and have legal family and financial rights.”

            You are using the exact same slight of hand trick that you used in your last post. Marriage meant and means one man and one woman not two people.

            “3. They weren’t getting married legally which is not to say that they and others didn’t consider themselves “married”.”

            In other words, they were not getting married and you have conceded my point! Therefore you have conceded that two men or woman is a redefinition of marriage.

            “Where were all the mixed race marriages in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s in the US?”

            You are using the exact same category error logical fallacy all homosexual redefinition of marriage proponents use.

            The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Interracial marriage did not change the definition. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing an unconstitutional restriction on an existing right with a new right that was made up out of thin air.

            “This is not the case. The state may deny rights to certain groups of people if it has a compelling interest to do so.”

            No they can’t. Rights apply to everyone. There is no justified discrimination clause in the Constitution. Everyone has the right to vote when they turn 18. Everyone has the right to free speech.

            There is no clause to the constitution that says everyone can vote when they turn 18 except for group A or everyone has the right to free speech except for group B.

            “No it means the person you are married to.”

            The person you are married to a person of the opposite sex. You are still attempting to use Ross’ fallacious argument!

            1. Do you believe polygamist have the exact same fundamental right homosexuals do to redefine marriage?

            You keep dodging the question and refuse to answer it.

            2. If marriage meant something other than one man and one woman until recently , what was it?

            You are still attempting to use Ross’ flawed argument that I have shown to be fallacious.

            3. Where were homosexuals getting married in the 1700, 1800, and 1900s in the United States?

            You conceded my point.

          • JMax

            “You can not just reject a premise.”

            Of course I can. Your premise is that someone is redefining marriage. I say they are not. Marriage is not being redefined. The change is who is eligible.

            “You can not show this because homosexual couple have never been able to get married other than recently. You conceded this!”

            Uhuh. But that doesn’t mean marriage is being redefined. It means that eligibility is being broadened.

            “Citing gay couples marrying in Rome 2000 years ago doesn’t work.”

            Why not? You say that marriage has “always” been between one man and one woman. I’ve shown that that is false.

            “Judicial activism” yada yada yada. It’s only activism if it is counter to your belief. Now Citizens United and the Voter Rights act-there’s some judicial activism.

            “You say homosexual couples are being discriminated against, therefore
            polygamists have to be discriminated against because they are being
            denied the exact same right to marry whom they want too.”

            I’ve said no such thing. I’m saying polygamists may be discriminated against but that discrimination may be justified because there is a compelling public interest to do so. This is settled law. There has to be a compelling public interest to deny someone their rights and nobody has ever come up with a compelling interest to deny gays the right to marry someone of the same sex.

            “You will not answer the question because it either…”

            I don’t know where you come up with this crap.

            “You are forced to admit you want the total deconstruction of the
            institution of marriage and you are forcing your view on the rest of the
            culture.”

            I want no such thing and reject the premise that gay marriage would have any such effect. Who exactly is forcing their view on the rest of the culture…besides you?

            “Marriage meant and means one man and one woman not two people.”

            Not in sixteen states and the District of Columbia. Maybe more; what day is it?

            “In other words, they were not getting married and you have conceded my point!”

            I have a gay friend who married his husband in California even though it was not legally recognized at the time. Everybody who was at the wedding will tell you they were married. I have not conceded your point. There is no redefining of marriage, just a change in who is eligible.

            “Interracial marriage did not change the definition.”

            Of course it didn’t. Loving v. Virginia changed who was eligible to marry, not what marriage was.

            “a new right that was made up out of thin air. ”

            Wrong. Marriage is a right or it isn’t. The question is who is eligible and what is the compelling public interest in denying that right to anyone.

            “Rights apply to everyone.”

            What country do you live in. Does an inmate have a right to walk the street? No, because there is a compelling public interest to deny him that right.

            Why doesn’t someone under 18 have the right to vote? They are part of everyone, right? The law says there is a compelling public interest to deny
            them the vote, and to deny them the right to buy cigarettes and liquor.

            States can and have barred marriage between minors because they believe there is a compelling interest to do so. Likewise for incestual and polygamous marriages. It’s settled law.

            I don’t give a crap about Ross and his argument. I don’t even know what his argument is.

            Clearly there are legal marriages where someone is married to someone who is NOT of the opposite sex.

            I am not particularly interested in the rights of polygamists. The law says the state has a compelling interest in denying them marriage. They are free to try to persuade the lawmakers that that compelling interest is no longer valid. I say they should go for it. Again, nobody has ever successfully made the case that there is a compelling public interest in denying gays the right to marriage.

            I have answered your question several times now.

            It means what it always meant. The only difference is who is eligible.

            You keep asking the same question over and over again. And who the hell is Ross.

            I have conceded nothing, obviously.

          • KStrett

            “I say they are not. Marriage is not being redefined. The change is who is eligible.”

            1. You conceded that homosexuals have never been able to marry in America’s past history.

            2. You have failed to provide any example of marriage meaning something other than one man and one woman in America’s past history.

            Thus, you have conceded that two homosexuals marring is a redefinition of marriage.

            The definition of marriage has always meant one man and one woman in this country until recently. If the definition of marriage has been the same for 200 years, two men or woman has to be redefining the definition of marriage.

            “But that doesn’t mean marriage is being redefined. It means that eligibility is being broadened.”

            Yes it does and your response is a distinction without a difference. If you want to object on the grounds that marriage is not being redefined you need to show marriage meant something other than one man and one woman in America’s past.

            Again, you have already conceded you can’t do this, which is conceding my point.

            “I’m saying polygamists may be discriminated against but that discrimination may be”

            There is no justified discrimination clause of the constitution. Everyone has the exact same rights. Your concept of right are backward. You have a right by default.

            Your objection amounts to arguing that black people have an inalienable right to vote but Hispanics do not or there might be a justified reason for denying Hispanics the right to vote.

            “There has to be a compelling public interest to deny someone their rights and nobody has ever come up with a compelling interest to deny gays the right to marry someone of the same sex.”

            You are assuming that redefining marriage is a right and it is not. If you want to change the definition of marriage the burden is one you to make the case.

            Again, if redefining marriage is a right, it is a right for everyone. There is no compelling reason to deny my right to marry two women, therefore I should be able to marry two woman, right?

            You do believe that a judge should force the state I live in to allow me to marry two women, right?

            You can go back to dodging and obfuscating. We both know you will not answer the question.

            “I don’t know where you come up with this crap.”

            I have asked you the same question 20 times and you have not answered it. It is transparently obvious that you do not want to admit the ramifications of your own logic chain.

            You do believe that a judge should force the state I live in to allow me to marry two women, right?

            Yes or No?

            “I want no such thing and reject the premise that gay marriage would have any such effect.”

            You just attempted to use a justified discrimination objection for polygamy!

            If group A is being discriminated against because they can’t do X, so must group B.

            “Who exactly is forcing their view on the rest of the culture…besides you?”

            At one point redefinition of marriage for gay people went 0-30. People don’t want it. Despite that, judicial activists created a new right and forced everyone to accept it.

            “I have a gay friend who married his husband”

            You keep pretending I am not asking an example of the definition of marriage meaning something else prior to recently. You keep citing recent marriages, which does absolutely nothing as a defeater to my point.

            “I have not conceded your point.”

            Yes you have! You admitted you cannot cite one example of marriage meaning something other than one man and one woman in America’s past! That is conceding my point!

            “Of course it didn’t. Loving v. Virginia changed who was eligible to marry, not what marriage was.”

            You have conceded my other point. Interracial marriage didn’t change the definition of marriage. However, two men or woman does change the definition. Hence, the category error you made comparing the two.

            “” Does an inmate have a right to walk the street?”

            They broke the law and were tried and convicted. You don’t have the right to commit crimes. However, prior to committing the crime they had the right to walk the street by default. They automatically have that right and will have it again when they get out of jail.

            “Why doesn’t someone under 18 have the right to vote?”

            Everyone has the right to vote when they turn 18. That is a restriction on a right that applies to everyone not a select group.

            “States can and have barred marriage between minors”

            When minors reach the correct age the States says is permissible, they can be married. The restriction applies to everyone not certian select groups!

            These restrictions are not comparable to what you need to show for justifiable discrimination. You can’t cite one example where one group is singled out and doesn’t have a right that everyone has.

            You would need an example like the KKK doesn’t have the exact same free speech rights everyone else has and will never have them.

            “Clearly there are legal marriages where someone is married to someone who is NOT of the opposite sex.”

            How many times are you disingenuously going to attempt this? I am asking for an example of marriage meaning something other than one man and one woman PRIOR TO RECENTLY!

            “I am not particularly interested in the rights of polygamists.”

            You just conceded you are a hypocrite. Polygamists want the exact same right homosexuals do but you are only concerned with homosexuals rights?

            “The law says the state has a compelling interest in denying them marriage.”

            A bisexual man wants to marry a man and a woman. He loves both of them. Homosexuals are being discriminated against because they are being denied the right to redefine marriage, therefore the bisexual man has to be discriminated against too because he can’t redefine marriage.

            What compelling interest do you have to deny him the exact same right you believe homosexuals have?

            “They are free to try to persuade the lawmakers that that compelling interest is no longer valid”

            Your concept of rights are completely backward. We automatically have rights by default. If redefining marriage is in fact a right, polygamists automatically have that exact same right.

            In other words, if a judge rules black people have the alienable right to vote, all races have the exact same right to vote and any law that bars another race from voting has to be struck down by the judge’s ruling.

            Your argument is the equivalent of holding the position black people have the unalienable right to vote but Hispanics may or may not have the right to vote. The state might have a compelling interest to deny Hispanics the exact same right to vote. This argument is absurd!

            “I have answered your question several times now.”

            No you have not!

            “It means what it always meant.”

            An apple is defined as fruit. Ten years ago people starting referring to meat as apples. Has the definition of apple changed?

            “You keep asking the same question over”

            You keep refusing to answer my questions.

            Do polygamists have the exact same right homosexuals do to redefine marriage?

            Saying you are not concerned with polygamy isn’t answering the question. Introducing the concept of justifiable discrimination and attempting to be aloof about whether or not polygamists should have their day in court isn’t answer the question either.

            option 1: Yes polygamist have the exact same right

            option 2: No they don’t have the exact same right.

            Option #1 or #2 is an answer and attempting to obfuscate isn’t.

            “I have conceded nothing, obviously.”

            You have but you don’t realize it.

          • JMax

            OMG, you are running around in circles saying the same thing several times in this one post alone.

            1. That is not proven. How many tried to marry legally prior to the last few decades?

            2. You have failed to provide any evidence that one man and one woman marriage was any more than a tradition and an assumption. You have failed to cite any law that codified that assumption.

            I have steadfastly refused to admit or accept that there was any codified “definition” of marriage as one man and one woman prior to the last couple of decades that could be “redefined”.

            “The definition of marriage has always meant one man and one woman in this country until recently.” No that was the tradition but not the definition.

            “you need to show marriage meant something other than one man and one woman in America’s past.”

            Au contraire. You first need to show that marriage was DEFINED as one man and one woman rather than assumed according to tradition.

            “Again, you have already conceded you can’t do this, which is conceding my point”

            I haven’t so it isn’t.

            “Everyone has the exact same rights.”

            I’ve already easily demonstrated that that isn’t true. A convicted felon does not have the right to vote. A person under age 21 does not have the right to drink. Etc. It is settled law that the government can deny the rights of some people if there is a compelling public interest in doing so.

            “Your objection amounts to arguing that black people have an inalienable right to vote but Hispanics do not”

            Not by any logic.

            “You are assuming that redefining marriage is a right”

            Never did, never have. Marriage is a right. “Redefining” marriage is a red herring.

            “If you want to change the definition of marriage the burden is one you to make the case.”

            Again I reject the argument that marriage is being redefined. That said, it is the burden of the government (or you) to provide a compelling public interest in denying gays the right to marry. Nobody has ever done so.

            “You do believe that a judge should force the state I live in to allow me to marry two women, right?”

            I don’t believe any such thing. I believe that if you want to marry two women and you sue the state, the judge must ask the state to provide a compelling public interest for denying you that right.

            “You just attempted to use a justified discrimination objection for polygamy!”

            I did not. I said the state has decided there is a compelling interest to deny them the right, but if the polygamists sue, the state will be forced to prove the compelling interest exists.

            “If group A is being discriminated against because they can’t do X, so must group B.”

            If that is true, why can adults drink but minors can’t?

            “You admitted you cannot cite one example of marriage meaning something other than one man and one woman in America’s past!”

            I didn’t admit that. By your silence you admitted that you can not find any codification of your so-called “definition” of marriage.

            “Interracial marriage didn’t change the definition of marriage.”

            According the the state of Virginia it did. Of course what it really did was change who was eligible.

            “However, two men or woman does change the definition.”

            No, it doesn’t any more than interracial marriage does.

            “You don’t have the right to commit crimes.”

            Everyone has the right to walk the streets. You said it by default. But the state says there is a compelling interest to the public to deny a felon that right.

            “That is a restriction on a right that applies to everyone not a select group.”

            It IS a select group: people under 18.

            “The restriction applies to everyone not certian select groups!”

            Underage persons ARE a select group.

            “You can’t cite one example where one group is singled out and doesn’t have a right that everyone has.”

            I just did. Minors, felons. married people.

            “You just conceded you are a hypocrite.”

            No I didn’t. Polygamists have not pushed for multiple marriage rights. If they do and I agree that the state has no compelling interest in denying that right, I might care, but I don’t personally know any polygamists so I’m not personally invested in the issue. On the other hand I personally know a number of gay couples who would like to be legally married and I would like them to be able to do so.

            “Homosexuals are being discriminated against because they are being denied the right to redefine marriage”

            No, they are being denied the right to marry.

            “therefore the bisexual man has to be discriminated against too because he can’t redefine marriage.”

            That would be true theoretically if gays were redefining marriage, but they aren’t. They want a license for two people to marry. The discrimination against a threesome is based on what the state (not me) believes is a compelling interest to deny them the right to marriage. You have yet to provide a compelling public interest to deny gays the right. I don’t think you have even tried.

            “We automatically have rights by default.”

            If so, why do you deny the right to gays?

            “If redefining marriage is in fact a right,”

            It isn’t. It’s a red herring.

            “Your argument is the equivalent of holding the position black people have the unalienable right to vote but Hispanics may or may not have the right to vote.”

            Not by any logic in the known universe.

            “The state might have a compelling interest to deny Hispanics the exact same right to vote.”

            The state might say that broccoli is a fruit, but the odds on that are pretty long.

            “Ten years ago people starting referring to meat as apples.”

            I missed that. Was it reported in any scientific journal. Or on Fox? Meat and apples are objects, not legal contracts.

            “You keep refusing to answer my questions.”

            I’ve answered them every time. You don’t like the answers.

            “Do polygamists have the exact same right homosexuals do to redefine marriage?”

            Jeez, here we go again. It’s a nonsense question as I have pointed out above. There is no right to redefine marriage. And nobody that I know of is claiming that right.

            I have clearly demonstrated that I have conceded none of your points.

          • KStrett

            An apple is defined as fruit. Ten years ago people starting referring to meat as apples. Has the definition of apple changed?

          • JMax

            No.

            Is a red delicious an apple but a granny smith isn’t? If a farmer bred a new distinct variety of apple would that change the definition of apple or simply add to the varieties that qualify?

          • KStrett

            You are seriously arguing if a group of people launched a PR campaign and wanted to start referring to meat as apples that is not changing the definition of apple?

            You are being dishonest and you know it. The reason you are doing this is because if you answer honestly you are forced to admit two men or woman marring each other redefines marriage.

            “Is a red delicious an apple but a granny smith isn’t? If a farmer bred a
            new distinct variety of apple would that change the definition of apple
            or simply add to the varieties that qualify?”

            Nice straw-man. The variety of apples describe the same fruit. All apples are the basically the same, they just have different colors.

            marriage = One man and one woman. Two men or two woman = different definition.

            Once again, your own logic chain would also apply to Polygamy. Polygamy is just a different variety, right?

            Yes or No?

          • JMax

            “You are seriously arguing if a group of people launched a PR campaign
            and wanted to start referring to meat as apples that is not changing the
            definition of apple?”

            No, I’m suggesting that it’s nonsense and nobody would go for it. Furthermore, as far as gay marriage, your example is apples and oranges. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

            I cannot EVER admit that gay marriage redefines marriage. A marriage is both a legal agreement and personal commitment to be a couple, join finances and fortunes, raise children if desired, and enjoy the social, legal, financial, and healthcare benefits of such a union. Gay marriage does not change that. A gay marriage is basically the same but with different colors.

            My logic would not apply to polygamy. So the answer is no. Different numbers is not the same as different colors.

          • KStrett

            “No, I’m suggesting that it’s nonsense and nobody would go for it.”

            Notice what you aren’t doing, ANSWERING THE QUESTION!

            “A marriage is both a legal agreement and personal commitment t”

            ….Between one man and one woman. You keep leaving that part out.

            “My logic would not apply to polygamy.”

            YES IT DOES!

            Group A wants to get married and is being denied a marriage license. Group B wants to get married and is being denied a marriage license too.

            If you can’t hold the position that group A is being discriminated because they are being denied a marriage license but group B isn’t.

            “I cannot EVER admit that gay marriage redefines marriage”

            I know because then you would be forced to admit everyone has the exact same right to change the definition of marriage and you want to force this view on everyone.

            Instead of doing that, you revert to dodging questions, equivocation, and intellectual gymnastics to get around the ramifications of your own position.

          • JMax

            “Notice what you aren’t doing, ANSWERING THE QUESTION!”

            Can’t answer a nonsense question.

            “You keep leaving that part out.”

            Because it was never codified before a couple of decades ago.

            “If you can’t hold the position that group A is being discriminated
            because they are being denied a marriage license but group B isn’t.”

            Not a complete sentence, but I’m not sure that I said one group was discriminated against and another wasn’t. I’ve said that discrimination of one group may be justified by a compelling public interest to discriminate.

            Nobody has a right to change the definition and nobody is trying to do so. Redefining marriage is a red herring. I have no desire to force any view on anyone. I just desire explain why there is not the least bit of hypocrisy in what I’m saying.

            I’m not dodging questions that make sense and I’m not equivocating. Real logic may seem like intellectual gymnastics to you, but that’s not my fault.

          • JMax

            I would suggest to you that you read the decision handed down today by the Detroit Michigan Senior District judge finding the Michigan Marriage Amendment unconstitutional. The written decision addresses pretty much every argument offered by those who oppose same-sex marriage.

            https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1094703-friedman-ruling.html

            Let me know what you think.

          • albert levy

            How about three successful women,over 40,no children,and all three say they are madly in love with each other.How about that marriage being approved??

          • Nizzemancer

            What definition of a christian marriage would you be referring to:
            1 Man 1 Woman?

            1 Man several women?.
            1 man 1 prisoner of war?
            1 man and his rape victim?
            1 man and child bride sold by her father?

            They are all there in your little book.

          • KStrett

            Until recently when has the definition of marriage meant something other than one man and one woman in America?

          • Nizzemancer

            I’m not going to keep on arguing with you, you obviously have more time than I wish to spend on you (based on the vast amount of comments you’ve already posted here) and not enough common sense to change your mind over something that makes no difference to you but would mean the world to someone else, all bcause you’re afraid you might start to like having Bill O’reillys dick in your mouth.

          • KStrett

            You are talking about time but instead of answering my question you wasted your time posting this garbage?

            “but would mean the world to someone else,”

            If would also mean the world to Charlie Sheen to marry two women.

            Does he have the exact same right that you believe homosexuals do to redefine marriage to include one man and two woman?

            “you’ve already posted here) and not enough common sense to change your mind over something that makes no difference to you”

            Judges legislating from the bench and inventing new rights while ignoring the will of the people does make a difference to me.

            It should make a difference to you too because the pendulum can swing both ways.

          • Nizzemancer

            Now you’re arguing about something different, are you going to pull up the old pedophile or beastialy-argument next?
            2 people of the opposite sex
            2 people of the same sex
            3 people of 2 sexes
            3 people of the same sex
            Notice where the difference lies?

            Ah yes the will of the people. the thing about that is the will of the people aren’t always benevolent and sometimes the masses should not be allowed to dictate the rights of the lessers, just look at the elections of 1932 Germany,

            I’m done here.

          • KStrett

            Until recently when has the definition of marriage meant something other than one man and one woman in America?

            “Notice where the difference lies?”

            If group A is being discriminated against because they can’t do X, so must group B if they are being denied X.

            Do polygamist have the exact same right that you believe homosexuals do to redefine marriage to include one man and two woman?

            “just look at the elections of 1932 Germany,”

            Electing the Nazi party into the majority of German government is the equivalent of people believing redefining marriage is not a constitutional right?

      • Keith

        “You don’t get points for being right; you get points for being pertinent.You are not pertinent. Therefore being right cannot be determined.
        Interracial marriage “changed the definition of marriage” in the same way that gay marriage does. When the definition requires no racial intermixing, then allowing interracial marriage “changes the definition”.”

        Not true one bit. Interracial marriage does not interfere with the natural biology of humankind. Homosexual marriage says that gender does not matter. Fathers and mothers do not matter. One’s manhood or womanhood do not matter.

        Sorry, but yours is a hollow argument at best.

        • Ross Williams

          [[ Interracial marriage does not interfere with the natural biology of humankind]]
          I beg your pardon? There are people today who would dangle you by the neck from a lamppost for claiming that interracial marriage is perfectly fine.

          • Darrell Maynard

            and I guess in your mind that makes it right

          • Ross Williams

            [[I guess in your mind that makes it right]]

            Grow up, son.

            It makes it TRUE. And, because it’s TRUE, it negates the arguments that it’s any different from any other form of bigotry manifesting itself through rationalized social ritual and custom.

            There is no meaningful, legal difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage. Anyone who tries to concoct a distinction is deceiving himself. Anyone who attempts to use biology – in any of its forms – to do it is advertising a gross ignorance of biology.

    • Thewryobservator

      You are both pertinent and right -and the laws, until recently, were based on the view of marriage you are espousing. Points awarded.

  • Thewryobservator

    Maybe a little ahead of his time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYzmcCwRU7M

  • Thewryobservator

    This opinion piece may not be accurately representing the nature of the law in question. For example:

    http://www.adfmedia.org/files/

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/columns/east_valley_voices/article_3e3237be-9e66-11e3-bcce-0019bb2963f4.html

    http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/sb1062-valley-couple-speaks-out-in-favor-of-controversial-bill?autoplay=true

    One of the things that homosexual activists do is deliberately
    target for punitive retribution people and businesses who transgress their definition of “tolerance.”. I don’t know if that is the situation in the Arizona case, but it is certainly a legal strategy they use in order to advance their
    agenda. Feminist’s do the same thing, as they did in my locale when a
    Christian church started an all-boys football team and found themselves
    being investigated by the state for discrimination.

    There’s little doubt that someone would have fallen over themselves
    to bake this wedding cake, if for no other reason than to spite social
    conservatives, the Republican party, or people with a Judeo-Christian
    worldview (consider the sell-out of the jersey for the fist openly
    homosexual NFL player.) This law may have served to stem the tide of
    what is now a mild form of religious and social persecution, a tide that
    probably won’t be mild long.

    In most cases no one is going to refuse a service unless, and this
    particularly applies in the arena of homo-sex, you get in their faces
    and make sure to make the point. Wedding cakes, of course, are one of
    the exceptional instances where “in your face” is inherent the request-
    no other cakes or services would be obvious.

    I get Mr. Goldberg’s point. I’m not sure it applies to this case.

  • loupgarous

    Mr. Goldberg, the central idea of your column is a straw-man argument, I believe. You go beyond the simple refusal of a baker to provide part of a celebration for what he (or “they” in the Oregon case) views as an abomination to predict all sorts of dire consequences if business owners aren’t compelled to provide services in violation of their personal beliefs.

    Okay, under your own philosophy, glatt kosher delis are a thing of the past – anyone can demand the proprietor of such an establishment to serve up lobster and bacon. Likewise, halal butchers would have to, on demand, serve pork. We already, whether you admit it or not, allow some small businessmen (and large ones, such as Hebrew National) latitude in what they will or will not provide their customers. You’re just picking and choosing the people who get to do that.

    • Ron F

      The couple asked for a wedding cake, which was part of the service that the baker provided. No one asked the baker to provide a service that the baker provided to the general public. There is no law, other than in the medical field, that I know of that requires a business to provide a specific service. The issue is whether a business that provides a service or products to the general public can deny service to some patrons on religious grounds.

    • Thewryobservator

      And this characterization of the law may not even be accurate. For example: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/SB1062LegalProfsLetter.pdf

      One of the things that homosexual activists do is deliberately target. I don’t know if that is the case in the Arizona case, but it is certainly a legal strategy they use in order to advance an agenda. There’s little doubt that someone would have fallen over themselves to bake this wedding cake, if for no other reason than to spite social conservatives, the Republican party, or people with a Judeo-Christian worldview (consider the sell-out of the jersey for the fist openly homosexual NFL player.) This law may have served to stem the tide of what is a mild form of religious and social persecution (one that probably won’t be mild long.)

      In most cases, no one is going to refuse a service unless, and this particularly applies in the arena of homo-sex, you get in their faces and make sure to make the point. Wedding cakes, of course, are one of the very few instances where “in you face” is inherent in the nature of the request- no other cakes or services would be obvious.

      I get Mr. Goldberg’s point. I’m not sure it applies to this case.

    • Nizzemancer

      Your interpetation of his article is beyond stupid, he’s not saying that you should be able to call a carpenter and get the same services as from a prostitute or any other random job-swapping retardations, he’s saying that “the halal butcher” sell pork to a certain group of people but not another and they shouldn’t be allowed to excuse it by citing religion.

  • Rose

    The reason a school child may be embarrassed or upset about being on free lunch is that mean children and even adults mock them. There is a lot of cruelty directed at the poor. Kids learn to mock and taunt poor children. Teachers and adult workers in lunchrooms, etc show their disdain.

    • Rose

      We’ve all seen it. Smirks and sneers in the grocery line if someone uses a snap card. Cruelty makes a child feel the pain of being poor.

      • George Williams

        Actually, I think your lying again. I doubt that you live anywhere in proximity to the poor and are just making it up, as you do most of your crap.

      • Tim Ned

        Their pain is a result of being poor. Not because they are getting assistance.

        • George Williams

          The pain of poverty has been a greater motivator for achievement than making people comfortable in it, the tactic of the Democratic Party for decades.

          • Tim Ned

            Right on.

      • Deborah G

        It isn’t smirks or smears it is the result of working peole getting hammered by the government to give people their money without doing a thing for it. It is annoyance and anger.The OBAMA Government induced bias,. Same with illegals, the Liberal progressive government has allowed them special privilage to be here wants to hand them more ergo government induced racism

    • George Williams

      Have any evidence that that’s widespread behavior. You’re never going to change the behavior of all people to conform to the concept of Christian or Jewish charity. That’s life and the recipients have to suck it up.

    • Josh

      I’m not sure when or where you went to school, but that being “the” reason is a blanket statement that’s really supported by nothing than an emotional guess, most likely realized by empathizing with a caricature of the poor.

      It can be “a” reason. Nobody wants to be outside of what’s considered normal. Some kids have a tough go of it and are made fun of. Though from experience, I also know that poorer kids can be among the bullies. Kids whose parents don’t have money are sometimes in that situation because their parents are substance abusers or just losers. Some of the kids develop bad attitudes and become the ones making fun of others, not the ones being made fun of.

      Kids mock. Period. “Poor children” is just one of the many different reasons a kid may be mocked. Kids whose parents have money are also mocked. I remember kids being made fun of and bullied, particularly through high school, due to parents who provided them with more than others. “Your mama buy you that? Your punk-a$$ is spoiled. Preppy pu$$y loser mama’s boy. I’ll bet she’ll buy me something when I give it to her” and so on.

      Again, not sure when or where you came up, but in my neck of the woods, and in similar environments, the poor are amongst the toughest little SOBs around.

      And speaking as a kid who grew up on the underside of poor, there’s nothing more upsetting or embarrassing than being made into a charity case that needs protecting.

    • Ross Williams

      [[ Kids learn to mock and taunt poor children]]

      Kids don’t “learn” this behavior. It’s innate. It is a mechanism for establishing pecking order – a trait of EVERY species more developed than an insect.

      That’s as vapid a statement as the one popular a generation ago: “spanking is bad because it teaches a child violence.” Anyone who says that obvious has never been around children from infancy through their development to toddlers.

  • Rose
    • Tim ned

      Madison.com is a very liberal site. Comments pertaining to any Republican candidate on this website should never ever be considered anything even close to the facts. And for that matter, any comments pertaining to a Democrat can’t be trusted as well.

      Paul Ryan apologized on his Facebook page and explained where the story came from. Case Closed.

      Now let’s talk about some facts that really impact American people. How about those Democrats going out in the upcoming elections to apologize for the six years of lying about Obamacare. Ain’t going to happen!

  • George Williams

    This is about the politics of acceptable dotrine. The left uses the law to impose its beliefs upon others when it can’t use rational argument. The communists have never pursuaded except by use of cercion by force of law or force of the gun.

    • Rose

      You know there used to be a rather viable communist party in this country. They were communist by choice. They even ran candidates and held party meetings in the old days.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Reminiscing on the good old days, Rose?

      • George Williams

        That party still exists, though known as the Democratic Party. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Pelosi et al are making that possible every day, destroying the doers and transferring their wealth to the takers; the ne’er do wells, incompetents, uneducated and lazy, the subject of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”. She knew them well, as she once lived under communism. The takers are the constituency of Barack Obama, who uses Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” as his bible, publication that sanctions deceit as tool in its ends-justifies-means politics.

      • Integrity

        Perhaps you should allocate some of your limited time to read Animal Farm by George Orwell. QED

      • Tim Ned

        Viable?

      • loupgarous

        And stole blueprints for patented industrial processes (try Googling “Amtorg”) and secret design information for nuclear weapons that arguably took four to ten years off of the Soviet development time line for fission and fusion nuclear devices.

  • Rose

    Speaking of baking cakes, apparently Paul Ryan told a story at CPAC as if it were his own but alas it was from a children’s book or something about a real homeless child. Why do people do that? The internet makes it super easy to look up words, phrases, paragraphs to see the source.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      You can’t go 5 minutes without lying, can you? He said at the time that it wasn’t his story. He even cited who told him that story.

      What’s wrong with you?

      • George Williams

        Her mindless hate destroys her reading comprehension, as is often the case with extreme lefties.

        • Rose

          Well, Ryan apologized and apparently he tried to use the story as a way to exploit it for his own gains. And not properly sourcing is just unforgivable.

          • loupgarous

            Read the article http://m.host.madison.com/wsj/… – from the get-go Paul Ryan appropriately sourced the story to an associate of his, who, when asked about it, correctly gave credit to the story’s original author. You’re just pathetically eager to condemn people who didn’t do anything wrong, aren’t you?

          • George Williams

            That’s irrelevent to Rose and her friends. What matters is the “facts” that they invent.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            That’s not what he apologized for. You’re lying again.

          • Jeff Webb

            I’m not up to speed on the whole story. Did he apologize to the familes of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty for the fact that Rose’s beloved Barack & Hillary never apologized for lying to their faces?

          • George Williams

            It’s interesting that your party’s Aha! moments turn out to be either outrageoulsy taken out of context, convoluted logic, irratonal arguments or downright fabrications. I take comfort in the fact that once again yours fits my preconcieved notion of what progressives do.

        • Rose

          I see George woke up from his latest coma.

          • George Williams

            I’ll put my ability tor reason as a trained chemical engineer over one who I perceive as that of the product of overly emotional leftist ideology who lives in a world of unicorns and pink ponys that defies common sense. By the way, Rose, that masters degree in basket weaving you got out of that crackerjack box is redeemable for a menage et trois with Barack and Michelle, courtesy of the Democratic Party..

      • Rose

        Well, it all over tv and twitter that he did something wrong. Wonder what all the hubbub is about?

        • loupgarous

          You still trust TV news and Twitter to be truthful? Even after MSNBC and FoxNews have established that no matter what TV news is, it’s not impartial? And even when Twitter has basically been something between a fever swamp of malarial political bias and a sewer of hate speech?

          • George Williams

            Facts only come into play for the neo communists like Rose when they favor her party’s position. People like her and her friends are disinformation mongers.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Maybe if you took the time to actually read the story, you’d know what the “hubbub” is about. Spoiler alert: It’s about nothing.

        • Tim Ned

          Read quotes from Winston Churchill, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”.

          Now with Twitter, it happens before the truth can get out of bed.

          • Jeff Webb

            Yep, it’s this dang interweb thingy. : )>

      • Integrity

        I guess a Rose by any other name would not smell as sweet. QED

  • George Williams

    Perhaps you’re right, Bernie, but since businesses which selectively choose who they serve consequently put a limit their profits, and offend many who may not agree with their policies, they will not stay in business long. This is the prime reason that there are few businesses that discreiminate today. The profitable ones are those that don’t.

    • loupgarous

      I agree with George here, Mr Goldberg. The hidden hand of the market will suffice to punish people who arbitrarily deny services to potential customers for reasons that don’t hold water. Here in Mississippi, a defense of religious freedom law is in committee in the state house; it doesn’t differ significantly from the federal defense of religious freedom law, but having a state statute on the books allows Mississippi’s citizens a layer of defense against Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts’ curious way of interpreting Federal laws.

  • mcweijun

    Don’t worry Bernie. The secular progressive war on God and the politically correct posture on homosexuality will soon have our kids so confused they won’t know who they are. Skin head lesbian nuns will be teaching at Catholic schools. It will be o.k. to have sex with a man or a woman or a transgender or a horse for that matter. “What will it be Mac? I’ll have a scotch neat and bring my horse here a Vodka Martini up.”

    • Rose

      Kids and young people don’t seem to be having as much trouble adjusting to society’s changes as old people are. The oldsters are the confused, addled and panicked ones. Call me crazy but I doubt people will be marrying snapping turtles or jersey cows.

      • George Williams

        Children are impressionable. Society changes under the influence of politics, and the left has been indoctrinating them for a long time now.

        • Rose

          Gee, guess their parents and churches have zero influence. How silly. Kids today have lots of info and can make up their minds about things and they know when grandpa starts to get moldy and muddled.

          • George Williams

            Yes, old fashioned ideas of honesty, forthrightness, good faith effort, right and wrong are getting moldy and muddled, probably by the acts of our president when he lied to us about Obamacare doctor-insurance retention, and the statistics concering enrollees and the video causing the attack on Benghazi. I’m sure glad we have Mr. Obama to rid of those moldy and muddled virtues.

          • George Williams

            Schools have children in their charge 6-hrs of the day for 12 years and beyond. That’s far more time than parents spend at chilld rearing.

        • loupgarous

          Children aren’t SO impressionable to quickly overcome the gag reflex associated with bestiality. The religious right seems be afraid that the evident truth they preach isn’t so evident, after all, and wants government to get involved with marriage beyond simple registration of marriages.

          I can only see a swath of leftist-imposed disasters if the religious right gets what they say they want. A true conservative, I’d think, would be naturally wary of letting government define our marriages for us.

          Ronald Reagan once quipped that the eight scariest words in English are “We’re the government, and we’re here to help.” I think Reagan was much smarter than he was ever given credit for, his disastrous revival of the “War on Drugs” notwithstanding. Conservatives ought to insist that the government stick to registering marriages, let the participants of each marriage define it as they choose to, and let religious marriages be defined as the participants and church (synagogue, mosque, Kingdom Hall, whatever) see fit.

    • Independent Cuss

      Don’t see progressives as warring against God. That’s just silly.

    • Deborah G

      They DON”T care and that is the shame of all of this slope we are sliding down. The liberals flat out don’t care .

    • loupgarous

      Well, I think that the size of the front doors of most fine eating and drinking establishments will keep equine fetishists from bringing the loves of their lives in for those Vodkatinis. And seriously, lesbian nuns (and just plain old lesbian teachers in public schools) are old news, my friend.

      I feel that those of us who believe in marriage as a sacrament are already provided for – the government allows our local religious leaders to conduct marriage services which are also recognized as legal marriages. Boredom’s too mild a word to describe my lack of concern with who or what other people may be inclined to marry.

  • Brian Fr Langley

    I don’t really see the moral dilemma in this argument, (and I’m very conservative). When you run a business, by definition you’re selling to many disagreeable, mean spirited, and even evil people. Stay in business long enough, and you’ll sell to cheats, thieves, drug dealers and bank robbers. Yes, it’s your business, but the color of business is green. ($). Trading dollars for lawful services is morally neutral. What folks do with your goods and services, is no reflection on your own personal values. And if you sell services that you think do reflect on your own personal values, then in good conscience, you should withdraw them from the market place.

    • Rose

      I agree. The baker and the cake and the wedding are three different things. If you are in business to make a statement, lucky you. Most businesses have to concern themselves with the bottom line.

      • Eric Maher

        The customer is asking for something the baker considers as participating in a sin. I don’t agree with anybody having the power to force the baker to do this.

        The baker welcomed gay customers. But he didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding, which the baker considered a sin. There’s a difference.

        • Brian Fr Langley

          Eric, the world unhappily is a cesspool. Unless one is selling only to their own believing members, their goods and services are being used for sinful purposes. (that is after all the nature of this world). A person using some one else’s productive (and legal) goods and services for immoral, illegal, or unethical purposes, does NOT make their producer (or marketer) an accomplice.

          • Eric Maher

            I guess your view differs from the baker. I’m against violating the right to religious exercise for either you or the baker.

            >> the world unhappily is a cesspool. <<

            No, thankfully, it's not.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Well to quote Huckabee, who quoted the wife of Billy Graham, (Ruth) who 40yrs ago said, if there is any further moral decline (in our civilization), God should maybe apologise to Sodom and Gomorrah.
            (you know, the place destroyed for sin)

          • Ross Williams

            I find it interesting that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed “because of their wickedness” but Lot was spared.
            Yet Lot was willing to sell his daughters to the crowd at his door, and Lot later bedded his daughters in the caves above the valley. This was the HOLY man in town.
            This tells me one of two things:
            1] “morality” is comparative, or
            2] “morality” is mutable.
            In either case, it doesn’t make a very good story as the basis for a morality tale.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Actually Lot didn’t offer to sell his daughters. His honor (not God) compelled him to protect guests he took under his roof. (this type of honor was common in the near east). As for bedding his daughters. According to the story they got him drunk and mounted him while he was passed out. As for him being a “Holy” man? The story teaches that but for “one righteous man” the Cities would be spared. They weren’t spared. Thus there was NOT found even one righteous man.

          • loupgarous

            I beg to differ. That little plastic gay couple on the top of the cake in question makes it a celebration of a practice the baker finds to be abominable. Just as a glatt kosher deli owner doesn’t have to deal in bacon and pork, that baker oughtn’t to have to deal in pastry that celebrates practices he finds profoundly immoral.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Freedom of religion and freedom of commerce are not the same thing. Historically the state (usually a King) licensed all market places. ( and of course took a cut). Even Jesus himself said, “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, and unto God that which is Gods”. As to Kosher foods there is a significant difference. For example, a baker of cakes is quite able to decide not to bake or sell donuts. His choice of wares belongs to himself, the issue here, is refusing products or services freely offered for sale in an open and free market, then denying them to folks who don’t believe the same things you do. This is actually the opposite of religious tolerance.

    • JMax

      Wow! We agree.

    • Sheila Warner

      I rarely agree with you, but you are on point with this comment.

    • Eric Maher

      The baker is trying to withdraw a gay wedding cake.

      • Lionel Blantoine

        Piss in the cake mix and be done with it.

        • George Williams

          Not convincing, though a good dose of phenylthalene will discourage repeat business.

    • Thewryobservator

      You’ve reduced all people in business to a common denominator that probably doesn’t accurately represent the situation. For instance, if tell you I’m a bank robber or a cheat -and you don’t mind my business, that’s one thing. If I tell you and you mind (which you should) something else again. I don’t think you’ve provided an argument, rather a fallacy posing as one. And your conclusion, in the end, is to punish only persons of conscience. There is no such thing as value neutral in light of knowledge. Money as the mediator of commerce may be indifferent to moral value. Those using it never are. Everyone is always on one side, or another.

      • Brian Fr Langley

        You’ve made a very solid argument. But it fails to address the implicit presence of the State. Contracts by definition are enforceable at law between parties. That is the State (King or community etc.) is always a third party enforcer of a contract. The issue here is, can the State (and by the State I mean the U.S.) define what an open market place is, without violating your constitutional rights to religious freedom. And if they can, does this mean if you continue to sell, does then the sin of the customer becomes yours? (I say it doesn’t) It is quite apparent the State does have the right. Folks in the past used religion to not sell to colored folks, or folks involved in mixed marriages. While I don’t agree they ever had a religious reason, it was used non the less. Having said that, Gay marriage will be extra-ordinarily corrosive to this civilization, and should not be tolerated, for reasons as much secular as religious. But as long as one is operating in an open market place, selling lawful products to lawful purchasers, I don’t believe constitutes complicity.

        • Ross Williams

          [[can the State ... define what an open market place is, without violating your constitutional rights to religious freedom]]

          Explain how the market is a consequence of religious freedom.

          [[While I don't agree they ever had a religious reason, it was used non the less]]

          That doesn’t make it an accurate description of what was happening. There’s a legitimate Constitutional argument for not selling to people you don’t want to, but it’s got nothing to do with religious freedom. That would require that only religious people who open a business are permitted to limit their clientele.

          [[Gay marriage will be extra-ordinarily corrosive to this civilization]]
          How so? There is no “proof by assertion”.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            A market is NOT a consequence of religious freedom? Who said it was? The moral argument I was making was in response to the many arguments here, that suggested selling the cake was a violation of their right to religious freedom. As for the corrosive effects of gay marriage on civilization? It should be self evident. Resources that formerly went only to pro-creating couples are now being diverted to non procreating couples. While the former benefit society, the latter benefit only themselves.

          • Ross Williams

            [[many arguments here, that suggested selling the cake was a violation of their right to religious freedom]]

            Ah … I misread. Because the market is a manifestation of Property Rights.

            [[It should be self evident]]

            “Proof by assertion”. Axiomatic dictum. …religion.

            [[ Resources that formerly went only to pro-creating couples are now being diverted to non procreating couples]]
            The only way to keep unidentified “resources” from gays – irrespective of whether they are “couples” or individuals – is to eliminate gays.
            Is that what you’re suggesting?
            Otherwise, they’re getting resources, period.
            Research is fairly universal in concluding that [“couples”, regardless of whether they procreate or not, use the resources they have MORE EFFICIENTLY, so you are arguing against the known evidence, not to mention against your sacred “resources” angle; if you wish to husband “resources”, then let the queers get married … it’s in your best interest.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Marriage at it’s earliest was a community enforceable contract for a monogamous sexual relationship (Pelican history of the world on marriage contracts found in ancient Sumer circa 4500 BC) Most same gender relationships realize they don’t need such a contract. However those employed by Federal, State, and other Government agencies, whose spouses enjoy phenomenal benefits, including long term survivor pension benefits, will benefit from significant taxpayer dollars. Being these are in shorter and shorter supply, they can’t help but disadvantage families rearing children.

          • Josh

            “Monogamous sexual relationship”?

            Maybe I’m not up on my words well enough, but when it’s only one half held to that standard, I don’t think it can be called “monogamous.” Maybe one can argue that technically some marriages were “monogamous,” due to a concubine not having to become a wife, but that sexual relationships were honored in propaganda 1960s Americana fashion thousands of years before that propaganda existed? Hard sell.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            You say, “Half held to the standard”? You are so brainwashed. Throughout virtually all of human history the vast majority of people were peasants. A kind of under working class. Rich folks (let’s call them the lord’s) were actually few and far between. While true rich men have long been able to afford more than one women and the subsequent mouths to feed, the vast majority of men could not. So no matter where you look, you’ll find community enforced monogamous compacts, (marriage between one man and one woman) were the order of the day. I mean how many civilizations can you find where they had no word for adultery? (sex outside marriage) And even those cultures that allowed men to marry more than one women, few men could actually afford to.

          • Josh

            So, then, it wasn’t about a standard of monogamy; it was about the wealthy ruling the poor? How, then, was that model the most beneficial to people if people had to be forced into it? It seems the most beneficial for authority figures — do as I say, not as I do.

            I’ll always appreciate the “brainwashed” label tossed at me by biblical fundamentalists, though.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Actually polygamous societies fail. Deprive young men of the opportunity to marry and they’ll wreck the place in short order. Why do you think every single polygamous order currently in the U.S., kick out virtually every young man (but a very select few) as soon as they turn 16.? The only reason these polygamous sects can exist, is because there is a larger civilization surrounding them providing sanctuary. Nobody was forced into monogamy, it was simply the human institution for procreation that worked the best. (both for societies, and their members).

          • Ross Williams

            [[Actually polygamous societies fail]]

            All societies fail, mostly from fiscal insolvency. There’s almost never a “moral” component complicating matters.

            Militaristic societies, where young males get sent off to fight [and often die], have an abundance of women, and polygamy is virtually a requirement.

            [[monogamy ... was simply the human institution for procreation that worked the best. (both for societies, and their members).]]

            Overly simplistic and, therefore, not acceptable.

            In any event, we are not talking about polygamy “in general”. The subject is marital mores in the US, and the US requires Equal Protection. Have you forgotten?

            It is my guess – and my guesses are far more supported than your “100% guarantees” – that if polygamy were adopted in the US, and done so PROPERLY, there’d be just as many women taking multiple husbands as there would be men taking multiple wives … in the end balancing things out.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            “All societies fail, mostly from fiscal insolvency” Now there’s an unproven assertion? Says who? Being an avid student of history, I’d argue fiscal insolvency is a moral failing. Corruption begets corruption. Lying, cheating and stealing, beget lying, cheating and stealing. Nonetheless, most civilizations (in fact) fell to superior military forces. As for your “assertions” about polygamy being necessary in militaristic societies? There’s no evidence of that? Polygamy was typically reserved for the very wealthy. Since all civilizations required a man to support with his own labor (or wealth) his own women and children. As for women marrying men in equal numbers??? What are you smoking? Men (the beasts that they are) have little tolerance for sharing their sexual partners. And societal norms have nothing to do with it.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Being an avid student of history, I'd argue fiscal insolvency is a moral failing]]

            You may have a point, but fiscal insolvency isn’t simply a function of corruption, now, is it?

            A family trying to make ends meet by dishing out the plastic for gas and groceries isn’t exactly Tammany Hall, y’know.

            [[There's no evidence of that?]]

            It’s good that you posed this as a question, because then I can factually state that yes there IS evidence of that.

            [[Polygamy was typically reserved for the very wealthy]]

            Frequently, yes. Not universally.

            [[Men (the beasts that they are) have little tolerance for sharing their sexual partners]]

            You need to avail yourself of different types of porn. As research, naturally. Bottom line: you are incorrect.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I wasn’t speaking of fiscal insolvency as just failing through the vices like lying, cheating and stealing. These are simply symptoms of moral collapse in general. In the end, leaving a civilization not worth fighting for. As I said, most civilizations fell to superior military forces. In answer to your question about “welfare giveaway’s, are they corruption or are they foolish”? They are the very heart of corruption. Requiring the wages of a man’s labor to supply wages to his neighbor who does not labor, is the very definition of slavery. One sells his labor, one has a need. Marx’s solution to this (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) misses one of the great laws of economics. Supply and demand. The less work is rewarded the less work you’ll get, conversely the more need is rewarded, the more need you’ll get. As the Russians used to say (when they were a communist state) “The state pretends to pay us for work, so we pretend to work” Your last argument is ridiculous! We should look to porn stars for an example of “normal” human behavior? However I worded the statement you responded to incorrectly. I should have said, Men have little tolerance for sharing their procreative partners. (and no amount of porn stars will change that)

          • Josh

            I didn’t know the immediate–and only–opposite of a “monogamous sexual relationship” was polygamy.

            I’m also not arguing in favor of polygamous society (though I wouldn’t care; it’s not my business). I’m just pointing out, and have been pointing out to you for a long time here, that this picture you paint of a 1960s propagandized nuclear family Americana being the dominant lifestyle in ancient civilizations is about as bunk as the Ozzie and Harriet propaganda itself.

            As far as it being the “human institution for procreation that worked the best,” that’s also highly debatable. According to religions (male-dominant religions particularly), yes, to an extent. According to natural selection? Not necessarily at all for a species. According to a stable society? Well, again, having that type of family structure prevalent is mostly propaganda. Like a white, English-speaking Jesus or winged angels, it’s a revisionist manifestation of just how joyful the world would be with a Coke and a smile and all that.

            People are not monogamous to begin with; we just have that capability. (People without options tend to be the most monogamous.) When talking about a species, monogamy has most certainly been forced on people. Or at least attempted through force. Adultery punishments, anyone?

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Modestly amusing but patently incorrect. Virtually any civilization you can find to read about, had a commonality of two parent families.

          • Josh

            Luckily there is a lot of documentation regarding ancient peoples like the Sumerians. And, from what I find, this is taking a very familiar turn: What you say on Bernardgoldberg.com and what I find through every piece of research is different.

            And this eerie feeling of deja vu is creeping over me. I expect that the near future holds a line from you like, “Well, it might be wrong, but this isn’t a forum for serious debate, so it doesn’t matter.”

            Sumeria is where male-domination of society really seemed to inspire the region’s religions for thousands of years hence. Fathers were the masters of the household. Yes. Is this is the sticking point you keep hinging your traditional take on?

            Now it’s “two parent families,” which, I assume, is a way of shifting those goal posts ever so elegantly.

            Fathers also chose spouses for their children, had the right to take concubines (wealth be damned), and could sell their wives and daughters into slavery. The higher one climbs up the money tree, the more freedoms one finds women being granted, like the right to keep their own money. But they still couldn’t make decisions.

            *My point in picking out the one-sided nature of these places seems fairly “self evident,” to borrow a phrase from you.

            All that was completely unnecessary though. “two parent families” seems a giant concession vs. “monogamous sexual relationship.”

            Who ever argued polygamy in the first place? It’s something I clearly touched in the previous post, but yet something you seem to think is the only other alternative to a monogamous married couple.

            *Hint: Monogamy in society is an illusion. And in the case of societies that explicitly enforced one-sided monogamy, not even a very tricky one to see past.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I gave you the citation I quoted from. The book was the “Pelican history of the world”. The writer therein wrote, that a marriage in ancient Sumer would be recognized by folks today, in that it was a monogamous compact between the two parties. The point, was only that community enforceable compacts (marriage) had been around for millennia. (monogamous community enforceable compacts are also found described in both Biblical and other near east texts). What’s your point, do you really believe marriage is a recent invention? I never said (or hinted) the society was not male dominated. Every human society that has any of it’s written history survive, was male dominated. What’s your point, men are beastly? Are you arguing that children have NOT in fact typically been raised by their own biological fathers and mothers, and that this too, is a modern and unique invention? Is your point that ancient men, hated their wives, their mothers, their daughters and their sisters? Thus would let them be abused by any person whose gender was male? Life in ancient times was short and brutish. Children consumed enormous resources. Monogamous two parent extended families were the rule, not the exception. And while I agree, illicit sex is, and always has been an issue, illicit sex typically faced community proscriptions. (why else would it be called “illicit”).

          • Josh

            My point is and has always been simple in my replies to you: the picture you paint of these societies comes across as incredibly misleading.

            Most of those questions seem nonstarters and just quibble-happy, little rhetorical devices acting as vehicles for snark at best. At worst, you don’t actually read–or do and can’t understand–what anyone else writes. But I will address the last little bit there, which quite nicely sums up the point I’m making:

            “illicit sex typically faced community proscriptions…”

            Primarily for females, though. A man cheating on his wife wouldn’t be called “illicit.” That’s just him trying to secure a concubine or doing other manly things. Illicit is synonymous with unlawful. To that end, “illicit sex” would be women who dared act on their urges without permission.

            You tend to present this (conveniently-changing) idea of a “traditional” family as not only important for society but of a superior morality. And I’m laughing at the idea of men seeking to hold only women (and perhaps peasants) to those standards being “moral” or better for anyone.

            To put another way, in an attempt to bottle it completely:

            You present your case for this “traditional” model being superior — man, wife, children. You serve it up in Americanized propaganda style, insisting that it’s the best for society, and then cite previous civilizations as if they had it all figured out for thousands of years, and it’s these dirty, rotten, gratification-happy libertines who always ruin everything.

            Am I wrong there?

            To that, I say: White Jesus.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            I’m really not sure what you think it is we’ve been debating? I’ve never painted a “rosy” or misleading picture of ancient societies? All my argument has been, is that the framers took the best from the traditions of their day, (primarily the Judeo-Christian ethic) and created the so called “American experiment”. I believe it became the best civilization humans ever achieved. And now the future of this “American experiment” is in jeopardy, due to the overturning of those very traditions that created such remarkable human success. Traditions that while found in the Judeo-Christian ethic, were not exclusive to them. Thus pointing out community enforceable monogamous compacts (marriage) date as far back as Sumer. What the heck is misleading about that? Your insistence that most men could freely engaged in illicit sex is incorrect. They couldn’t cheat without a partner, who as you agree would be proscribed, by their community and family, so who would they cheat with? As well, virtually all civilizations that ever existed had some kind of religion. (including America where a solid majority of the population, still confess to some belief in God) Virtually all the major religions (particularly the monotheistic ones) eschewed illicit sex for males as well as females. That the effect of these religions was global can still be seen in modern populations where more than 50% of all earth’s inhabitants still belong to cultures that embrace them. I’m not sure you really understand how hard it was to raise children prior to the 20th century? Men who impregnated women were required to care them. (no birth control) For most civilizations (including our own time, out side of the western democracies) food production consumed the greater part of a man’s labor. While today, Americans expend some 10% of their labor on food, even in the richest cultures (pre 20th century) it was closer to 50% and most often exceeded 75%. Illicit sex meant progeny and progeny meant hardship.

          • Josh

            I see my comment didn’t clear moderation.

            I’ll touch on a couple again, I guess.

            We’re going to greatly disagree not only on what constituted these “values” and which ones can be cherry-picked to make a point, but also on how Judeo-Christian anything played to the fabric of our nation. We know where one another stand on this. You say what you said; I say that it’s freedom FROM anyone’s interpretations of “values” that made us great. We dared to be free. That we dared to be Judeo-Christian runs directly in the face of freedom. Religion = anti-freedom.

            As to my insistence “that most men could freely [engage] in illicit sex”: I tried to make that point clear. Though maybe I didn’t. I have a tendency to just type and post, not bothering to edit. Which is why some don’t clear moderation, obviously. So, let me try it yet another way:

            What’s considered “illicit sex” for women under these types of standards is exceedingly different than what’s “illicit” for men. “Illicit” is the same as illegal. A man could legally get his freak on if he wanted, he just had to make concubines out of them, or get slaves so it became an issue of property, and other little loopholes. Women, of course, didn’t have any of this. Any sex with anyone outside of their husbands was “illicit.” In some cultures (still to this day), a female rape victim was held at fault and still considered to be the “illicit” one if she somehow “tempted” the man, or at best she’d probably be married to him or the guy would have to pay something, while the woman was forever considered damaged goods.

            “Illicit sex” wasn’t just some blanket that had preset equal definitions. A man would have to be stupid to engage in that sort of activity when he had so many other options available. What did a man have to do to be considered “illicit” in those times? We have similar cultural examples that still exist in the world. He’d pretty much have to be a gigolo. A woman, on the other hand? Flirtatious, showing too much skin, leading men on, and Pete forbid actually engaging in sex. Yowsa!

            But while my conversation with you here does naturally carry over from others we’ve had, what I was attempting to “debate” with you specifically was the idea of a “monogamous sexual relationship,” which is something I still don’t buy. Not when men didn’t have to be monogamous!

            So, every man probably didn’t have concubines or slaves? No doubt. Peasants have always had limited options in everything. Sucks to be poor anywhere at any time. But the point is that they didn’t, by law or community proscription, HAVE to be in a “monogamous sexual relationship.” Only the woman had to be.

            Therefore, “illicit” has different definitions based on gender.

            You then changed “monogamous sexual relationship” to “two parent families,” which could mean practically anything, and actually isn’t something I disagree with once you delve in to what it could be.

            I don’t disagree that a two-parent family is a better model in many instances than a single-parent family. But if we were to open that up more, we’d disagree for another dozen comments about which values are good, which are forced, which are ridiculous, which are archaic, etc.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Your arguments on a male dominated society replete with full freedom of sexual expression is pure nonsense. Post birth control, sex always = babies, and babies always = great expense. While female fecundity and fertility were celebrated, contrary to popular liberal myth, villages did NOT raise babies. Their two parents did. Since as you yourself point out peasants had limited options. Who the heck do you think was the vast majority of the population? You know the 99%, as opposed to the 1%. Yes, some very small portion, of the very rich had other options. Always did, and always will. BUT, the 1% do NOT reflect the lives of the 99%. In order to have 2 parent families monogamous behavior is required of both partners, otherwise you’d have polygamy. And while there was polygamy throughout historical times, as we’ve already noted, this was found in the 1% rich, NOT the 99% peasant.

          • Josh

            You miss the point. At this point, it seems intentional.

            If it is ALLOWED for men to be sexually polygamous, then the societal value is NOT one of sexual monogamy.

            Sexual monogamy means to have one sexual partner. It has nothing to do with parents or marriage.

            If that’s the societal value, then that’s what’s proscribed by the community and/or enforced through law. But it was only the “value” for WOMEN — females, girls, chicks, babes, dem owners of bewbs.

            Even if only 0.001% of men decided to have sex with another partner (which is nonsense), the fact is that 100% were technically allowed, so these societies in no way promoted a “monogamous sexual relationship.” In no way was “illicit sex” the same for a man and for a woman.

            You’re trying to tilt it back to the “two parent” thing, which I already said I didn’t disagree with.

            You asked me what I was trying to debate; I plainly told you. But your reply, though fervently disagreeing with me, is like you threw a strawman and a goal post shift in the blender.

            If you want to argue that it was allowed for men to have sex with women other than their wives, yet 99% were monogamous by choice or circumstance, then I’m pretty sure I’m sticking with my claim that it’s pure propaganda. And it wouldn’t even matter. Men were allowed sexual options. Allowed. A “monogamous sexual relationship” was for women.

            As to your brilliant insights about the reproductive systems of humans:

            “Sex always = babies”

            Sperm + egg = fetus, when it’s successful. Not “always.” Where did you learn about reproduction?

            (((As an aside: A fetus becoming an actual baby, or having a baby live to even be considered a kid, was sporadic in times when blood sacrifices were used to cure disease. Miscarriages and infant mortality rates were incredibly high. Even in Ancient Rome, which was many years after Sumer and the rise of Egypt, etc, infant mortality rates were as high as 75%!! Do you not realize just how constantly pregnant females would have to be to grow a population in ancient times? Practically speaking, all people were doing at home was having sex! A self-described “student of history” conveniently overlooking factors that don’t fall in with the “moral” argument is insulting to the incredibly harsh times these people survived due to the natural drive of a species to procreate.)))

            “Sex” doesn’t necessarily put sperm en route to the egg. We’ve been over this. “Sex” means a whole lot; and it’s painfully obvious that those holding true to religious values consider far more than intercourse to be “sex,” yet it’s only intercourse that sometimes leads to children. There are many forms of “sex,” many of which are illegal or “community proscribed” even in America, that physically cannot lead to children. Ancients didn’t know about them and didn’t do the backdoor, handies, mouth love, or the often effective pullout to have sex without coming up with babies?

            Are you saying that only sexual intercourse (P in V) counts as sex? That sounds more like a cheating husband coming home and saying, “But, baby, it was only our mouths. It doesn’t count. I’m still monogamous! No babies = no cheat!”

            Overall, though, you seem to be arguing polygamous marriage against sexual monogamy. The opposite of a sexual monogamous relationship doesn’t have to be polygamous marriage. You can still technically have these “2 parent families” with dad out getting his jollies with slaves and concubines, and mom at home cooking rhinoceros meat on the fire.

            So, to recap: I don’t disagree that a two-parent family was the preferred and even the proscribed model. What I disagree with is that these societies promoted monogamous sexual relationships. How can anyone say they promote sexual monogamy but then say it’s okay if a male isn’t sexually monogamous? That’s not promoting sexual monogamy.

            That’s men writing laws and creating standards for men.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            This last post of yours was barely coherent, so where to start? 1. Are you suggesting monogamy does not lead to two parent families? FACT: Even in our own sexually immoral “enlightened age” sexual infidelity still tops the list of marriage failure. FACT: American society was founded and sustained by a civilization that called itself “Christendom” (15th-19th century Europe). FACT: Divorce was proscribed in the aforementioned “Christendom” except for sexual infidelity. (And the guilty party faced considerable community opprobrium). FACT: Community enforceable monogamous compacts (marriage) predated Christianity. (they were found in Judaism as far back as 1000BC). FACT: Said compacts also predate Judaism, having been found as far back as ancient Sumer. FACT: Whether Roman, Greek, Egyptian, (or what have you) Two parent (monogamous ) families were the rule not the exception. Your fallacious (and patently ridiculous) counter argument (of 0.001%) is to suggest that America is not a capitalist society because they allow communes or collectives. Or that Iran is not an Islamic State because they allow some churches. Or China is not a communist country because it allows a few free markets. FACT: Most civilizations have been patriarchal in nature, thus heredity flowed from fathers to sons. It is this very fact that constrained unbridled sexuality. In any society where paternity is important, (like most), men made rules specifically to protect their women from other men. Even right up to our own modern times a man could be acquitted of murder for killing a violator of his women folk. Even small tribal societies allowed for men to kill men for their “honor”. (a violation of their women folk). FACT: monogamous 2 parent families have historically been the rule NOT the exception. A rule that served civilization very well. A rule being discarded today at our own peril.

          • Josh

            This has long passed the point of ridiculous and has crossed well over into intentionally misrepresenting.

            What I initially stated still stands, and what you’re typing here does absolutely nothing to counter it.

            You’re arguing a strawman here. I’ve said THREE TIMES now that I don’t disagree about the two-parent model. You’re arguing here just to be obstinate.

            You initially stated “monogamous sexual relationships” were community proscribed and were moral and were the standard, BEFORE you switched it to “two parent families.” And you know it. You also know they’re not the same thing.

            A “monogamous sexual relationship” was not–I repeat: was not–a value, if men were allowed options. Fact: Men were allowed options! Whether all men took those options matters none; they were allowed. Therefore, the society did not value sexual monogamy! Did they value two-parent families? I never argued they didn’t. Did men protect their wives and daughters? I’m sure some did. What does that have to do with sexual monogamy?

            You obviously don’t know what sexual monogamy means. Add that to list of things you don’t understand, like evolution and sexual reproduction.

            I don’t believe–at least not fully–that you’re too stupid to understand the difference, so I’ll give you credit in intentionally conflating the issues for no other purpose than the usual: To argue that you’re “right” based on your personal understandings of issues rather than the actual issues.

            Fact: What you’re spouting off has nothing to do with what I wrote; it’s an argument against a strawman — an argument against a stance that a two-parent model wasn’t used. That’s not what I said, and we both know it.

            I’m arguing that “sexual monogamous relationships” were NOT a value! Not marriage, not a two-parent family model, but sexual monogamy. Do you know what sexual monogamy means?

            Why do you insist on arguing back against something I’m NOT arguing after explicitly asking me what I was trying to debate?

            Dumb question, I realize.

            You can get your last word in here and argue against my nonexistent stance on medieval abortions or something. Hell if I know what you’ll come up with next.

            I’ve facepalmed enough for a lifetime in one exchange.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Intentional misrepresentation? Really? At least we both agree on one thing. The stupidity of the other.

          • Josh

            Surely.

            I mean, I see where you’re coming from with the “values” bit.

            I have two little kids (for the purposes of our conversation): A little boy and a little girl. As a responsible father, I value sobriety and have banned alcohol. This is my parental value, which I enforce mightily, swiftly, and with a heavy hand. Alcohol consumption is daddy-proscribed in my household.

            But I do allow my son to drink. He is allowed to partake in alcohol if he has the money to purchase it. My daughter is never allowed to drink, however.

            My value is no alcohol for my children — my equally-treated children whose infractions would be equally treated as illicit. That’s my standard.

            Now, some buffoon might shout at me, “Hey, maroon, you’re not against alcohol if you’re letting your son drink! You just mean that your daughter isn’t allowed to drink, but your son is!”

            But that’s just silly. I value sobriety as a parent and am against alcohol for my children. That my son is allowed to drink but my daughter isn’t doesn’t negate my no-alcohol policy, because I say it doesn’t. People who can’t understand that don’t get the facts. I value no alcohol at all! Except for my son. And it’s a NO alcohol policy! It’s my value for my children — my equal children whom I love. No alcohol. At all. Except for my son. But other than that, “no alcohol” is my value. No alcohol!

          • Brian Fr Langley

            shockingly poor analogy. A better one might be if had 10 sons and 10 daughters and refused them all alcohol, but one of your sons who was stronger then you and richer than you, and told you to go to hell. I’d argue your values (and the values of your household) would remain quite intact.

          • Josh

            I do imagine it’s a poor analogy to someone who doesn’t understand it. Maybe they’ll make a documentary about it.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Not an argument against an analogy superior to the one you posted.

          • Ross Williams

            [[they can't help but disadvantage families rearing children]]
            So you have no data, just a firm belief.
            I see.
            Come back when you have numbers

          • Brian Fr Langley

            That’s the oldest liberal scam in the book. Institute a major change, then take something that’s imminently foreseeable, then say prove it with definitive data, when no such data yet exists. Yes The President said “if you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period. Tens of thousands of folks foresaw how unlikely this was. Well here we are, and the data is definitive. That tax dollars will go to spouses of gays is 100% guaranteed. That tax dollars are in short supply is known by all. (Total Federal, State, and municipal debts and unfunded liabilities are now some 200 trillion dollars). That procreating couples are necessary for societal renewal (thus in everybody’s interest) is indisputable. So is the fact that gay marriages offer society no such advantage. Of course by the time the data starts coming in, (like believing if you like you plan you can keep it). there’ll be another fine mess you liberals have got us into.

          • Ross Williams

            Okay … so you dislike Obamacare. At this point, there aren’t many who don’t. Stand in line; you’re behind me.

            Insurance does not and cannot work the way its supporters need it to in order to prop up their position.

            Okay … you also don’t like the multifarious pension crises burbling throughout the nation. Ditto … behind me.

            [[the fact that gay marriages offer society no such advantage]]

            Proof by assertion does not fly.

            Nor does proof by secondary denouncement.

            [[another fine mess you liberals have got us into]]
            I’ve already annoyed all the actual liberals I’ve spoken with.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            “proof by asserion doesn’t fly”? One doesn’t need a flashlight when one searches for the sun. That procreating couples are necessary to replace ourselves, is self evident. Less evident, is just how tax payers may benefit, by paying the pensions of the thousand’s (or perhaps 10′s of thousands) of unions that are meant only to produce someone’s (personal) sexual gratification.

          • Ross Williams

            [[That procreating couples are necessary to replace ourselves, is self evident]]

            The human species is in no imminent danger of dying out any time soon. This is not simply a red herring; it’s a whole school of gefiltefish … and poisoned at that.

            And don’t look now, big guy, but ALL sexual unions are for personal gratification.

            The boogeyman in your closet isn’t exactly the monster you’ve imagined him to be.

          • Brian Fr Langley

            Of course all sexual unions are for personal gratification? But the societal benefit of progeny (when cared for by their own two parents) transforms the act from selfish sexual gratification, to selfless community building. Your point on population is well taken. Sex = babies. Babies = the consumption of resources. Marriage (a community enforceable compact between a procreating couple and their community, ensuring parental responsibilities) has shown to be by far, the most efficient means of restraining unbridled resource stripping populations. Imagine the chaos in a village populated with fatherless orphans? Oh wait, no imagination necessary, just check out any inner city! As to wealth decreasing birth rates? Where do you think this wealth originates? Certainly not from a society caring for 10′s of millions, of stray, abandoned children. Knowing their own procreative power, civilizations consecrated monogamous unions of procreation for good reason.

  • scott autry

    The short version of my last post:

    If pro-life people can be asked to give pro-choice enough space to coexist at work or elsewhere in public, and vise versa, even while organizations representing both sides continue to fight over how the law defines when life begins —- we should have enough tolerance on this issue of gay rights vs religious freedom for us to remain civil to each other when we discover we disagree.

    • loupgarous

      And that civility ought to include enough common sense to have gays shop around till they find a baker who’ll gladly bake their cake. In a free market, that shouldn’t be difficult.

      • George Williams

        What gays want is acceptance by free will or by force of law, and they’ve getting ever militant, more commonly resorting to the latter. And since most are Democrats, civility is not in the cards.

      • Josh

        I don’t think the problem can be pinned on “gays” and their shopping choices per se. I mean, let’s look at it through our own eyes. Anyone who is discriminated against for any reason may be upset and feel like taking a pound of flesh for the slight.

        As a straight white male, I can be thrown out of a store for any reason. Could be a Latino woman who doesn’t like white boys, and I’m gone. Then right across the street, a Christian baker might toss out a guy dude.

        We’re both in the middle of the street, wringing our fists and glaring through the shop windows with vengeance in our eyes. Only with the way the populous powers are shifting, “gay” can be turned into a cause celebra and bring in news trucks, advocates, huge microphones, etc. My slights don’t register and, if anything, are deserved in that context.

        So, to me, it doesn’t seem as if the problem is gays wanting to force the shop to cater to them. It’s the powers that be caving in and infringing upon private rights. It’s the system.

  • scott autry

    Intolerance When Rights Collide…I thought of this today:

    For X% of the American people, abortion is murder. They believe the fetus, at some point in development, has as much a right to life as a baby in a cradle you might pick up and dash on the floor.

    I don’t care if you agree with them or not — My point is – abortion to them is a — life and death issue. As long as they believe that, anything you say to them to justify the woman’s right to choose is to ask them to agree to condoning murder. It is that serious of an issue to them…

    The other side is equally passionate in defending a woman’s right to control her own body, because they reject the other side’s definition of when life begins. They reject the idea abortion is murder.

    And since the society is divided roughly 50/50, those who consider it murder —- have to accept it.

    Our system of government is flexible enough that they can work within it to change the law, but until they succeed, our social compact requires they accept that abortion is legal, despite the fact they consider it murder every bit as much as if I pulled out a gun and blew your brains out.

    So what? you might ask…

    What have the people in favor of religious rights over freedom in the market place been asking for?

    People like Mr. Goldberg are very angry at the idea anyone would even think that denying a homosexual the right to buy a cake in a “public” business should be tolerated (in the name of religious freedom).

    I can understand their position. I can understand why they are passionate about it……but….is this a life-and-death issue?

    Is it even really the same as the situation blacks faced before the success of the Civil Rights Era?

    Even if you were to agree that denying a homosexual service in the market place is the same as denying a black person, you can’t possibly look around American society today and say homosexuals are in the same position minorities were under Segregation…

    If we demand, as we should, that people who view abortion as murder accept the law of the land and situation at hand at least until they have the political ability to change the law in their favor ——- why is it so unthinkable for the people in the gay rights camp to allow the religious freedom one to coexist?

    Everyone, on both sides, are prone to describe the situation as so clear and so important, they can’t really tolerate the other side…

    Just like with abortion, both sides see the issue as clear cut and undeniable. But, abortion has been a big issue for so long, we have roughly managed to allow all sides to live among us without hatred of them or displays of intolerance for them in our places of work, education, or elsewhere in the public sphere.

    We still have protests and the political organization of both sides as they struggle against each other to define the law or keep it defined as it is, but for the most part, we get along well enough.

    There is no chance in Hades either side will ever convince the other they are right. It simply isn’t going to happen. But, we have to accept both sides as part of the social compact we entered when you agreed to the rule of law that holds a society together.

    I understand why both sides in the gay rights vs religious freedom are angry. I see there is no middle ground on which they can meet – at least in the foreseeable future.

    But if we can ask one side of the abortion debate to accept what they believe is the murder of a life, at least until enough people agree with them and they get the laws changed, can’t we ask the gay rights people to give the religious freedom people a right to their opinion?

    If I’m pro-life, I’m not going to go around slinging blood (either literally or figuratively) onto the individuals I meet who are pro-choice…

    Why do I have to keep my mouth shut when it comes to gay rights – in the case we’ve been discussing here – or face immediate hatred and intolerance among co-workers or among people in other places?

    Mr. Goldberg explained the justification for the demonization of my side by saying the current issue is exactly the same as the religious justifications of Segregation and legal discrimination of blacks and other minorities before the end of the Civil Rights Era.

    He can reasonably argue the parallels between the use of religious beliefs to justify slavery and Segregation and the current issue with homosexual rights in the market place, but others can reasonably argue against that…

    But, people on his side want to view it as unquestionable.

    They say we must accept their definition of homosexuality or admit we love the N-word and pine for the good-ole days of Segregation…

    I recognize Mr. Goldberg backed off that framing of the debate in this current post, but in general, that is how the debate is being framed by one side…

    My key point is —– I don’t care which side is right or wrong.

    The issue is clearly up for debate – no matter how strongly each one of us might feel about the side we agree with.

    If our society can come to terms with general acceptance of both sides in the abortion issue – we should be able to come to some general acceptance of the different sides in this issue over gay rights within the consumer market place vs religious freedom..

    That doesn’t mean either side must give up.

    Neither camp in the pro-choice vs right to life camps have.

    We can be more civil and tolerant, however…

    • Ross Williams

      [[society is divided roughly 50/50]]

      This isn’t even close to being accurate.

      Public opinion polls from the late 70s until yesterday afternoon are fairly consistent:

      1/6 believe “abortion is murder” and want to disallow “all” abortions [excl rape, incest, life of the mother]

      1/6 believe that abortion cannot be infringed at all in any way, thus granting it a superior “right” than what is observed in our rights to speech, press, religion, warrantless search [etc]

      The rest [i.e., 2/3] are somewhere in the vast middle believing that we have a right to abortion, but not all abortions need to be legal. E.g., a minor who cannot get her ears pierced without parental permission should not be allowed to get an abortion without ditto. E.g., late term abortion “for choice” [which the pro-abortion cohort acknowledges is "rare" in any event] simply turns most people’s stomachs.

      The ratios I’ve given are approximations, and subject to [minor] fluctuation in seemingly counter-intuitive fashion. When we have a liberal in the White House, the 1/6 against “all” abortions increases a tick and the 1/6 FOR all abortion drops a tick; when there’s a conservative in the White House … the opposite.

  • http://www.sabbsa.org/ terryread

    Bernie, you are very good at articulating your point. I will attempt to be as
    equally adept at arguing my point. You talked about people (including judges) that have been against integration and mixed marriage. You say that is their
    religious belief. Well, Bernie, if you did not know it, your religion is whatever beliefs you have that form your World View. So any belief system is by
    definition religious. People sometimes want to discount my beliefs, saying that is my religious belief. I say “Yes, that is my religious belief. And if you believe differently, that is your religious belief.”
    In this case, the religious belief that you have, that two guys or two gals can get married, is the religion of Secular Humanism. I would argue that the Secular Humanists are forcing their religious beliefs on people.
    But the one point that I would really like to make that transcends this argument, is that the big mistake the segregationist made is not having a Biblical World View. As a person with a Biblical World View, I believe that we are all descendants of Noah. So there is really only one race – the human race. We are all part of the same human family. Now that we are learning more about genetics, science is confirming what the Bible told us 3,500 years ago from the Book of Genesis.
    This same Bible that set us straight on the issue of race tells us that “‘God made them male and female from the beginning of creation. ‘This explains why
    a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” Jesus confirmed this when he was asked about divorce. And who am I to argue with Jesus? This is also confirmed by common sense. Go into the plumbing section of a hardware store and check out how the connections work if you have any questions. It is the same with electronics.
    Bernie, you acknowledge that it may be good to allow people to exempt themselves from a Nazi event. I will argue that Nazi ideology goes against
    the Bible, just as homosexuality goes against the Bible. You really can believe the Bible. Check out our website:

    http://www.sabbsa.org/

    • Rose

      I was always told the lineage in the Old Testament took us from Dam to Jesus.

      • George Williams

        A Dam is a femaile sheep or an abutment designed to restrict the movement of fluids between two adjacent areas.

        • Rose

          Adam and Jesus. Some people can discern meaning from context, George, but at least you can use a dictionary.

          • loupgarous

            There wasn’t enough context in your original post to allow inference that “Dam” was “Adam.” A lower-case “dam” MIGHT have led a reasonably well-educated reader to infer “Adam” was what you meant, but when you capitalized the “D” in “Dam,” you created a misunderstanding – it was YOUR responsibility to type legibly and understandably. And you failed. George Williams actually DID use a dictionary to explore the meaning of your original post.

            As a degreed technical writer, I repeat – the responsibility for creating a post from which correct inferences can be drawn rests squarely on the shoulders of the WRITER, not the reader. Just accept the responsibility, apologize for misspelling Adam’s name, and go on with life, please.

            Trying to make this George’s fault says more about you than perhaps you intended to reveal.

          • Integrity

            Do you realize how ridiculous this statement makes you look given your own admissions that you lack the time to read the articles? QED

      • http://www.sabbsa.org/ terryread

        Hey there Rose,

        Did you mean Adam? If so, you are absolutely correct. The entire human race is descended from Adam. Paul talked
        about this in his letter to the Romans. That is why it is so important to believe the Creation account in Genesis. If you cannot accept the Creation account in Genesis, you cannot accept what Paul said or even what Jesus said.
        As for Noah, the entire human race had become apostate, much as I see happening in this country now. So God
        destroyed all humans except for Noah, Noah’s wife, and Noah’s three sons and their wives. So the most direct common
        ancestors that we all share are Noah and his wife.
        This created a genetic bottleneck. And you note that after Noah, life spans began to shorten. And we see the genetic load continue to build up to this day. John Sanford talks about
        this in his book “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”. What we observe happening now is very consistent with the Bible and totally inconsistent with the General Theory of Evolution. Again, when you look at everything with a Biblical World View, everything starts to make sense. Check out our website:

        http://www.sabbsa.org/

        Terry Read

    • Sheila Warner

      It’s also about conservative Christianity vs progressive Christianity. Progressives, like myself, believe that gays should be allowed to marry. Conservatives believe that gay marriage is sinful.

      So, in either scenario, 1) the baker has the right to refuse to bake the cake and 2) Gays have the right to marry & have that marriage recognized; someone’s religious beliefs will be stifled. Who decides which person’s conscience is the one to be honored? That’s the crux of the matter.

      • http://www.sabbsa.org/ terryread

        Hey there Sheila,

        I absolutely agree with you. It is about conservative
        Christianity verses progressive Christianity. And I maintain that the issue of what constitutes a marriage is just one
        issue that manifests itself in the greater issue of World Views. My observation is that the conservative Christians generally speaking are Christians who accept the Bible as it reads
        and progressive Christians are people that are more likely to say that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is allegory; even though it is clear as you read it that it is not intended to be taken as just allegory.

        In Jeremiah 15:19, God told Jeremiah “You must influence them; do not let them influence you!“ My observation is that the church has been influenced by that outside world. And this has come about by the church compromising on the truth of the Bible to make the Bible fit the “science”. This is not the fault of Christians. Theologians have compromised and the Church has not taught Christians that they really can believe the Bible as it reads.

        Our President is a perfect example of what I am talking about. He is a professing Christian. But not only is he supportive of the homosexual agenda, he is the most pro-abortion President ever. He is also a Darwinist. He compartmentalizes his thinking, believing that science and religion are two different things.

        I had many years of questions, doubt, and even insecurity, going back to when I was about nine. It was at that age that I understood that what I was reading in the Bible conflicted with what I was seeing, reading, and hearing everywhere else. I began studying this issue after hearing the late D. James Kennedy about eight years ago. I am now a member of the San Antonio Bible Based Science Association and am trying to get out the message that I wish the Church had taught me over forty years ago – that you really can believe the Bible! As a matter of fact, I have developed a number of presentations including one where I document that the General Theory of Evolution is really just unsubstantiated conjecture about the unobservable past based on Materialistic Philosophy. Things really do start to make sense and fall into place when you look at the World with a Biblical Worldview. Again, check out our website:

        http://www.sabbsa.org/

        In Christ,

        Terry Read

        • Sheila Warner

          Terry, I appreciate how well you articulated what you believe and why. I’m a former fundamentalist who is now a progressive Christian. I am pro-life, though, and I am against the death penalty.

          I don’t think that seeing parts of the Bible as allegorical in nature in any way removes the moral teachings God is trying to give us. I just see genres in a different way.

          I believe that Jesus is truly God, that he died for us, and that he rose again from the dead, returning to heaven to be our mediator for all eternity.

          We have much in common. We also have areas where we won’t agree. And thus, the big clash we are seeing unfold in AZ, I support gay marriage, but I don’t think the government should force a baker to bake anything he feels violates his conscience. I would hope, however, that the love of Christ would compel him to bake that cake, anyway. He isn’t participating in the marriage. And, he could use that opportunity to share the love of Christ with the couple.

          God bless, Sheila

          • http://www.sabbsa.org/ terryread

            Hey there again Shelia,

            Wow, that was a quick response. I will not
            continue to hammer the point about homosexuality. Again, I think this is part of a greater issue. I was for a long time what you would call “an old Earth Creationist” and I bordered on being a Theistic
            Evolutionist. For me to become a Biblical Creationist was a process. And I certainly do not expect to change your mind or anyone’s mind with a few
            postings. That is why I would encourage you to check out our website. When I heard D. James Kennedy on the radio, that was just the beginning of a long
            journey. But I can tell you that realizing that I can believe the Bible as it reads is very liberating. I no longer have to do mental gymnastics to make the Bible fit the “science”. I am much happier and my life has much more purpose.
            Now I want to share with other people what I have learned and what I wish the church had taught me years earlier.
            So I would just encourage you to keep an open mind on this. There are a lot of great resources. Our website can get you started.

            In Christ,

            Terry Read
            http://www.sabbsa.org/

          • Sheila Warner

            Thanks. I had that open mind for nearly 50 years. I was raised in and believed fundamentalism all that time. Dr Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, and many other well know Christian pastors was on my tv constantly. I don’t find myself doing mental gymnastics when I read my Bible. I find a loving God who sent Jesus to die for me and restore me to God’s love. God bless. Thanks again for your lovely comments and your loving concern for me. I’m really happy that you have found peace with God, too.

  • Ed I

    Racism, segregation, and slavery were horrible events in the history of the USA. Yet we are mixing issues here. No matter what laws are passed we cannot fix people’s views of others, whether they are religiously based or not. Being subject to onerous law suits, that can put a person out of long held and run business, because someone wants to make a point to all of society should not be excepted by anyone. If people want to boycott that business is another story altogether. Here we are mixing apples with tomatoes. It is one thing to pass laws that keeps government from institutionalizing segregation, or passing Jim Crow laws. It is entirely different for government to pass laws or fail to pas laws that protect people’s Constitutional Rights, most especially the Bill of Rights. Yet repeatedly, the federal government especially, passes laws requiring individuals to give up their rights or worse that specifically allow, or fails to prohibit, litigation against individuals for doing what they have long received Constitutional protection. While I understand Bernie’s argument it doesn’t hold water. Just because I open a business and sell to my customers has never meant that I must server any and all that walk in the door. Restaurants regularly prohibit people in certain dress to stay. Health laws? Someone tell me the last time the health inspector came in and check people for being bare chested or bare foot.

    • loupgarous

      I agree. For government to restrict citizens’ personal freedoms (those unenumerated rights guaranteed in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution) because someone MIGHT repeat an unconscionable act for which the cultural context no longer exists is unreasonable and immoral.

      Opening a business creates some legal expectations – that the services be provided in a manner that is not deceptive not dangerous to the seller or the buyer. It does not compel the seller to provide services he or she considers objectionable for a number of possible reasons. “No shirt, no shoes, no service” is acceptable for public health reasons – it prevents the armpits and bare feet, commonly known areas for lice, pinworms, and other vectors of disease spread, from proximity to food service areas. It also takes the feelings of other patrons of the business into consideration.

      Now, whether there is a valid legal expectation that a business owner who provides custom foods provide ANY custom food demanded by a customer is a fraught issue. Laws that strike down business owners’ right to deal in a way that respects their own personal religious issues open the door to bakers being compelled to bake representations of the customers’s sexual anatomy, or of sexual acts which are repellent to the baker (and most other people’s) moral views. There is simply no legal barrier preventing bakers from having to bake ANYTHING a customer desires, once they can be compelled to bake one particular thing.

      Mr. Goldberg, usually you’re brighter than to trip across the trap of unintended consequences of legislation. You might say that nude and disgustingly anatomical pastry are unlikely, but nothing in the laws that are now interpreted to enforce bakers to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples prevents some pagan sects (perhaps the more recent ones who are influenced by Aleister Crowley) from demanding cakes for May Day or Imbolc which commemorate the human sexual anatomy. The case for that is easily as strong as that for a cake for a same-sex wedding, theoretically.

      It’s more Constitutional to allow bakers to determine for themselves what they will or will not bake.

  • Rose

    Fun to see some of the ads that appear on this site for “silver” cruises, mortgage relief, eyelash enhances, Home Depot appliances — and a gay dating site.

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      I hate to break this to you, Rose, but most of the ads on this website are targeted toward each visitor. In other words, your web-browser history is what is determining what you’re are seeing.

      • Josh

        You have to break advertising to people easier than that. It can be quite the shock to realize that they just spilled the beans on themselves.

        Although it’s nothing to be embarrassed about, of course. I hope I make it to the “silver” stage, and I definitely expect my eyelashes to look amazing when I get there.

        • Rose

          I was just asked if I wanted to sign a Billy Graham pledge stating I Am a Christian. Not exactly something I would be targeted with since I do not sign online pledges or wear my religion on my sleeve. maybe the computer got me confused with an evangelical poster.

          • Rose

            Just saw an ad John says is tailored just for me saying Do you hate Barack Obama? It was followed by Do you support traditional marriage?

          • Rose

            Think I just got an ad meant for a more traditional poster here—ostomy supplies. May have to look that one up.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Sounds like you’re a racist homophobe to me.

          • Rose

            More likely I hang out with racists and homophobes or closeted gays here. Do you require ostomy supplies by any chance, John? How about do you hate Barack Obama questions? I think I am getting some of your junk mail.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It took you 24 hours to come up with that nonsensical reply? Wow.

          • brickman

            Hey, John flag this guy. He called someone a racist.:). And I bet he’s a conservative.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            It was a joke, brickman. It’s what Rose does to others, so I figured I’d show her how ridiculous she sounds.

          • brickman

            I got the joke, dude.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Cool. It’s sometimes hard to tell in cyberworld. ;)

          • brickman

            I was educated by nuns in elementary school and by priests in college. They taught me to argue points ” to the death”. So I’m just letting you know out in cyberworld that I’m attacking your argument, not you. :)

          • Jeff Webb

            Next time call her a rosist.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Like it.

          • Josh

            You’re smarter than Google, as well as everybody here, obviously. Above the fray, above getting scroogled.

            You’ll figure it out.

          • Sheila Warner

            I got a notice from the Tea Party that it was time for my renewal. I’ve never been a member of the Tea Party, nor have I ever given to it any donation. I wonder how I got on the list. I joined the Libertarian party, so I guess that’s why.

          • Josh

            Right. It’s not about exact matches; though they definitely do happen. It’s niche marketing. If a person’s history reveals certain visits to certain sites, expect something in the general vicinity.

            And I don’t wanna cause any Lifetime TV drama all up in here, but, Rose, if you’re reading this, you might want to question hubs about browsing for elderly gay single cruises or something.

          • Name

            Bet George is a cruiser…old and afraid to travel independently.

      • Rose

        Well, on other sites I visit, there is a much better fit for me. I think you may be wrong, John. I am not silver. I don’t do cruises. I am not into handyman work or DIY. My eyelashes are not missing. No mortgage issues, and I am not single or gay. I think they have a generic list of sponsors that appeal to the older, more conservative, masculine and possibly closeted majority on these boards.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Don’t blame the site for your weird hobbies and an identity crisis, Rose. Accept some responsibility.

      • Rose

        I am pretty computer savvy, John. My browsing history is not reflected by your advertisements.

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Rose, you reply to your own comments and you blame “spell checker” for your botched posts. Are you really going to brag about your computer literacy skills?

      • Sheila Warner

        That’s a fact. I browsed web sites for a product, purchased it at one web site, but the other sites keep putting ads into my browser for the product. It’s hilarious.

      • Sheila Warner

        Why was my comment flagged? I used no profanity. It’s “awaiting moderation” which usually means there is something offensive in it. My comment was in reply to Ross, in which I address the issue of alcohol use by minors (which he brought up), and then reminded him of the names he’s called me, and suggested that he learn civility. None of the names he called me are obscene or profane, so, no words to be flagged. What’s up with this site?

        • Ross Williams

          Perhaps this site has a tolerance for smug self-important ignorance, and your comments exceed their daily limit on that.
          It’s a possibility…

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          Auto-filters sometimes latch onto certain words or phrases that are believed to be referring to something other than what they actually are. Unfortunately, spammers and vile trolls make filters necessary. Such posts are simply placed on temporary hold until an admin has time to review them. I think yours has already been approved.

          • Sheila Warner

            Thx, John.

      • brickman

        I get guitar and mandolin ads. Mrs. Brickman gets ads for clothing and shoes.

  • Nicholas344

    The bottom line Bernie is you believe a Jewish family which suffered the Holocaust should be made by law to cater a Nazi house party celebrating Hitler’s birthday when the Nazis demand they do so.
    The family shouldn’t object because they make money by catering the party.
    Your way. Not mine

    • Rose

      Businesses, like churches, receive special benefits from the government via loans, subsidies, tax incentives and write-offs, etc. therefore, they should be required to refrain from blatant discrimination in dealing with the public, who are after all taxpayers.

      • Nicholas344

        So once a Jewish Deli accepts anything from the government, it owns its soul and is free to demand the deli cater a Nazi birthday party for Hitler. OK, got it.

        • Rose

          In these United States, rights are given to all, not just a few. Everybody eats and everybody likes cake.

          • Nicholas344

            The first right concerns freedom of religion. Consider the First Amendment to the Constitution:

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

            Businesses often includes an expression of religious beliefs. A Jewish deli can also be partially maintained on the basis of religious values concerning the worth of the Jewish people. You want them to cater to the homes of those who have openly condemned and killed the Jewish people not only as a race but as a religion.
            I don’t think those like you and Bernie realize it but IMO this attitude represents a very low form of ignorant ugliness and a lack of respect for the importance of the first Amendment.

          • Eric Maher

            You have a right to my cake? Haven’t I asked you this before?

          • Josh

            I think it really all boils down to people who want morality policed, and they feel they can justify that stance through a series of examples and “what ifs” and smears. So it’s never going to stop.

            When America does fall and a new innovative country arises*, I hope the “almost” status of the USA gives hope to people that they can offer a free society with vital protections, as long as they refuse to open the door at all to any ideological intrusions posing as “beneficial” dictates on citizens.

            *I’m no paranoid, doom-and-gloom, bunker-dweller here. Though we’re very, very young as a species, and much younger as a civilization. When the centuries turn to millennia and the big wheel keeps on turnin’, America is going to eventually fall, just like the continents will continue to drift and collide. So here’s hoping that people eventually freedom over fuzzy thoughts.

          • Jeff Webb

            That’s got to be one of the best illustrations of what’s wrong with liberals: the notion that “rights are given to all.”

            Basic civics, Rose: Americans don’t need to be given rights; they’re born with them. (Well, except for those born after a failed abortion attempt–liberals make sure they’re dead before they can enjoy any rights.)

            Given your side’s history of pandering to people who legally lack them, it’d be correct to say rights are given to “some.”

            Thus endeth the lessen.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Americans don't need to be given rights; they're born with them]]

            Not exactly. “Natural Rights” is a very fine theory, but it runs smack into the wall of reality. And in the clash of theory with reality, reality wins EVERY time. Guaranteed.

            Rights don’t mean a tinker’s dam if there’s no authority to enforce them. If there’s going to be an authority to enforce them, then what they will enforce has to be defined.

            The definition of our rights is contained in the US Constitution.

            Among the definitions in the Constitution is the limitation of the powers of the government. If you consider that “the unborn” are protectable entities under our form of government, then you must be able to support that by citing the Constitutional authority of the government to compel it.

            Find in A I § 8 a power of Congress to define the beginning of life, natter about “trimesters”, involve itself in family planning, etc.
            A direct quote would be nice.

          • Jeff Webb

            Maybe I could’ve offered a more thorough correction. Like, first saying the Declaration of Independence says we’re endowed with rights, followed by the Constitution’s codification of that with phrasing like “the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.”

            My essential meaning was, per our nation’s model, Americans aren’t GIVEN rights. We have them already. One founding document points that out, another reinforces it. I think we’re on the same page–might just be semantics.

            I didn’t say anything about the unborn having the same rights, only the “born.”

          • Tim Ned

            Natural rights is not a theory. It’s reality. It depends upon what you are willing to sacrifice for your rights, or for that matter, other people’s rights.

            2000 years ago a man sacrificed his life exercising his right to freedom of religion which was against the law. He was nailed to a cross. He lost his life on earth, not his natural rights.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Natural rights is not a theory. It's reality]]
            Then exercise your ‘natural right’ to call the king a fink as you please and see what happens.
            What’s the king likely to do? Enforce that right? or his will?

      • Eric Maher

        Special benefits from the government? Why? Let’s end that. Keep government out of it.

        By the way, many of the things you list are not “benefits.” Certainly not “special.”

        >> they should be required to refrain from blatant discrimination <<

        Force of government! You can't think of a better way??

        And what "blatant discrimination" are you talking about?

  • SkyCitizen

    Yeoww Bernie! Same issue twice in a row, but I think I understand why you’re addressing it twice. Bigotry to the human race is like acne that won’t go away. The capacity for it is built in our genes. The only antidote for bigotry is education which in American I’m sad to say we’re not getting our tax dollars worth. Bigotry can range from blatant to subtle but it costs us all in the end. It gives us real victims and victims by historical association. Bigotry has in the past, and will in the future fuel politics, it’s a darn shame. Thanks for writing about this twice and giving this reader an opportunity to give this subject a good think.

    • Josh

      For my own personal curiosity, let me ask you how you think “bigotry” should be addressed through education?

      Not to come across as if I’m trolling for an argument here, but I’ve always held the opposite stance. It seems to me that explicitly teaching people about differences teaches that people are different. Instead of seeing another human being, you’re seeing a subject of group C.3, with characteristics X and Y. Cultural sensitivity and suchlike limits interactions by introducing fear into the psyche in terms of how we comingle with one another. It’s anti-evolution.

      My stance has always been that if the government–or any authority over people–stays out of bigotry and treats everyone as an equal by refusing to pick sides, even in limited or protective fashions, then society will eventually follow suit. Whereas focusing on the deprogramming of bigotry by material or through force (and one can argue the former is the latter in public education) simply sets the stage for us to treat each other will special, scared deference and standoffishness.

      I’m curious to hear the type of education you have in mind. Maybe I’ve never thought about it in too much depth, but I can’t conceive of a way anti-bigotry is taught without first specifically segmenting everyone into little groups and illustrating every difference. That in itself turns what’s already inherently tribal into necessarily tribal.

      • Josh

        “to treat each other WITH special…” that should read, when I bother to actually proof my own comments. Eesh.

      • Ross Williams

        In the long haul, a heterogeneous population will homogenize. The reason Spaniards look the way they do, as opposed to the other batch of ethnic Vandals who didn’t quite make it over the Pyrenees as Western Rome collapsed around them, is because of a small, insignificant ~800 year conquest and occupation by the semi-black African Moors [or Moops, if you prefer]. 800 years of interbreeding, and not always by force, will do that.

        …and, for what it’s worth, the Spaniards picked up what they knew of torture, and applied it during their Inquisitions, from those islamic Moors. Not to disabuse a cherished belief about the inherent barbarity of christianity versus all else, or anything.
        Left to their own devices, a people will figure it out, and sooner rather than later; and the less coercion they have, they easier a time they will ultimately have with the process. Government, as always, is the LEAST-effective tool for directing social change ever invented. One only needs to crack a history book to learn that.

        Government, despite it’s pious belief that it is Doing Good® in this endeavor, NOT TO MENTION their past endeavors [ref: CRA'64] is ultimately arresting the development and maturity of the American People; those who facilely accept that the government is the best [or only] source for directing these changes, are enabling their own continued infantilism.

        • Rose rose@aol.com

          Hmmm I wonder if Blacks would be allowed to vote in Mississippi today if they had been left to “figure it out” for themselves. Would women be allowed to vote in Utah today? Guess we’ll never know.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I wonder if Blacks would be allowed to vote in Mississippi today if they had been left to "figure it out" for themselves]]
            Are those. ARE THOSE TEARS running down your face?
            Why … THEY ARE!!
            Yes, those items would have self-corrected. Plus some. Dry your eyes.

          • Ross Williams

            Pardon me. That was flippant and unhelpful.

            It wasn’t necessarily undeserved, but it wasn’t helpful.

            It wasn’t undeserved because the act of asking those questions betrays an ignorance of what the issue is here, and how “leaving people alone to figure it out for themselves” is the proper response.

            The issue here is that the government is refusing to apply its principles equally – as its rules require. If everyone were to be granted their Equal Protection – gays, to get married like everyone else can – shopkeepers, to limit their clientele like everyone else can … THEN we could figure it out for ourselves.

            Many shopkeepers would go bankrupt and they’d self-correct in that way; others would come to learn that they WILL go bankrupt if they don’t swallow their pride and sell a wedding cake or three with two tuxedos on top, and they’d self-correct THAT way. Gays would learn that just because they’re the current Favored Demographic they can’t bully their way around, and that would be self-correcting.

            As it stands, gays are being granted their Equal Protection, and shopkeepers are paying a make-up pennance for the sins of OTHERS in the past, while being told “tough noogies.”

            If the US government would simply enforce its principles – Equal Protection applies if you’re black, white, green, purple or orange with puce stripts; if you’re a man, woman, neuter, hermaphrodite, jew, xian, muslim, buddhist, anabaptist or zeusist, then women would vote in Utah, blacks would vote in Mississippi, and anabaptists would still drive their horse buggies to the polls in Lancaster PA.

            When you create, e.g., Voting Rights Acts to penalize IN THE FUTURE, for actions taken IN THE PAST, you delay self-correction, and replace it resistance and resentment.

            Apply principles; leave the pound of fleshing out of it.

          • Sheila Warner

            “As it stands, gays are being granted their Equal Protection….”

            They are? http://www.upworthy.com/29-states-can-fire-you-for-being-gay-is-your-state-one-of-them

          • Eric Maher

            Why can’t employers fire anybody they want? Are you wanting the force of government to make the world nice? That is very dangerous.

            Let the market decide which business prospers, which business fails. Not force of government. Let people protest. Not force of government.

          • Eric Maher

            Blacks couldn’t vote back then because the force of government stopped them. Are you advocating more force of government?

        • Josh

          In a previous conversation a lot further down on this board, I was promoting the idea of maximum freedom — something that only a few of us seem to be on board with. And I was told it was an “ideal” and that we don’t live by ideals.

          But we had the formula figured out for well over a hundred thousand years, I’d argue. Before man created his systems to rule completely over other men, we were free and on the come-up in a harsh, unforgiving world we knew extremely little about. We’re perfectly adapted to live free lives bereft of authority figures and their long, complicated and changing rules.

          So, I agree completely. We will homogenize. It’s the interference that sets progress back. We have to figure it out. It’s in our DNA to get it figured out better and faster than any other species that ever existed on this planet.

          It seems to me, as the risk of venturing into stuff I don’t know enough about, that it’s the people who believe they’re above mere human intelligence, with the means to force fidelity, who screw the pooch for everyone. These folks throughout history, whether they’ve wanted to seize or assist, have feigned superior life proficiency and have mandated a better way of doing things.

          And I don’t believe it’s going to stop anytime soon. Too many people desire society to function based on *their worldviews, and all we deal with in America is a back-and-forth exchange of creeping tyranny.

          *Not sure if “theirs,” or what they’re told need be theirs.

          • Sheila Warner

            Your points are well taken. I’m interested in how humans, in the very earliest stages of sentience, figured out how to live together. Is there any evidence, in the development of societies, as to how they figured out what actions were good and which were bad? Did early humans have to contend with rapists, murderers, and robbers? At what point did we need to pass laws to protect the innocent? That’s the part of evolution that fascinates me, and I don’t know enough about it to understand the evolution of mankind.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Did early humans have to contend with rapists, murderers, and robbers?]]

            Your lack of knowledge knows no bounds!

            Rape is how the entire animal kingdom – with the exception of a single species – procreates.

            Murder is self defense, sometimes pre-emptive.

            Robbery is providing for your family.

            [[ At what point did we need to pass laws to protect the innocent?]]

            Who are “the innocent”?

            [[That's the part of evolution that fascinates me]]
            That’s not evolution; that’s anthropology – another field of study I’m very very very familiar with, along with History, Sociology and computer science.
            You seem to be familiar with none of it. …and get pouty when people correct you.

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s cultural anthropology, actually, and I was speaking to Josh, not you. He apparently is an evolutionist, he doesn’t have a bad attitude, and I bet that he would give me substantive answers to my questions. You despise me so much all you can do is give abrupt answers without any depth, trying to “prove” how smart you are and how dumb I am.

          • Ross Williams

            I’ve written, easily, 40,000 words in these replies. That does not indicate a lack of depth.
            But, yes, you are pretty dumb.

          • Sheila Warner

            It’s quality, not quantity.

          • Ross Williams

            Lucky for you, I provide both

          • Josh

            And I tried to. But my browser crashed out on me. So when I opened it back up, I replied to another part of the discussion. But I will offer my take on it, and it drastically differs from Ross’s take, at least that’s my takeaway on its face.

            Gonna grab some dinner and finish up work first.

          • Josh

            Working off of memory, and admittedly not being an expert, I think the answer to any such questions about early life is “natural selection,” at the risk of it sounding overly trite and blanketed.

            As a species, not necessarily individuals, we seek to propagate the species, not to destroy it. For every bad trait like selfishness and a capacity for cruelty, the larger drive for a majority is to be cooperative for security. For every self-important idiot who steals or causes harm to others, the majority do not.

            But take the good with the bad in terms of humans evolving in a cooperative atmosphere.

            Like when you hear people referred to as “sheep” for following. That had a strong evolutionary advantage that, eventually, would be taken advantage of. But some paint the picture of life without a defined moral code or ruling authority as a free-for-all cesspool of rape, murder and mayhem. It’s very doubtful. It directly contradicts natural selection.

            Humans and sentience: For starters, there’s a misconception or often a misstatement about what a “human” is. Even those who do subscribe to evolution, be they non-religious or even religious, often say “evolved from” or separate humans from apes and other animals. It’s colloquial, and I catch myself doing it too. But, technically, we’re not “from” apes; we are apes. Our abilities to feel and care are part of us now because they were beneficial to survival then.

            As a group of great apes, cooperation was beneficial. Those who cooperated most likely found an easier go of it. So by the time we developed larger brains capable of feeling more complex emotions, we were already cooperative pack animals.

            In terms of “good and bad,” standards pre-civilization were most likely incredibly different, of course. Early people probably did deal with thieves and rapists and murderers. And, more than likely, if there was anyone making it difficult for a group, swift punishment (sticks bashing brains) is very feasible.

            Evidence of such things is mostly inference, with bits and pieces of anthropological evidence. And modern observations of tribal peoples today supports the idea that, while still obviously primitive and antisocial compared to our modern society, cooperation is still at a premium.

            ……

            Laws: This is anyone’s ballgame, probably. What seems to be the case is that humans were already living in small civilizations before we developed written language and larger ones. So it’s tough to pin down the “why,” even though the “when” can be traced.

            This is going to broach into religion, so don’t take offense here.

            One of the more prominent theories about societal behavior then compared to now is that women were the “dogs” of the day. They sought multiple mates for the idea of stronger offspring, more security, and to be more prominent members of the society. Men would also have more reasons to be invested in the safety of the community.

            In today’s world, people like to argue that humans are one of the very few monogamous species. But we’re not. We just can be. What was most likely the case was a benefits-based system of procreation and trade-off relationships, so societal standards were incredibly different.

            I know of a couple of hypotheses that suggest (and take a hypothesis for what it’s worth) that one of the largest catalysts for religion doctrine to be created, rather than just gods colloquially worshiped, was to reign in and control women. Attributing punishments from an ultimate authority couldn’t be ignored as easily, and gave men justification to actually enforce these standards.

            One thing that a lot of doctrinal texts have in common is that they’re incredibly strict, particularly as they concern women. Men, of course, were often allowed a free, dominating sexual existence. Women must obey, seek permission, act as property, or risk severe consequences. The idea that men put these measures in place to deprogram and to control free women is a logical, reasonable hypothesis.

            Laws started to become far more complex and controlling once they were attributed to a supreme authority. Sumer, Egypt, Maya, Rama — the gods started demanding. But there were also laws in ancient civilizations regarding trade and education. And the logical deduction from that is that “laws,” in some fashion, were around for as long as there have been groups.

            What we project on ourselves as morality is often based on only the culture we inhabit and/or the dominant religion. Pre-religion and pre-dominant authority (government rule), “laws” most likely only extended to what was inherently beneficial or not, and local customs of the group (which are practically impossible to know).

            To attempt to sum up what’s been a very long rant of generalities: Early “laws” were probably logical applications of what would be beneficial to survival, mixed with cultural understandings of the world around the group. Though it may not have been written down, an early tribe wouldn’t allow a murderer or a rapist or thief to run roughshod over everyone. It wouldn’t be beneficial.

            More complex and controlling laws, like the idea of what a person can do with their own body sexually or how a woman must act or to whom or what someone must pray or sacrifice — these didn’t seem to arise as a controlling aspect of societies until men started attributing the rules to the gods with swift enforcement. We see every such civilization with their own gods and rules, which lends credence to the idea that a supreme authority was a control mechanism.

            And the more the doctrine started to spread, the more fine-tuned and controlling it all seems to have become.

            On an end note, the idea of “innocent” was probably foreign for very early humans. An obstruction to progress or group safety was probably removed, but I’m not sure the strong damaging the weak would be a context they would view that in. It seems much more a construct of our modern times.

            ^ I deleted about 600 words of rambling out of that. lol

          • Sheila Warner

            That was great, thanks. I’ve been reading about the current tensions between YEC, OEC, AI, and Theistic evolutionists. It seems that since the human genome was mapped, science demonstrated that human history is a lot longer than many YEC believe. Anyway, one Christian proponent of an historical first couple believes that doing away with the idea of that first couple will bring the concept of “original sin” crashing down, bringing all of Christianity with it. So, when I saw your remarks, I decided to pick your brain. I was raised a YEC, but rejected that when I was old enough to look at the Bible for myself, and realized that there had to be more than one pair of humans. “Cain” found a wife, for example, and mentioned other people around who might kill him for murdering “Abel”.

            I’ve had no formal training in science or evolution, and this whole idea of when humans moved from instinct to critical thinking is interesting. What you said on that issue, the development of brain size, makes some sense. Anyway, I’ll avoid typing a bunch of words, and will continue my quest. Thanks, again.

          • Josh

            A big part of the reason I attempt–often fail, but attempt–to be cordial, open, and explain myself in longwinded fashion in these discussions is that I really do believe in the “takes all kinds” turn of phrase. Different beliefs, as long as the people holding them are grounded individuals and not intrusive fanatics, enrich the world, I think.

            That being said, I’m extremely tempted to go off on YEC with a seething vitriol that can’t be put into words. You touched on my biggest pet peeve in life: People who actively seek to change what “science” is and to miseducated and indoctrinate young people all so something they’re afraid to reflect on can be believed by enough people that they don’t feel like lepers. And for money, too, with the likes of Ken Ham and such.

            Independent of there being a god, the Christian-specific God/Jesus, or any such “creator,” the facts point where the facts point. Life evolved. The earth is billions of years old. No global flood happened. Our DNA can be traced back. Universal laws didn’t just “change” a few thousand years ago. And I can go on and on.

            The higher-ups on the YEC food chain insist constantly that science is wrong, it’s a Marxist conspiracy, etc., all based on a literal interpretation that demands they reject everything contradictory–which is just about everything anyway–and that they do it in such a dishonest fashion that it really does drag all of religion through the mud in the eyes of many on the outside of religion.

            If you are interested in the tensions, the controversy, and its current place in society, here’s a good watch if you haven’t seen it yet.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

            It’s nothing earth-shattering. It’s a rare watchable, entertaining debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. It’s interesting and gets at the heart of young earth creationists and how they’re attempting to redefine science, which will drag all of religion 300 years into the past if the Hams prevail, mark my words.

            YEC are up against everyone, and it’s my position that more religious people need to help keep this from infiltrating science and damaging kids. Belief is not the issue. Good on people who have faith. It’s the attempts to turn public schools into Sunday schools that is really causing so much of the nation’s religious-vs.-atheist tensions.

          • Sheila Warner

            I watched the debate already, but it’s nice to know it’s on YouTube so I can snag it into my favorites folder.

            What bothered me so much was Ham’s reply to Nye when he was absolutely in wonder & excitement about what he doesn’t know & the quest to find it out. When Ham kept saying “I have a book that will explain” over and over, I wanted to jump through the monitor and smack him in his arrogant face.

          • Josh

            Yeah, I figured maybe it was more popular than I had realized. Despite Ham’s hypocritical ways and habitual dishonesty, his AIG channel has a lot of traffic. And despite so many people I talk to claiming that they don’t think creationism is trying to infiltrate public schools, folks know a lot more about the subject than they let on.

            Gotta love YouTube and hypocrites, though. Ham’s traffic isn’t there to neg-rate or comment on the material. Ham doesn’t allow that. Which is hilarious, of course. One of the first cards he pulls in the debate is the victim card, claiming that the poor, poor creationist can’t make their factual claims without ridicule, thus not having freedom of speech. Immediately below, “comments have been disabled.”

          • Sheila Warner

            That happens a lot on conservative channels. I want the video; I don’t care about comments. I know what I believe. I’m with Nye.

      • Rose

        Education helps by making people aware that different is not necessarily bad or unworthy or dangerous.

        • Josh

          Define the education. “Education” thrown out there can mean anything.

          Math? Computer science? Or education that explicitly and necessarily forces people into groups of society, creating mini societies, rather than an actual society?

          Please, define the education here. Just saying it is one of those “good for the soul” kinda deals, but there’s no weight in “education” as a word.

          • SkyCitizen

            Josh, I was speaking of bigotry in general. In the 1950′s we had a class called Civics. We were taught how our Government functioned and our responsibilities as citizens. The most important skill and the point of Civics was to think critically and learn to ferret out propaganda from well meant points of view. I am unsure that this is taught in our educational system today. I can tell you that what my kids were taught in school was exclusively guilt about racism and no critical thinking skills were imparted.

          • Josh

            I was definitely fed the “guilt’ nonsense in social studies. This was in the mid ’90s. I remember the teacher specifically breaking the class into two groups: white and black (with Asians and Latinos in the ‘white’ section). The teacher then went on to “teach” about segregation, saying to white kids “You guys” were the ones who oppressed “these” guys, in much more colorful, lengthy prose.

            I remember coming up in school and being friends with all kids. White, black, whatever; it didn’t matter. But the more we “learned” about these subjects, the further the wedge was driven in.

            Contrary to what the whiny white progressive left would have the world believe, these separate behaviors weren’t taught from bigoted white parents to children. At least not where I came up in Northern VA.

            I remember growing up and my father, a white dude of Irish descent, hung around black guys named Peanut and Marcus and Boobie and Blue. Their sons and daughters were like my cousins. So we didn’t learn to separate from our parents. The tribal mentality of us-vs.-them was pounded into our brains in public school.

            My generation split racially and culturally and fought and grew cold shoulders. My father’s generation, the one that was supposed to be so bad and cruel, is, to this day, full of folks into their 60s who still get along.

            I also remember when the race-based promotions started. Of course, we kids didn’t think nothing about it at the time, but when Richie and Tremaine failed a grade, they were “socially promoted.” When John and Sloat failed, they had to attend summer school.

            White kids were envious that the black kids could skip, smoke, scuffle and shortchange school, yet still get credits and move ahead. But now that I’m an adult, I realize just how ridiculously cruel that was. To avoid controversy and to show how tolerant they were to the myth of “cultural bias” (at least that’s what I suspect it was about), the school dumbed down education completely based on race.

            Public school scares me senseless. I’d never send my children there, even if I had to live in a one-room apartment and eat Ramen noodles to afford the choice.

            I know I’m well past the point of tearing off into a self-righteous tangent here, but all I see in the public school system is a cesspool of money and emotions. People fight to get their ideologies into schools, and bureaucracy fights to make public education one of the highest-paid, lax-standards, self-policed public industries in the world. Kids are mere pawns in a greedy adult’s game of indoctrination in a cushy environment where employment is guaranteed regardless of competence.

            It’s not the iPhones and violent video games that are sidetracking our kids and making them plummet on a global scale. It’s the nonsensical power struggle carried out by adults to reign as royalty on the taxpayers’ dime.

          • Sheila Warner

            Visited a school cafeteria lately? School children begin grouping themselves into mini-groups of society already. Teachers can do a lot of good in promoting equality of treatment between those groups. Kids learn very quickly who is different from them, and often verbal insults or even fists, fly. School is the perfect place to learn civility and tolerance.

          • Josh

            Sure.

            Not that recently, of course. I haven’t been in a public education environment since 1998. But I remember the shift vividly.

            In elementary school, we all sat together. We all played together, chased girls around together, fought and fell together.

            Then we more we “learned” from these schools, the more we separated.

            One might argue that coming of age has a lot to do with it. And I’d agree with that to an extent; a large extent when talking about cliques rather than races; i.e. goths, preps, skaters, jocks, etc. That type of segmenting is to be expected. But the racial separation and tension is something that felt compelled from outside influences, such as the curriculum teaching difference and teachers really emphasizing it and not hip hop fans vs. alt fans.

            Though as I’ve requested twice already, what’s this “education” that’s supposed to teach tolerance and the like? Throwing out “education” is just throwing out a word.

            Kids insult and fight and do all kinds of crap based on a wide number of things. “Difference” is just one of them. Look at brothers. They grow up together, leading very similar lives almost across the board, and they go at it hardcore with fists and loaded words. The same with best friends. But there’s something inherent in us all that works out the kinks without something needing to guide us through it with a compassionate education that appeals to our emotions.

            School shouldn’t have time to teach civility and tolerance. For the most part, it’s unnecessary. More than anything, though, it’s a tilted subject that segments people into groups and teaches different standards of conduct and emphasizes special treatment for special cases.

            Beyond cracking down on a bully, what’s the teaching?

            Unless someone can please explain the particulars to me rather than just saying a word, I don’t see it.

          • Sheila Warner

            Within the contexts of social studies and civics (if your school even teaches it, anymore!), there is opportunity to have discussions about our history. Bring it to the children’s level, by asking them how they perceive bullying or other mistreatment. I asked my 8th graders in CCD about their interactions with teachers. Some teachers could stand a lesson in being civil to their students. I am not proposing a set curriculum on tolerance and civility. I am advocating for adults to be on the lookout for those teachable moments in the classroom and in private interactions with students.

          • Josh

            Yeah, I certainly have no problem with teachers taking time to teach with an egalitarian approach. What I’m against is the type of curriculum thought up by white elites, who grew up around white elites, who went to white elite colleges with white elites, who then think they can outmaneuver their own guilt and bigotry by teaching a majority to placate and condescend and show special preference to a minority.

            I think we might agree there, give or take a few particulars.

            For instance, if I’m a teacher and see a straight kid bullying a gay kid, I’m going to get on it. “Knock it off, buddy. You don’t treat anyone like that. Get out of here with that nonsense. You treat everyone with respect if you ever hope to get any in life.”

            Hopefully the kid eventually gets it. “Alright. Screw it. He’s cool with me.”

            The more progressive approach, in a trebled voice: “Hey, guy, please stop. You have to understand. He was born different than you. Being gay is a serious struggle. LGBT members are far more likely to be bullied and beaten up, to be discriminated against, and to commit suicide. So watch what you say and watch how you act. Here are things you can’t say to these people; here are ways you can’t act. You don’t want anyone to think you’re homophobic, do you?”

            I don’t see how the kid gets it there. It’s either, “I have to act completely different around this gay dude,” or “Haha, gays are sissies.”

          • Sheila Warner

            Okay then, we agree. It isn’t the teacher’s job to indoctrinate, it’s the teacher’s job to teach respect among the students. If the teacher said all that in the treble voice (love that!) the kid would be soooo confused. Kids have the attention span of a gnat, so keep it short and simple. “No hitting! Knock it off!” is sufficient.

          • brickman

            The teachers should just point out to the geeks that the jocks will be working menial jobs in the companies that the geeks own in the future. Smile. And walk away.

  • PaulaR

    Sheila, calm down. Yes I say that those people under those sheets were not Christians. That is such a childish statement, and I am sure that it is beneath you to even make that point. Bernie made a secular argument from a secular point of view. He did not make a Christian argument. Reading your response gives me the idea that you are not a Christian either, and it seems that you just want to throw rocks instead of having a give and take. God Bless.

    • Josh

      I’m responding to this because it’s kinda in limbo. It’s directed to Sheila, but I don’t see any other context that I’m intruding on. So, if you don’t mind, I have a question.

      Do you feel as if Christians who don’t believe as you do aren’t really Christians? And, if so, what do you make of all the many thousands of different sects, interpretations and cultural differences in Christianity?

      • PaulaR

        Josh, great question. I am not nor will I ever say that whoever doesn’t believe the way I do is or isn’t a Christian. I am saying whoever doesn’t the follow the Word of God or defying His Word has to ask themselves if they are Christians. It is God’s words that are the standard. In all of these discussions, it’s all about what I feel or don’t feel. Feelings change all the time, but God doesn’t change nor will his standards. As to the thousands of different sects, is due to the fact that those who diverge from the teachings of the bible, do so because they are not satisfied with God. They either do not trust what He says is true, or do not like what He says so they change it to fit their lifestyle or feelings, some feel that they can improve God’s word, and some just don’t agree with God on everything, therefore they make up what makes them happy. A lot of sects etc are probably called cafeteria Christians, ones who pick and choose which parts of God’s word that they like and want to follow, much the same way you would pick what you want to eat in a cafeteria. God only established one church, all the others are of men’s doing. Hope this answers your question. PR

        • Josh

          Well, I appreciate that you took the time to answer. As a nonbeliever in any…well, I can’t say “religion.” I don’t personally subscribe to supernatural at all. So, as a skeptic, I’m often met with hostility when asking questions, and accused of wanting to slander believers. So thanks for the answer.

          From the answer you provided, it seems like you’re saying that the interpretation you abide and the sect you’re part of is the one right way, while others aren’t doing it correctly because they’ve strayed.

          On a personal level, I’m always curious about what believers feel qualifies one as a believer. For instance, folks like the Phelps’ claim to be righteous while others are pretenders, and more moderate Christians claim they’re frauds and suchlike. Many slave owners and JC supporters and KKK members would call themselves Christians and claim it as God’s word and will, yet others, yourself included, don’t include them under the “Christian” label.

          Fascinating stuff from the outside looking in.

          • PaulaR

            Josh, Hi again. No person is righteous. If anyone claimed to be righteous, be very skeptical. Only God is righteous. Many people try to use God and the scriptures to justify what isn’t in scripture. Some people, actually a lot, take scripture out of context, or add or subtract words and or meanings that just aren’t there.The trouble is that no one challenges them, demanding to know where they find their position in scripture, read it and see how it is used in context. Have state book, chapter, and verse to start. As far as everyone saying that the other is wrong, I say, follow scripture, and at the end of time, when each one is judged, I trust God to make the correct discernment. In Matthew 7:21, Jesus say not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the the will of my Father who is in heaven, will enter. I am a Christian, therefore I am responsible to find out the will of my Father, execute that will, and in my everyday living, ask for it to be done. I hope this gives you a little insight. If you are interested, I can also speak of satan. God Bless PR

          • Josh

            I’m not very interested in learning about religion. I know plenty.

            I was just interested in how Christians decide who is and isn’t a fellow Christian based on an infinite amount of variation.

            Thanks for replying, though.

          • Sheila Warner

            ” I am a Christian, therefore I am responsible to find out the will of my Father, execute that will, and in my everyday living, ask for it to be done.”

            Why don’t you permit Christians who disagree with some of your beliefs the same thing you do? Do you really think that those who disagree with you are deliberately desiring to live a sinful life and search out the Bible to justify this? Christians in different denominations have studied the Bible. They look at things like context, genre, the audience to which any passage is addressed, and the prevailing culture & political situation at the time of the writing. They examine the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. They are as sincere as you are.

            When sincere Christians come to a different conclusion, they explain and defend what and why they hold their beliefs. What they don’t do is accuse other Christians who disagree as being doomed to hell. I don’t want Josh to think the way you interpret the Bible is the only “right” way, and that all others need not be included.

          • Josh

            I’ve been aware for a while that certain people calling themselves Christians decide who is or isn’t a Christian. It’s not exclusive to Christians either, and it’s certainly not new. As I said, I’m just fascinated by it.

            As I told that one Jehovah’s Witness in a previous discussion you were also involved in, how very convenient that out of all the billions of people, all the constant interpretations and rewrites, etc, that you (I forget his name) wake up with the one correct version on your end table.

            “Fascinated,” I guess, is a nice way to say: It makes me facepalm myself dizzy.

            I fully understand the “why” of belief. I just cannot grasp the “how” when it comes to the people who believe in literal interpretations, and only their personal interpretation, of what God is, what God wants, etc.

            To be able to take what one grew up with as unquestionably true, to the point they believe those different are not only wrong but are most likely going to suffer an eternity of damnation*, while dismissing every other sect and interpretation, and ignoring the true history of how texts were compiled — yeah…

            I mean, people have constantly transformed religion. Painted wings on angels becoming how angels are accepted. The face of God. White, English-speaking Jesus. The irony involved is really fascinating.

            *Infinity is such an incomprehensible strain of time that our 80 average years of being earthly beings wouldn’t even register mathematically without an infinite string of zeroes in the fraction. You’d never be able to find it. Yet in this literal beyond infinitesimal spurt of time, one is doomed to suffer forever if they happen to be born to the wrong parents or in the wrong country or to the wrong sect? And people are fine with the vast majority of everyone to ever draw breath sharing that fate? Yeah, it’s the “how” that gets me, not the “why.”

            I happen to see a big difference in Christians and fundamentalists, so no worries in me thinking ill of the religious in general.

            How the religious think of nonbelievers is another story though. lol

          • Sheila Warner

            “From the answer you provided, it seems like you’re saying that the interpretation you abide and the sect you’re part of is the one right way, while others aren’t doing it correctly because they’ve strayed.”

            Josh, you usually find that type of thinking within very conservative Christian sects. More progressive Christians don’t make those judgments. We realize that there is honest disagreement among Christians about the interpretation of the Bible. We don’t say those who disagree with us nonbelievers or “not real Christians” but we will vigorously defend why we believe the way we do. I, for one, take anyone’s word for it when he says he is a Christian. Please don’t come away from this believing that all Christians are like Paula.

        • Ross Williams

          [[God's words that are the standard]]

          God has words? How do you know?

          [[Feelings change all the time]]

          So do God’s words, despite your claims to the contrary.

          I hope you don’t like bacon. …just sayin’.

          [[some feel that they can improve God's word]]
          I assume you don’t subscribe to any interpretation of the Scripture that isn’t in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek… and particularly not that unholy usurper King James’ version!!
          The reason he commissioned it to be “interpreted” in the first place was because he had very specific doctrinal issues with its predecessor.
          Oh, and, not to put too fine a point on your convenient hypocritical delusions … but the “virgin birth” thing …? it was a 4th Century addition imposed by the unholy charlatan Justinian I.

        • Sheila Warner

          “Reading your response gives me the idea that you are not a Christian either…”

          That’s what you said to me. Then, to Josh, you said “I am not nor will I ever say that whoever doesn’t believe the way I do is or isn’t a Christian. ”

          So, which is it? I assume it is the former, because you launched into quite a diatribe about the reason for the many different sects and denominations. You reject the idea that people can have honest disagreements about the meaning of the Bible.

          “A lot of sects etc are probably called cafeteria Christians, ones who pick and choose which parts of God’s word that they like and want to follow, much the same way you would pick what you want to eat in a cafeteria. God only established one church, all the others are of men’s doing.”

          You finish with a judgment of anyone who disagrees with your own church’s teaching. If Christians see a different meaning, and establish churches to pursue their sincerely held beliefs, you actually say that it isn’t of God. smh

          • PaulaR

            Sheila, calm down. I never said you were not a Christian. I don’t have a church. It’s God’s church. I don’t judge either. I said that God judges. I gave scripture to back up my point. As to what is used in the worship in the church that I was added to is nothing but the bible. So it if what is taught not the bible only, then I couldn’t participate. You can sincerely hold the wrong or misguided beliefs also. Just because they are sincere, does not mean that they are biblical. If it is not of the bible, then it isn’t of God. If you want to add or take away from the bible, go ahead. Just go into it with your eyes open.PR

      • Sheila Warner

        Sheila here: PaulaR said she doesn’t believe I am truly a Christian. I, myself, NEVER question a person’s self identification with Christianity. If someone declares himself to be a Christian, I take him at his word. There are so many subsets of Christianity out there that it is astounding. All that means to me is that some Christians see some things in a different way than I do. They’re still Christians. I hope that clears it up for you.

        If you read my comments, you will see that I never question a person’s Christianity, but I will point to behavior that I consider to contradict Christ’s teachings on love. For example, one Christian on here suggested that the baker should bake the cake, but make it taste bad. I replied that I didn’t think that was a Christian thing to do. Not questioning the person’s Christianity, but questioning behavior.

    • Sheila Warner

      I was commenting on someone else’s religious viewpoint about how Christians in the deep South were using religion as a basis for discrimination. Some of those Christians were in the KKK. Yes, Bernie is applying a secular view, but I was not responding to Bernie. There are lots of folks here that are making this an issue of religious liberty. Therefore, my answers to them will include religion.

      I don’t understand how it is childish to decry discrimination by Christians during the years of Jim Crow laws. Maybe you see it as childish, but many blacks were persecuted and even murdered by Christian KKK members. I don’t find that to be insignificant.

      As for give and take, I try very hard to do that. I am met with name calling and derision. You yourself resorted to questioning my Christianity and calling me childish. Read my comments. I have never questioned anyone’s Christianity or any other religious affiliation, nor have I resorted to ad hominem attacks.

      Again, it is not childish to call out Christians in the KKK.

      • PaulaR

        Sheila, one cannot be a follower of Christ and hate their brother. It is kind of basic. People can call themselves anything they want, it doesn’t mean that they represent the group accurately in any way. If you murder or commit any other act contrary to the will of who you profess to follow, then I can safely assume that you are not truly a believer. Many people had and continue to inaccurately use the Word of God inappropriately, but that doesn’t mean that the bible is wrong, just the misuse of it. The bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore when you participate in or contribute to a homosexual wedding, you are in fact aiding in the success or furtherance of that sin. As far as discrimination, no one is saying that if you have a bakery you sell items to anyone who enters and pays money for your goods. You have no idea who is homosexual or not. The issue is when a homosexual couple comes in and identifies themselves as homosexuals and want you to contribute to their wedding. As for the childish comment, I said your argument was childish, not you. I do not even know you, but to insist that only participants of a wedding is limited to those invited is incorrect.

        • Sheila Warner

          “…but to insist that only participants of a wedding is limited to those invited is incorrect..”

          I will cede that point. Do you think Christians ever sin? Do you believe all sins are the same? If a Christian persists in a way of life that is contrary to Jesus’ law of love, or continues to break secular laws, then it is fair to wonder about their commitment to Jesus.

          It is not fair to question the Christianity of those who disagree with how you view the Biblical passages on homosexuality. There are people who have studied the Bible thoroughly, taking into account the historical & cultural contexts, as well as the context of the particular passages they are researching. They read the Greek and Hebrew. There is a compelling case to be made that homosexuality as translated into our English misses some of the nuances in the original Greek, especially when viewed in the context of what was happening at the time that passage was written.

          I don’t have a real issue with those who take the Bible literally in every verse. But I have an issue with those who would condemn others who have reached a different conclusion. They inadvertently harm gay people. Notice the word: inadvertently. Not on purpose, but the hurt is real.

          So, when you declare that homosexuality is a sin against God, or is an abomination, please understand that there are sincere followers of Christ who don’t see it that way. No need for condemnation.

          • PaulaR

            Sheila, read Matt 7:21-23. I am not questioning their Christianity because their views are different from mine, i question their profession of being a Christian because their view is different from God’s. In the Old Testament, God set down laws, and one of them was how to deal with homosexuals. In the New Testament, 1Cor 6;9-11 lists homosexuality a sin, along with other acts.I condemn no one. Only God can and will condemn. I don’t have that power, nor do I want it. The bible is the truth, and sin is sin, no way around it unless believe the bible is wrong. Remember I didn’t declare homosexuality, or lying or murder or fornication a sin, God did. The bible are His words. He judges those acts to be sinful. We condemn ourselves because of sin, and it only through Christ that we can be saved. God is very direct and plain about what He expects from His followers, and what will happen if we choose otherwise. It is a choice we all have to make, and in the end, either be rewarded or suffer the consequences. He is a loving God, but also a just God. PR

          • Sheila Warner

            I read the verses. They are well known to me. Jesus condemns them because they didn’t know him, even though they did “mighty works” in his name. He outlines the works that matter after the parable of the 10 virgins in Mt 25. He casts those who didn’t do those particular works into everlasting punishment, but sends those who did do those works into everlasting life. Those his words, not mine. Right there in the gospel.

            I knew that there are churches with gays in them, who believe in Christ as their personal savior, and who believe that Jesus died for their sins. They readily admit to being sinners and confess their sins to Jesus. I was very curious about how they got around those verses in the NT which seemed to condemn homosexuals to hell. I started doing research, beginning with the Gay Christian Network. There is a whole body of work done by Biblical scholars, that is quite compelling.

            But, that’s what I did. You may not be curious by nature, as I am. And, that’s okay with me. I appreciate hearing all POV. You have spoken your truth in love, and that’s terrific.

  • Virgil Renfroe

    Bernie, we both know that the gay couple were much happier to get the turn down than the cake, THATS A FACT ,what does that mean? to me it means, that they are part of that homosexual movement that isn’t satisfied with live and let live, they insist that no matter your beliefs you must accept their lifestyle as normal as apple pie, do you think if I had went to the same bakery and ordered them to bake a cake with my bride and me naked in all our naked glory, that they would have approved of baking such cake , I think not, When you look at the cake you miss the picture completely, this is nothing on earth except an in your face agenda, against this, or any other moral thing, that believes how they live is wrong, There are different segments to most things , these are the freedom to believe as I do only crowd, I have many gay friends of common sense , they don’t want to force anyone to their table, they wouldn’t harm the morals and traditions of any families or their religions, mostly their concern with marriage is they would like to legally marry through the law for legal and money reasons, not the church, and they don’t live their lives in screaming anger and hate, what I just said here may piss many off , but most know it’s truth, and that’s all I care about, Freedom means that you may have to hear people say things you don’t approve of, and that you may have to shop a little to get your cake and eat it to,

    • Ron F

      It is not a fact, it is your opinion. You may be correct but it is still just an opinion. Further, does it matter if it is agenda driven? It does not make it any less valid.

  • Rose

    Jesus took a few loaves and fishes and fed the multitudes. We are not told that he first took a poll to see if everyone was pure as driven snow. He did not ask if any homosexuals were present so as to deny them food. If Jesus can feed sinners of all kinds, why is the baker obsessing about baking a cake for two people that he deems to be sinful? Seems to me Jesus set the example to be followed. He also gave us another great example. He did not encourage a judgmental mob to stone the adulterous woman. He said that those without sin could cast the first stones. Is the baker without sin and therefore able to punish the gay couple for their supposed sin? Jesus sat down and broke bread with people he knew to be sinners, yet the baker is too good to even bake a cake for sinners? If the life of Jesus is an example for us to follow, the baker has deviated from the path.

    • Eric Maher

      Hate the sin, love the sinner.

      • Rose

        The baker would not have “participated” in the wedding, unless he had jumped out of the cake!

        • Eric Maher

          Apparently the baker disagrees with your definition of participation. That’s not enough for the government to ignore the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religious exercise.

          The Bill of Rights, all ten of those amendments, protect the people from government over-reach. All ten of them! Isn’t that awesome?

          • Rose

            Religious exercise should not permeate every area of American life and cannot be forced on others.

          • Eric Maher

            >> Religious exercise should not permeate every area of American life <> cannot be forced on others. <<

            Not selling you a cake is FORCE?

    • KStrett

      Rose,
      You are forgetting about repenting from sin and the numerous times Jesus told people to stop sinning. You are attempting to incoperate the modern self refuting notion of “don’t judge” to Jesus’ teachings. Jesus did not teach to continue sinning at will.

      • Rose

        Eating is not sinful. Baking is not sinful. We do not have to repent for other people’s sins. Even if the baker think homosexuality is a sin, it is their sin, not his. Does he want to starve sinners? If so, he will not bake for anyone.

        • KStrett

          “Eating is not sinful. Baking is not sinful”

          Eating and baking isn’t the issue.

          “We do not have to repent for other people’s sins.”

          You were attempting to argue that Jesus was the equivalent of Dr. Phil and that he accepts you sinning at will. He did not.

          In fact, if you are not saved; Jesus said you are going to hell for eternity.

          “. Even if the baker think homosexuality is a sin, it is their sin, not his. Does he want to starve sinners?”

          The issue isn’t about feeding starving people. A Christian soup kitchen isn’t going to turn someone away because they are gay.

          The issue is should a christian business be forced to bake a cake or take photographs of a homosexual wedding when the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

          Your reasoning is extremely convoluted…

          • Rose

            I said Jesus fed people. He did. I said Jesus cautioned against judging others. He did. Yes, Jesus said for people to repent and sin no more. But are you saying the baker can somehow repent for the gays if he does not bake the cake? Hello? Your reasoning is very convoluted. You are one of those Christians who enjoys the idea of others burning in Hell and who loves to judge who is sinful and who is not and who has repented enough and who has not. The live message from Jesus is a big fat bore to you. You like the message of Heaven being just for a chosen few and hope to have a front row seat at the hail fire and brimstone torture of the wicked. That’s your idea of a Heaven. Ha! Dream on. Something tells me your own judgement day will not be smooth sailing. Take the log from your own eye!

          • KStrett

            “I said Jesus fed people. He did.”

            There is a difference between feeding the poor and operating a business.

            ” I said Jesus cautioned against judging others.”

            There is a difference between putting yourself on a pedestal by judging someone and accepting sin.

            “But are you saying the baker can somehow repent for the gays if he does not bake the cake”

            No, you are mixing two different issues together. Your notion of not judging comes from Dr Phil not Jesus.

            The second issue is about religious freedom.

            ” You are one of those Christians who enjoys the idea of others burning in Hell and who loves to judge who is sinful and who is not and who has repented enough and who has not.”

            You just contradicted yourself. Don’t judge but you just judged me!

            I don’t want anyone to go to hell.There is no judging who is sinful and who is not because we are all sinful.

            ” The live message from Jesus is a big fat bore to you.”

            Jesus message was 100% about salvation. It was not social gospel. If you feed the poor and are not saved, you are not going to heaven. That is what Jesus taught.

            “You like the message of Heaven being just for a chosen few and hope to have a front row seat at the hail fire and brimstone torture of the wicked.”

            First of all, I don’t like that. Do you deny Jesus taught anyone who didn’t believe in him and wasn’t saved won’t go to heaven?

            “Something tells me your own judgement day will not be smooth sailing. Take the log from your own eye!”

            I don’t deserve to go to heaven. That was the whole point of Jesus’ sacrifice. No one deserves to go because we are all fallen sinful people.

          • Rose

            I do not watch Dr. Phil and know nothing about him. That is a very invalid judgement of me. Apparently the sermon on the mount and the story of the woman caught in adultery are not your favorite parts of the Bible. I like them very much and consider them lessons in how to live and treat others. I also consider them cautionary tales about hoe to avoid getting too big for your holy britches. You, however, are more concerned with a vengeful God of wrath, it appears and the fear and dread of Hell. I still say messages of love and tolerance do not appear to be your cup of tea. I think you just might have hurled a rick at the woman “for her own good” and told Jesus that she had to suffer for her sins. He would have been too much of a softy for you, with all his talk of kindness, love and judging not, lest ye be judged. Why in a way, that Jesus is downright New Age. Love one another. Let not your hearts be troubled. Be not afraid. His eye is on the sparrow. Beggers and lepers, the blind and lame, the little children all embraced by a living Jesus who breaks bread with the outcasts and worst of sinners.

          • Rose

            Yes, I am sure you don’t deserve to go to Heaven, and perhaps you won’t. But it seems the best way to get there is to be concerned about your own soul and not make a mountain out of a molehill.

          • KStrett

            “Yes, I am sure you don’t deserve to go to Heaven, and perhaps you won’t.”

            You are missing the entire point of the gospel! No one deserves to go to heaven! No one is perfect and can get there legalistically. That is the entire point of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

            Mankind can’t do it so he did it for us. However, that doesn’t mean universalism. You have to repent and believe.

            ” But it seems the best way to get there is to be concerned about your own soul and not make a mountain out of a molehill.”

            This is why Paul was lamenting of the sinful nature of various cultures Christians encountered back then?

            Why was he calling out out the sinful acts of individuals and incorrect doctrine within the church?

            The gospel you believe in is not the Gospel of Jesus.

          • Ross Williams

            There is no gospel of Jesus, mr god-man. There’s a gospel of Matthew, a gospel of Mark, a gospel of Luke …
            Better hit Sunday School a bit harder.

          • KStrett

            Are you serious?

          • Ross Williams

            Not only am I serious, but I’m correct as well.

            What are the odds?”

            When was the last time you went to church? You should know this.

          • KStrett

            You are not correct when you stated that I believed there was a book called gospel of Jesus.

          • Ross Williams

            [[The gospel you believe in is not the Gospel of Jesus]]

            [[You are not correct when you stated that I believed there was a book called gospel of Jesus]]
            Why do you insist?

          • KStrett

            “I do not watch Dr. Phil and know nothing about him”

            You notion of not judging isn’t coming from the Bible. You also don’t hold yourself to the same standard because you are clearly judging me.

            ” I still say messages of love and tolerance do not appear to be your cup of tea.”

            You deny that Jesus taught if you didn’t believe in him and are not saved you will be sent to hell?

            Despite preaching tolerance, acceptance and not judging people you are doing all three to me!

            “the story of the woman caught in adultery are not your favorite parts of the Bible.”

            Actually this is not in any of the Greek manuscripts but was added much later.

            “Why in a way, that Jesus is downright New Age.”

            New age thinking and Jesus’ teaching are diametrically opposing view points.

            “the little children all embraced by a living Jesus who breaks bread with the outcasts and worst of sinners.”

            You are attempting to make the Bible into what you want it to be and not what it says. You are picking and choosing what you like and ignoring or ignorant of teachings that go against the portions that you like.

            I don’t believe you are going to answer my question about the doctrine of hell.

            Matthew 7:21-23

            “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your
            name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

            Matthew 7:13-14

            “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

            You might not like it but Jesus did not teach heaven is an all inclusive place and you just need to love everyone to get there.

          • Sheila Warner

            What about Matthew 25:31-46?

            And you do realize, of course, that many people have honest disagreements about how the Bible should be interpreted, right? We Christians are a very diverse group.

          • KStrett

            There are some points in the Bible there are honest disagreements about and other interpretations that are flat out incorrect. There are certian interpretations that were deemed heresies for a reason.

            For example, believing salvation is predicated on how you treat people.

          • Rose

            Jesus did not feed just the poor. He fed all of the multitudes, and not all of his followers were poor. At the wedding at Canaan, he provided wine for all the guests, who were not poor. Jesus healed some but not all lepers. He rose Lazarus from the dead, but not all the dead were raised. He dined with all kinds of people. When he told people to go and sin no more, we do not know if they were able to do that. Even those who claim to be born again and saved do not say that they never sin again. Indeed, they still ask for forgiveness, which they claim is granted. And that leads us to the subject of forgiveness. If the baker thinks homosexuality is a sin, is it an unforgivable or unpardonable sin?

          • KStrett

            Jesus’ message was 100% about salvation. There is not a gospel for salvation and a social gospel that also provides a way to salvation too.

            “those who claim to be born again and saved do not say that they never sin again”

            You are conflating wanting to repenting from sin but missing the mark with believing you can sin at will.

            “If the baker thinks homosexuality is a sin, is it an unforgivable or unpardonable sin?”

            A gay wedding equates to believing you can sin at will.

            Again you are conflating religion with politics. The issue is about religious freedom and rights of conscience.

            Your own rationale dictates a Christian baker could not throw neo-nazis out of the store or refuse to bake a cake with a swastika design.

            Should a christian catering company be required to provide their services to a pornography award dinner?

          • Sheila Warner

            “Jesus’ message was 100% about salvation.”

            Jesus might be surprised at your statement. He had a lot to say about how we treat each other. In fact, at the final judgment, he will make his decision about who is “saved” and who is “not saved” based on–how we treat others. Read Matthew 25:31-46.

          • KStrett

            “and who is “not saved” based on–how we treat others.”

            That is completely false. You have set up a legalistic system for salvation. If you treat enough people the way God wants, you go to heaven. If you don’t treat enough people the way God wants, you don’t.

            The entire point of Jesus’ death on the cross was it is imposable to get into heaven by works! By arguing all we need to do is enough good works, you render Jesus’ death on the cross as pointless.

          • Sheila Warner

            Jesus himself described the judgment at the end of the age. He says that those who say “Lord, Lord” are not necessarily going to heaven. His criteria for those who enter into the joys of the Father are these: feed the naked, clothe the poor, give water to the thirsty, give shelter to the homeless, visit the sick, and visit the imprisoned. (Matthew 25:31-46)

            Claiming the name of Jesus does not excuse you from doing what he wants you to do in life. Those who did not do those things were cast out of his presence. The Christians who are so determined not to bake a cake need to remember that passage. Faith alone isn’t enough–you have to obey Jesus’ commands when you decide to follow him.

          • Rose

            Love how you say a “Christian” soup kitchen would not turn away a gay. Neither would a non-Christian soup kitchen.

          • Josh

            Actually, there was a story about a month ago. A Christian soup kitchen turned atheists away who brought by materials for the needy.

          • KStrett

            “Love how you say”

            Rose, your thinking is incredibly convoluted. The context of my comment was to show there is a difference between feeding the poor and operating a business.

          • Ross Williams

            [[if you are not saved; Jesus said you are going to hell for eternity]]
            Say hi to Hitler. You should have some catching up to do.

          • KStrett

            “Say hi to Hitler. You should have some catching up to do.”

            Let me get this straight:

            Stating that Jesus taught if people didn’t believe in him and were not saved they would go to hell makes me the equivalent of a man who murdered 6 million people?

            “there are rules in this country ONLY to political liberty”

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

            That sounds like religious liberty to me. However, it sounds like you misunderstood me.

            ” 20th century as everyone else was entering the 21st”

            In other words, believing that homosexuals have a fundamental right to redefine marriage is a more evolved position than someone who doesn’t believe redefining marriage is a right?

            Do you believe polygamists have the exact same fundamental right to redefine marriage?

          • Ross Williams

            [[That sounds like religious liberty to me]]

            We live in a political system, not a religious system. You have the POLITICAL liberty to the religion of your choice, even if that choice is “none of the above”.

            Your liberties are [supposed to be] guaranteed and protected by the politics which defined them as existing.

            And yes, part of that political liberty to the religion of your choice is to act in ways that your religious conscience directs you, however hypocritical that direction may be.

            And, yes, you’re a hypocrite. You seem to have no understanding of what Render Unto Caesar means, let alone Judge Not, … and I won’t even BEGIN to mention That Which Ye Do To The Least Of Men Ye Do To Me.

            Oh, rats … I just mentioned it.

            Well .. there it is. At least three points of hypocrisy for you to pray upon. Pray well. Don’t forget to go to the closet.

          • KStrett

            “You have the POLITICAL liberty to the religion of your choice,”

            I was not arguing we live in a theocracy.

            ” You have the POLITICAL liberty to the religion of your choice, even if that choice is “none of the above”.

            This is a distinction without a difference.

            “And, yes, you’re a hypocrite.”

            How am I a hypocrite, Ross?

          • KStrett

            Ross,

            Why do you have such a problem answering questions?

            Stating that Jesus taught if people didn’t believe in him and were not saved would go to hell makes me the equivalent of a man who murdered 6 million people?

            Do you deny Jesus taught people would be sent to hell for not believing him?

            Do you believe polygamists have the exact same fundamental right to redefine marriage?

          • Ross Williams

            [[...makes me the equivalent of a man who murdered 6 million people? ]]

            So from this repetitive query I am supposed to draw a conclusion OTHER THAN you being a brainless parrot unable to do more than poutily repeat yourself in an approximation of sentience?

            Lookit, Polly, if you insist on advertising yourself to be brainless, I WILL treat you that way. Your mopey, peevish inquiry was answered whether you like the answer or not. It’s the only one you’re going to get.

            Deal with it.

            [[Do you deny Jesus taught people would be sent to hell for not believing him?]]

            It’s very difficult to know what Joshua bar Joseph taught, as the bible has been edited, “interpreted”, RE”interpreted”, expurgated, “clarified”, and dumbed-down for roughly 20 centuries.

            The whole “virgin birth” thing was an insertion at the point of a sword in the 4th century AD. The least edited version of the bible belongs to the Copts of Egypt and northern Africa … and they certainly believe that Joshua was less narcissistic than you would make him out to be.

            I’m going to go with “It doesn’t matter to me”

            [[Do you believe polygamists have the exact same fundamental right to redefine marriage?]]

            Once again, you are stating the question improperly. The definition of marriage does not change; the application does.

            Restate the question.

            “Why do you have such troubles properly forming your quibbles?”

            [[How am I a hypocrite, Ross?]]
            Answered just above. Are you going to add more evidence to your being an illiterate simp only feigning sentience? or are you going to stop playing games?

          • KStrett

            “So from this repetitive query”

            In other words, you can’t defend your original comment.

            “It’s very difficult to know what Joshua bar Joseph taught,”

            Here is yet another dodge using deconstructionism.

            “The whole “virgin birth” thing was an insertion”

            Flat out not true.

            “I’m going to go with “It doesn’t matter to me””

            Red herring. The issue is whether stating the doctrine of hell and what the Bible says about homosexuality warrants your insulting comments.

            “The definition of marriage does not change; the application does.”

            The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. If the definition of marriage isn’t changing, homosexuals must have been able to get married at some time in the country’s history other than recently.

            When was that?

            We both know you can’t not cite a homosexual wedding that happened in the distant past.

            “Restate the question.”

            Your objection is predicated on a false premise and you will not answer the question.

            If you answer yes, you have admitted you want to force the total deconstruction of marriage on the rest of the culture.

            If you answer no, you are denying the same exact right to another group, which makes you hypocritical.

            “Answered just above.”

            You have provided absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that I am a hypocrite.

            Am I engaging in homosexual behavior while stating it is a sin? That would make me a hypocrite.

            I don’t know how I could be hypocritical about stating the doctrine of hell.

            You problem is with the Bible.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Let me get this straight]]

            “Straight”. I get it. ha ha ha.

            [[Stating that Jesus taught if people didn't believe in him and were not saved they would go to hell makes me the equivalent of a man who murdered 6 million people?]]

            No. The fact that you are an unchristian hypocrite claiming the peevish need to abuse your religious creed over matters that strike a specific distaste in you means that you will be going to hell … if you are correct about god, and his laws and such.

            When you get there, you will run into Hitler.

            …and Ted Kennedy. And you should say hi. Just because you’ll be in hell doesn’t mean you need to be impolite. Besides, you’ll have done enough of that here on Earth, no?

          • KStrett

            “The fact that you are an unchristian hypocrite”

            Please explain how I am a hypocrite?

            “peevish need to abuse your religious creed”

            You said no but then contradicted yourself. If I am only stating the Christian doctrine of Hell or pointing out what the Bible says about homosexuality you can not insult me me for it.

            If I am correct about the doctrine of hell and what the Bible states about homosexuality, your insult are directed at Christian doctrine not me.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Please explain how I am a hypocrite?]]

            Already done elsewhere, but … for your instant edification: you refuse to “judge not”, you cannot comprehend “render unto caesar” and the requirement to that you “treat the least of men so ye treat me” is COMPLETELY over your head.

            The bible says very very critical things of fornicators, of those who eat pork, of those who take the lords name in vain, of those who do almost everything fun. How many of those types of people are you trying to argue for keeping out of the store?

            If:
            1] all of them, then you’re not a hypocrite.
            2] none of them, then you are.

            It’s pretty simple

    • Sheila Warner

      Wow, Rose! Just, WOW. What a great comment. I will certainly remember this line of thinking in the future. You are a breath of fresh air here.

  • Brendan Horn

    A lot of the examples you have cited where people claim religion is their excuse are not really religious arguments at all. I think a religious excuse must at least cite some religious law as the basis for their argument. The fool that says God does not want interracial marriage because different races were created in different locations is not making a religious argument. Such people are imagining their opinions are based on God. Such people are simply delusional.There is no religious law that I have ever seen which says a person shall not sell cake to homosexuals. Also, a person is not religious just because they declare themselves to be religious. A lot of people declare themselves to be religious in order to justify their immoral actions. They imagine themselves to be good and so they believe they know God or understand what God would want them to be and do. They are just kidding themselves.

    • Ross Williams

      [[Such people are imagining their opinions are based on God]]
      You’re right. But so what? The issue is not whether or not these people are doctrinal hypocrites. That is allowed. The government has no place to compel these people to abide by the rules of their own belief system
      The issue is that this is supposed to be a free country, where the power of the government to push its people around is strictly limited to a very very very slim set of behaviors, and being rude to people, being hypocrites, running a business to not make money … is not in those rules.

    • Eric Maher

      >> The fool that says God does not want interracial marriage because different races were created in different locations is not making a religious argument. <> A lot of people declare themselves to be religious in order to justify their immoral actions. <<

      A lot of people are sincere, too.

      In any case, there's a crucial difference between (1) "This is a good idea" and (2) "Everybody should be forced to do this."

      Tolerance is good. Being forced by the law to obey an official definition of tolerance is very bad.

      Bigotry is bad. Being forced by the law to abandon personal principles is very bad.

      If a business or a store wants to refuse service, that business or store should have that freedom. If their stance means they don't have very many customers (or means they have lots of protesters at their door) …

      • brendan horn

        If you read Bernard’s article you would see what I was writing about with respect to interracial marriage.

        My main point was that often times people think they are doing things for religious reasons when they are really doing what they want to do and pretending they are doing it based on religion. What religious doctrine tells people to not sell cake to homosexuals? Denying normal services to people for self righteous reasoning is not, to me, the same thing as following religious doctrine. Abortion and marriage are different issues with legitimate religious opposition. Discriminating against people without any real religious reasoning is simply vanity.

        • Eric Maher

          >> often times people think they are doing things for religious reasons when they are really doing what they want to do <> What religious doctrine tells people to not sell cake to homosexuals? <> Denying normal services to people <> self righteous reasoning <> legitimate religious opposition. <<

          So your definition of legitimacy is enough to bring down the force of government on this guy? I don't think so. Neither did the Founding Fathers.

    • Sheila Warner

      “The fool that says God does not want interracial marriage because different races were created in different locations is not making a religious argument.”

      To you, it’s not a religious argument. To them, it was. You can’t decide for another person what their religion teaches them, or how they perceive those teachings.

      Here’s another reason why the law in AZ needed to be struck down: those who oppose gay marriage have to go to court and defend their religious tenets. They have to “prove” that it is their religious beliefs which causes them to not serve a person based on those beliefs. Do you really want the government to decide the veracity of another person’s religion? I sure don’t.

  • Sister Renee’ Mauser, O.L.T.

    This article is a perfect example of how so called Christians can distort the word of God. The Bible was indeed written by men, but inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is God!
    So many denominations, all trying to interpret the Bible the way THEY want to live it! These people are no different than those who are PUSHING their agenda of homosexual unions, I cannot say marriage, because marriage has been defined BY GOD, as one man and one woman. Man cannot rewrite or vote in a new law given to us by God.
    You may say, it depends on what the word “is” is, right?
    Wrong, common sense and the ability to read even the most simple dialog will tell you what God meant in the sin of Sodomy or same sex actions!
    God gave us commandments because He loves us, not because He wants to make us miserable. This agenda to force people to become “Comfortable” with such actions is proof positive, that if you let man do what HE pleases, all hell breaks out.
    And speaking of HELL, there is one, and if you don’t believe in it , you will when you get there!
    Now, no one is hating this one or that one, we are to LOVE even our enemies, but we are to HATE the sin. Until our sad and very chaotic world accepts the fact that we are not our own, we did not make us, God did, and that there is actually Sin, we will not be a civilized world.
    Accepting sinful actions, just because of an agenda, is a sin!
    you can sin by committing a wrongful act with full knowledge, but you can also sin by going along with or supporting someone else in their sins! such as baking a cake for the sinful union!
    Or, funding an abortion or driving one to an abortion mill.
    again, until Sin is acknowledged, this country and the world will have much to answer for.
    pick up the bible, actually READ the word of God, humble yourself and learn what God Says, not how man has wrongly interpreted it in the examples of this article!
    Sister Renee’

    • Nellie Bly

      Strange how people interpret the Bible by Christian actions, instead of reading it for themselves. Jesus was quite clear about loving our enemies and treating everyone with kindness. If we all did that, then others would interpret the Bible truthfully.

      • Eric Maher

        Hate the sin, love the sinner.

        • Ross Williams

          Actually, there’s quite a number of sins that are pretty lovable.
          I’ll just keep my options open regarding them

    • brent kaufman

      Be weary of those who write with as many exclamation points as this.

    • Deborah G

      Sister renee can you tell me then why so many Catholic nuns are gay and why they condone abortions, gay unions and have no issue with it? I am always totally confused about that one. The reason I am no longer a Catholic is the hypocrisy.

      • Sheila Warner

        “so may Catholic nuns”. How many? What percentage of the total number of nuns believe those things? They just get the spotlight. Also, you left the Church because of the hypocrisy? You didn’t stick around for the reforms, I suppose. I left Protestantism and entered the Catholic Church nearly 10 years ago and I am completely happy there. I think more has to be done to resolve the pedophile issue, because so many children, now adults, have yet to have come forward. I know for certain that child abuse is rampant among some of the really conservative Protestant denominations, but I would never say that all Protestants are child molesters or child abusers. Sure wish there was greater accountability, though. Many churches are independent, which means the pastor runs the show. He is accountable to no one.

    • Notation Phallatio

      You are twisted, “sister”!!!!!!!

  • batorsin

    Here’s one for you, Bernie
    A strange thing recently happened. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has to shop around for a new hairdresser because the one she used the last three times is gay and doesn’t agree with the governor’s view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

    Her stylist of late, Antonio Darden, confirmed that that’s it — he won’t cut the governor’s hair as long as she holds her traditional views on marriage, according to the New York Daily News.

    “The governor’s aides called not too long ago, wanting another appointment to come in,” he told KOB-TV. “Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides no. They called the next day, asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in and I said no.”

    Darden was described by the Daily News as a popular Santa Fe hairstylist who has been with his gay partner for 15 years.

    “It’s just equality, dignity for everyone,” he said. “Everybody should be allowed the right to be together.”

    Isn’t this the same thing as the cake or photographer issue? The governor in this case is being discriminated against. Where’s all the hoopla on this? When it’s reversed, it makes headlines. Oh, you liberals. Get a grip!

    • Ross Williams

      [[Isn't this the same thing as the cake or photographer issue?]]
      Yes, you pesky equivalizer, you.
      But fear not, someone from the Tyranny of Liberal Sentimentality movement will be along shortly to explain how up is really down and 2+2 truly equals 5.

    • Rose

      I think the hair stylist is wrong to deny the service to the governor. However, there is a difference. In the bakery incident, neither the baker nor the gay couple are elected officials capable of enforcing or implementing laws. They are not affiliated with local, state or federal government. Their influence is very narrow, for they are ordinary people who wield little or no power. The governor is symbolic and influential. Still, I think the hair stylist should continue to style her hair.

      • Deborah G

        I don’t if it makes him uncomfortable. I am also not having a problem with the baker being uncomfortable and following their beliefs. THAT is true freedom

  • Marilyn Wilkinson

    Bernie, here is the difference. A business that serves the public should serve anyone who comes into their store, including someone who wants you to bake a cake for whatever reason. However, that changes when the request is for a photographer or a caterer to LEAVE their place of business and serve a PRIVATE party. No one should be forced to go anywhere where they do not feel comfortable, whether it is for religious reasons or just plain safety.

    • PAPUSA

      This is an interesting perspective.

    • PolkaDot

      [A business that serves the public should serve anyone who comes into their store, including someone who wants you to bake a cake for whatever reason.] Only true if the business is run by the Government, such as Post Office or Department of Motor Vehicles. Constitution protects you from being oppressed by the Government. If I stop anyone from expressing their opinion, I do not violate their First Amendment rights – only the Government can violate it. Any law should not create a protected (privileged) class of citizens, otherwise “some animals” become “more equal then the others”. It has nothing to do with the religious beliefs or lack of such, perceived morality or immorality of the actions of this individual or the other. Only if one’s life, health or property is in danger, should the Government interfere. Otherwise, leave us the h*ll alone, We The People will figure it out.

  • worker1950

    The power for people of faith comes from how they spend their money.
    When deciding which dry cleaner to use or which deli to go to for lunch,
    when possible support the business owned by the couple who attends your church or the one own by the traditional Jewish family in your neighbor.

    • Sheila Warner

      Nothing like being isolated from those terrible sinners. I wonder why Jesus didn’t give this commandment to his followers? “Truly I say unto you; use your money only where your fellow men agree with your stand on homosexuality.”

      I suppose it is because he was too busy hanging out with sinners. You know, the sinners who own the businesses that you don’t want to patronize.

      • Eric Maher

        Hate the sin, love the sinner.

        The baker welcomed gay customers. But he didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding, which the baker considered a sin. There’s a difference.

    • Rose

      Worker, you are just a few steps away from boycotting businesses which is a “leftist” tactic. Ha!

      • worker1950

        I never said nor did I suggest boycotting. Instead I’m saying
        people of faith should support businesses owned by other people of faith. There is power in how you spend your
        money. People of faith should start using that power.

    • Rose

      What if the Jewish merchant offered a better product at a lower cost?

    • brickman

      I’m a Catholic but I’m also a capitalist. You’ll excuse me if I eat lunch at the deli with the best food and go to the dry cleaner who provides the best service.

  • Russell Childs

    Bernie: You have run off the rails a bit with this one. As society is dramatically changing its acceptance and open encouragement of homosexual relationships, the question seems to me to be less about homosexuals being treated with decency, common courtesy and respect (which every person certainly deserves) than it does with the crushing power of a massive governmental bureaucracy that is determined to define how we think, feel, act and even worship.

    Since more and more judges are siding with the homosexual community’s desire to redefine the definition of marriage while aggressively pushing this redefinition as a basic “civil right”, how long do you think it will be before Eric Holder, the IRS and others begin to use the cudgel of governmental interference to threaten the tax exempt status of churches and faith based organizations that do not embrace the homosexual lifestyle by performing and accepting gay marriage and in other ways openly approving and affirming homosexuality?

    It appears to me that homosexual activists are less interested in having me and my family treat them with decency, respect and common courtesy than they are in having not only my family, but the country at large, promote, endorse and openly approve of all aspects of the homosexual lifestyle.

    • forrest

      You are so right mr childs. No where in the constitution will you find any right to sexual behaviours that are from the norm or even in the norm. You wont find it protecting anybodies sexual need. So, the Gay lobby is every bit as skilled at propaganda as any communist ever was. Civil rights, unless specifically stated in the constitution are a matter of personal interpretation. Besides, anybody who would take the time to write a new law forcing anybody to bow to the Gays should get a real job. America has always been about freedoms to oppose others. If we let people that dont have real jobs legislate for those of us who have more important jobs to do every day, then, its the beginning of our end as a free respectable nation. I personally just dont see the need for any law protecting any specific group. If a law does not protect everyone then it should be removed from the books. Anyone can write bad law, anyone. Next thing you know they will have to bake cakes for the pedophile who wants to marry some kid. If you dont like what I said then dont bring up the subject and contaminate everybody else with it Bernie or whoever.

      • Ross Williams

        [[No where in the constitution will you find any right to sexual behaviours that are from the norm or even in the norm]]

        9thAM: We didn’t write down all the rights a citizen possesses; it would have taken too much ink

        10thAM: If the power to control something was not given to the feds, the power belongs to the states or the people.

        14thAM: …and on second thought, the states can’t be trusted with those undefined powers either … so they belong to the people.

        Because the government was not given any authority to control who has sex with whom, and when, and using how many batteries, the people have the right to decide this for themselves.

        DO deal with it.

        • Rose

          Not to be too graphic, but sodomy is practiced by some heterosexuals. Just saying….

          • Ross Williams

            “Some”? in my own experience, it’s 100%

        • Sheila Warner

          There are states where the people have decided to allow same sex marriage.

          The legally married gay couples, should they move, automatically lose federal benefits if they move to a state that bans gay marriage. So, their benefits are predicated on their location. That is not equal protection.

          • Ross Williams

            [[The legally married gay couples, should they move, automatically lose federal benefits if they move to a state that bans gay marriage]]
            Why do you insist on advertising that you are an ignoramus? You and K Strett need to go off together; you’re perfect for each other: equal and opposite retards.
            The Constitution requires “full faith and credit” – you can look it up. A state that even BEGINS to attempt to deny marital recognition of anyone legally married in another state will have a whole lotta legal issues. In fact … if you’ve been watching the news … that very matter has JUST been decided in the last week or two in a federal court.

          • Sheila Warner

            First of all, it’s nice to see that my POV regarding your level of maturity has been validated. “ignoramus” “retards”

            Did you read the opinion of the SCOTUS in the DOMA case, aka the Windsor case? The SCOTUS specifically permitted states that prohibit gay marriage the right to continue to deny benefits to married gays. In NJ, the ban on gay marriage was overturned in the courts based on that discrimination. And, the courts are overturning gay marriage bans in other states as well. So, yes, the federal courts are getting involved in states. But the SCOTUS did not strike down all states’ ban on gay marriage. It did not impose gay marriage on the nation.

            Here’s the entire opinion. I suggest you read it all, but the pertinent legal opinions are found in the syllabus.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

            No ignoramus I! I actually read the opinion for myself. Perhaps you will be enlightened if you read it as well.

          • Ross Williams

            There’s a military acronym used a lot … OBE.
            Overcome
            By
            Events
            It’s a shorthand way of saying that what used to be the case no longer is.
            And when you start talking about the expedient politics of court rulings, you’d better get used to pulling out “OBE” quite a lot, because that rarified establishment can’t seem to keep track of what it’s supposed to do.
            In any event, as of a few weeks ago, the court woke up from their stupor and recognized the requirement for Full Faith and Credit.
            You and your argument are OBE.

          • Sheila Warner

            Fine.

  • Laura Mandell

    Thx for being a conservative who stands up for civil rights. I’m not conservative but I like finding places where we can all agree.

  • Dexter2

    The market should rule. If its so horrible that business will go under. I think the LBGT community believes public opinion will sway if the market is left open to operate on its own.

    • Deborah G

      Exactly just like affirmative action when the Government steps in to legislate fairness it goes out the window. Let the Free Markets decide if discrimitory businesses stay afloat or fail. The issue is the Gays KNOW no one or very few [less than 5% ] of the polpulation cares one iota IF they get a cake or not. That is what the Gays fear that they will be rendered insignificant which by statistics and logic they already are. All the screaming and demanding doesn’t make them relevamt it makes them just like everyone else. They will make it or fail on their own merits and value to society.They don’t want to take that risk they want special privilage to stack their deck.

      • Ross Williams

        [[Gays KNOW no one or very few [less than 5% ] of the polpulation cares one iota IF they get a cake or not]]

        Actually, around 75% of the US supports the notion of gay rights [in general], well over 50% that they have the same right to marry, and most of the rest of that 75% that they can get “civil unions” … which is being married by a justus o’ da peace down at city hall.

        In some demographics, the support exceeds that by leaps and bounds – the under 30 age cohort, for example, is running at about 85-90% support. It’s the way of the future, so get used to it sooner rather than later and save yourself the anguish.

        On the other hand, almost as many people support the concurrent right of a business-owner to be rude and refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake. In the clash of rights in a FREE country, sometimes the neanderthals are free to be neanderthals.

        • Deborah G

          LOL That depends on the polls and the demographics of the poll AS well as the parameters of the polls. I saw. IF you polled the midwest it wouldn’t be anywhere close to that. In fact do a google search and my guess you are using a Huff Post[pro liberal agenda] Vs a well respected set of polls that actually do a real cross section. I may be wrong but I doubt the Middle part of the country is FOR anything related to abberent behavior from gays. I read several of the polls and as a trained statistian and Medical professional the question were quite well crafted to come to their desired results. IF you ask 100 people in NYC for example the breeding grounds for homosexual activity or San Fran most likely the 85% you claim is veryt easily skewed. The world and the country is more than the two coasts. The fact is the MAJORITY of Americans do not live in urban coastal liberal cities.

          • Sheila Warner

            Here’s Reuters’ poll, which includes the Midwest. Sorry but the majority of the Midwest supports gay marriage, also. It’s white and black evangelicals who still overwhelmingly do not support it, and also the Southern states.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usa-gay-survey-idUSBREA1P07020140226

          • Deborah G

            REUTER’S IS NOT A TRSUTED POLLING VENUE IT IS A NEWS GATHERING ORG. That is not a good source. Pew, Quinnipiac etc are all expert reliable polls

          • Sheila Warner

            Well, news organizations poll all the time, so your objection to Reuters is puzzling. But, we’ll go with Pew, which did a study recently. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/25/arizona-bill-sparks-debate-about-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage/

            Pew affirms the Reuters poll, which accurately stated that it is the conservative Protestant evangelicals who are mostly opposed. Do check out the Reuters poll. Pew and Reuters are not in conflict. I think most people realize that conservative Christians oppose gay marriage.

            It’s not really a regional thing, with the exception being the South. It’s an overall snapshot of Americans, with a further look at different groups of people, including conservative religious folks.

          • Deborah G

            The paremeters of tyhe poll does NOT suggest that people are “FOR” gay marraige because the paremters are cleary defi9ned as do you think it opposes your religious beliefs. That is NOT the same thing as saying are you “FOR” gay marraige. Logic and statistics are an area of expertise for me. The parameters of the poll i.e the way the question is crafted can get the deired results you are seeking by how it is posed. Second. Many religious people can say Sodomy opposes their religious belief but gay marraige is fine with their religion. This poll asks a specific quest do tyou THINK it violates your religion NOT are you for Gay Marraige? There is a HUGE difference on how the poll is crafted. Nice try.

          • Sheila Warner

            So, then, you reject the Pew poll, too? That’s the one you picked. I did indeed try to talk to you, using a web site that you approve. {{scratching my head}}

          • Josh

            So what’s more likely:

            - There’s a conspiracy to fix numerous polls, to intentionally deceive people, and to scam the American public directly in its face seeing as, according to you, they don’t believe like they were tricked into saying and thus can revolt and let it be known?

            - You’re personal views aren’t actually a majority view?

          • Deborah G

            I am not a conspiracy nut. I am adept at the parameters of polling , logic and statisics. I have a PHD from Princeton LOL . it isn’t “trickery it is defining the paremeters. For instance say I am a legit polling group I want to see exactly what the percentage is of people who oppose say Wefare. To be legit I would go to inner city and suburbia, I would make sure the sample was pure by polling whites, blacks,Hispanics,Asians and mixed parentage, I would also poll in poor and wealthy areas as well as middle class. Each sampoling would require enough numbers to be representative with a 35/5% margin off error. THAT is a true PURE poll. To ask a narrow question like does gay marraige go against your religious beliefs” is not the same thing as “Are you FOR gay marraige. Of course Christian conservatives would be the largest portion of that particular poll question/. HOWEVER if they did a big cross sampling all over the country with the pure questiopns “Are you for gay Marraige or opposed?” My belief is that the outcome woould be quite different as this would encompass a broader socio/economic sampling . to confuse the actual intent of the poll is an egregious slight of hand

          • Josh

            Yeah. Another expert heard from.

            Seems to me that they just cut out the middleman and made the assumption that those who believe same-sex marriage is against their religious beliefs are the same folks who oppose gay marriage. If one opposes gay marriage, on what is the opposition based if not religious belief? Therefore if one doesn’t believe it goes against their religious beliefs, what’s the opposition to gay marriage?

            The question was of “same-sex marriage,” not of just being gay.

            And I obviously don’t have the expertise in the field to correct a Princeton graduate, doctorate to boot, but “Are you FOR gay marriage” seems exceedingly narrower than asking if same-sex marriage is against religious beliefs. I figure you’d argue it the other way around: The former is too broad to determine a specific outcome.

          • Deborah G

            See you hgave good logic and you are correct they cut out the middleman and made “Assumptions” not good polling or statisical work. Don’t think because you didn’t graduate Princeton that you are wrong LOL> I happen to agree with you.

          • Josh

            Right. But “assumption” doesn’t necessarily mean “wrong.”

            I ordered a pizza last night from the only mom ‘n pop place left around (and it’s awesome!). Some time later, there was a knock at the door. I assumed it was the pizza man. Or you could say I inferred from previous observation, or I deduced based on evidence. Same thing. My assumption was correct.

            You won’t catch me giving credence to much of anything that deals in the social sciences. I’m a hard sell. But what’s wrong with that assumption? How is it wrong?

          • Deborah G

            You are comparing apples and oranges. The polls have different parameters and you can “PROVE” one by the other. You need to get educated

          • Deborah G

            You are 100% wrong because you do not understand the parameters of the narrow confines of that poll. It does NOT say or suggest by it going against their religion iof they are FOR or AGSINST Gay marraige. LOL> That would be a different poll . Obviously you do not or are not educated in logic and statistics to make such a ludicrious assumption.

  • barry ocarter ll

    Why would you want to force people to perform a service they wouldn’t want to? I would just go to someplace that did and praise them for their service. If I was the cake maker or photographer I would do the worst job I could and ruin the event

    • Sheila Warner

      “If I was the cake maker or photographer I would do the worst job I could and ruin the event”

      Ah, now, THAT’S a Christian response for you!

      • legal eagle

        I think the new name for many people on this site should be “CINO”…..Christians In Name Only….

        • barry ocarter ll

          Force me to do something against my beliefs or will and I wouldn’t do a very good job. I’m not a Christian. I just think there are enough other vendors out there that will do the job. It’s like a handicapped person who looks for public access and sues when he doesn’t have it at a place he doesn’t necessarily need or want to go to. Just needing a lot of attention. It’s not bigotry. It’s business.

          • legal eagle

            Same arguments were made in 1964 when the CRA was passed….The argument seems to be that discrimination is OK against some groups of Americans and not others…..Discrimination is discrimination…The Courts and legislators can decide what constitutes a legally protected class.
            Should you not be required to seat Muslims or Jews or Gays or Mexicans at your restaurant because there are other restaurants around?

          • PolkaDot

            Do you really not get it: NO, YOU SHOULD NOT (and that is irrespective whether there is any other restaurant around). It is the same as with Jim Crow: OWNERS OF PRIVATE BUSINESSES WERE FORCED TO DISCRIMINATE, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS OF COLOR. And they were forced by the GOVERNMENT.

          • legal eagle

            B.S.

          • Ross Williams

            Feigning ignorance of Jim Crow again, arya?
            What, are you on retainer?

          • legal eagle

            I think you’re drinking too much Jim Beam…..LOL

          • Eric Maher

            Once again, your stance doesn’t hold up, so you resort to petty insults. LOL

          • PolkaDot

            You are eloquent, capable of supporting your point of view with facts, classy and funny.

          • Eric Maher

            >> B.S. <<

            Well argued. LOL

          • Eric Maher

            >> B.S. <<

            Well argued. Not.

          • Sheila Warner

            And now they are forced by the Federal gov’t to serve blacks. Hmmm…..I see a pattern emerging.

          • Ross Williams

            [[.....I see a pattern emerging]]
            Yes: coercive government … the EXACT type of government that the “framer’s intent” was written to avoid.

          • Sheila Warner

            I’ll keep referring you to the Court’s decision.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

          • Ross Williams

            More circular reasoning.
            “The purpose of the government is to expand its power, and the rules which say otherwise don’t really say that because the government says so.”
            …and you see nothing wrong with that.
            And you quibble about me referring to you as an ignoramus?

          • Sheila Warner

            Since I didn’t say that, yes, I do.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Since I didn't say that, yes, I do]]

            You have said:

            [[When it comes to citizens abusing others of their Constitutional rights, however it is the duty of the government to step in and defend those rights]]

            [[agencies in the government constantly "tweak" the laws via their regulatory powers]]

            [[I also understand the need for government to step in with laws that protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens]]

            And that was just from ONE of your nearby missives.
            You are therefore claiming that the proper purpose of government to expand its own power contrary to the rules imposed upon it. You don’t seem to indicate any amount of misgiving over it, claiming in most cases that the government is obliged to do it. Yet, you cannot find the authority – I’ve asked you several times – for it to be done.
            Yes, dearie, you DID say that.

          • Sheila Warner

            “You are therefore claiming that the proper purpose of government to expand its own power contrary to the rules imposed upon it.”

            Um, I’m really not. Check out the Preamble, which lays out the purpose of the newly formed Republic as well as the Constitution.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Um, I'm really not.]]

            Yes, you really are.

            [[Check out the Preamble, which lays out the purpose of the newly formed Republic as well as the Constitution.]]

            Which part of creating separate classes of Americans, being subjected to different rules of allowable actions directed at them by both the government AS WELL AS by other citizens, does any of the following:
            1] create a “more perfect” union
            2] establish justice
            3] insure domestic tranquility
            4] provide for common defense
            5] promote general welfare
            6] secure the blessings of liberty to
            6.a] ourselves, or
            6.b] our posterity

            In the analysis of history, you’d be hard-pressed to find any society anywhere in which people, promised equality but given myriad reasons why some people were “more equal” than you, turns that condition into [2] justice, [3] domestic tranquility, [5] the welfare of all, or [6] liberty for ANYone.

            Can you find an example?

            How about the first years of the Soviet Union, where the “worker’s paradise” criminalized wealth [unless it was in the hands of the bolsheviks] and drove all their rich people to other countries?

            Or possibly after the Hugo Chavez “election” where he nationalized the oil industry, removed the folks with the engineering degrees who ran the thing, and replaced them all with his buddies from the barrio?

            Castro?

            The islamist revolution in Iran in ’79?

            The entire L’il Kim franchise in North Korea?

            Did it work there?

            How about in France, where they have statutory [and not terribly polite] imposition of “liberte, egalite, fraternite” to anyone who can make it to their country, … and it’s manifested itself in pretty much continual riots by muslims coming from France’s ex-estate of Algeria, and the completely bizarre notion that any child born in France is a French citizen [that's not the bizarre part], and that the GOVERNMENT tells the parents whether the name they chose to give their child is permissable.

            Or did you have some other ragingly successful examples in mind?

          • Sheila Warner

            I didn’t say anything about other countries–they do not have the same kind of Constitution we do. Apples and oranges. You see protection of rights of a class that has been mistreated as granting them some kind of special rights or privileges. All they got was equal protection under the law. It’s the liberals who have fought for, and won, things like Affirmative Action. I don’t think the Civil Rights Act mentioned quotas.

            We’ve spent days discussing the Civil Rights era/struggle/movement. All of this came about because someone (I can’t remember who) asked if there was a time that the Feds were justified in stepping into the affairs of citizens. I believe the CRA did that, and I still do.

            Lest you misconstrue my overall view on the baker thing–I believe the baker is making the wrong decision. I also don’t think the government should force him to do something he believes violates his religiously held beliefs. I think baking a cake in no way affirms gay marriage, but he does.

            There were a lot of “what ifs” on here. They are speculation, but meant to be a sincere attempt for people to make parallels as they explain themselves. I try to stay away from speculation, but there are times that I use it, too.

            Anyway, as I already said, Eric made a lot of sense, so I think his points were valid. Yours got lost in your attacks. Too bad. I feel sorry for you.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I didn't say anything about other countries]]

            The experience of other countries informs our own. Don’t throw away information.

            [[they do not have the same kind of Constitution we do]]

            But they have the same type of people: basic bags of psychological motivations all operating in predictable and expected ways under similar circumstances. Even if one individual does not act exactly like another, they will all display one of a very slim set of responses, and as a whole there are valid conclusions that can be drawn from one society to another.

            [[You see protection of rights of a class that has been mistreated as granting them some kind of special rights or privileges. All they got was equal protection under the law.]]

            You can only get Equal Protection from treatment BY THE GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT must permit gay marriage, the local catholic church does not.

            Similarly, THE GOVERNMENT cannot prevent gays from buying a wedding cake; the local bakery may

          • PolkaDot

            Did you call yourself a libertarian? “I do not think it means what you think it means”…Good night…and even if you will understand what I was saying all along, do not let me know :)

          • Ross Williams

            [[Did you call yourself a libertarian?]]

            Oh. Dear. God.

            Did she?

            She’s as ANTI-libertarian as anyone here, on either side of this.

            A libertarian doesn’t give a rat’s tuchis who does what to whom; unless it’s outright CRIMINAL, the government has no authority in the matter. Because a libertarian has read – and UNDERSTANDS – the Constitution, and understands that it must be used AS WRITTEN, not as expediently “interpreted” by smarmy yucksters in black robes for their instant agenda, whatever it may be … and which constantly changes.

            A libertarian understand that you don’t change the meaning of the Constitution by “interpretation”; “interpretation is not allowed in Art III. The only proper ways to change the meaning of the Constitution is by

            1] amendment, or

            2] convention.

            There’s no terrorism exemption to the 4thAM, there’s no drunk driving exemption to the 4thAM, there’s no assault gun exemption to the 2ndAM, there’s no gay wedding cake exemption to the 5thAM.

            There’s no seat belt clause in A I § 8, there’s no environmental stewardship clause in A I § 8, there’s no old age pension clause in A I § 8, there’s no almost everything Congress has done for 175 years in A I § 8.
            A libertarian understand that while it’s rude to refuse to sell your stuff to someone who walks in your store, and while it’s discriminatory if it’s done to “a certain type of person” on a recurring basis, freedom means nothing if we aren’t free to be rude, and Property Rights belong to the business owner – period.
            A libertarian understands these things.
            She doesn’t understand what it means to be free, and she certainly acts like she doesn’t want anyone other than herself and those she sympathizes with to have the freedom they were promised.
            She ain’t no libertarian.

          • PolkaDot

            She actually did. In her profile.
            Truly enjoyed reading your comments. Have to stop – they distract me from getting work done :)

          • Sheila Warner

            Yes, I am a Libertarian, but I also understand the need for government to step in with laws that protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens. Human beings, by nature, treat each other poorly at times. Hence, the laws precluding murder and other crimes.

            Yes, the Supreme Court interprets the laws, to make sure they are Constitutional. If you disagree with a Court’s ruling, or don’t like a particular law, you have the right to petition the government for a redress of your grievance. Congress has rewritten laws to get around the rulings of the Supreme Court. And, in some cases, the Constitution has been amended. There are now 27 amendments to the Constitution. You might live long enough to see a Constitutional Amendment to permit gay marriage, because gays are petitioning the government, just as citizens did in the 90s when they asked Congress to pass the DOMA.

            Of course the government has screwed things up. The laws you referenced can be changed if the people press for that change, eg seatbelt laws. Also, the agencies in the government constantly “tweak” the laws via their regulatory powers. Most people don’t even realize this has been done until too late to stop it. That’s why I am a Libertarian.

            When it comes to citizens abusing others of their Constitutional rights, however it is the duty of the government to step in and defend those rights.

            I am a moderate Libertarian overall. I oppose the death penalty because it has not proven to be a deterrent, and it is more costly than imprisonment. Not to mention that death row inmates have been set free with DNA evidence. I’m more conservative when it comes to fiscal issues, but a bit more liberal on social issues. I’m in the middle.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Yes, I am a Libertarian]]

            Liar

            [[I also understand the need for government to step in with laws that protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens.]]

            You are advocating that the government exceeds its Constitutional limits.

            If you wish to dispute this, QUOTE THE CONSTITUTION.

            [[Human beings, by nature, treat each other poorly at times. Hence, the laws precluding murder and other crimes.]]

            Defining crimes is a permitted power of the government

            [[the Supreme Court interprets the laws, to make sure they are Constitutional.]]

            And they don’t often get it correct.

            [[Of course the government has screwed things up]]

            …hence youre blinkered insistence that the government is the Solve-All.

            Have they solved ANYthing yet? The answer is “no”.

            [[Also, the agencies in the government constantly "tweak" the laws via their regulatory powers]]

            Find the authority for “regulatory powers” in the Constitution. [Hint: you can't]

            Are you aware that under regulatory authority, you are considered guilty until YOU prove yourself innocent?

            …so where is the Constitutional authority for regulatory agencies to toss our defined system of jurisprudence on its ear again?

            [[When it comes to citizens abusing others of their Constitutional rights, however it is the duty of the government to step in and defend those rights]]

            Cite the Constitutional authority.

            [[I am a moderate Libertarian overall. I oppose the death penalty because it has not proven to be a deterrent]]

            The death penalty has no bearing on libertarianism. Libertarianism is the political philosophy that insists on the government staying in its predefined box. That box, in the United States, allows for capital punishment. You can think that it doesn’t work well … and you might be able to make a decent argument for that. On second thought, YOU probably couldn’t, since you don’t seem to be able to make a decent argument that water is wet. But someone who knew what he was talking about could make that argument.

            But it is still permitted to the government, hence outside the purview of libertarianism.

            [[I'm in the middle.]]

            Then you could see the Property Rights/Equal Protection argument of the merchants. And you’d be able to see that government intervention for “social issues” does not work as advertised, EVER in human history. And you’d understand why our Constitution was written to NOT give our government any powers to address “social issues”, only having the authority to keep itself in check from taking sides. And you’d be able to see that by the very nature of the governmetn involving itself in “social issues” it is, by definition, taking sides … which it is not permitted to do according to the rules it was defined to be subject to.

            No, sweetie, you are not in the middle, and you are not a libertarian.

          • Sheila Warner

            There’s that seething anger again. I’ve provided you with texts from the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, which are a part of the Constitution. You chose to dismiss one of the Amendments out of hand (the 19th Amendment). If you are so upset that it’s in the Bill of Rights, then call your Congressional leaders from your district and ask them to sponsor legislation to repeal it. As a matter of fact, have you tried petitioning the government on anything that gets you so upset?

          • Ross Williams

            [[There's that seething anger again.]]

            There’s that insulting condescension again.

            [[I've provided you with texts from the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, which are a part of the Constitution]]

            The only thing you’ve cited is the Declaration of Independence.

            Am I to assume that this false statement of your should be exempted from being termed a non-fact or a lie?

            [[You chose to dismiss one of the Amendments out of hand (the 19th Amendment).]]

            I “dismissed” the 19thAM? how? I said it was hardly necessary; that’s not dismissive of IT, it’s dismissive – if anything – only of the people who apparently think women aren’t persons.

            [[f you are so upset that it's in the Bill of Rights...]]

            Another false fact. The Bill of Rights is the first TEN amendments to the Constitution, not the first 19.

            You continue to advertise that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Sheila Warner

            “The only thing you’ve cited is the Declaration of Independence.”

            Wow, Guess who didn’t read all of my comments?

            I am indeed wrong about Amendments 11-27 not being a part of the original Bill of Rights.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I am indeed wrong about Amendments 11-27 not being a part of the original Bill of Rights]]
            One down, about a hundred to go.

          • Sheila Warner

            One final thought, then I’m leaving this forum. Regarding the whole 3 points thing. When I said to K that I didn’t accept his premise, it was YOU who barreled into the thread, chastising me for that reply. I did not read any of what you wrote to K because your comments are long, tedious, and filled with venom. Having said that, if I made you feel insulted, know that was not my attempt. It’s been some time since I encountered anyone on the forums as vicious with their words as you are. The fact that you feel entitled to treat people that way because you believe you are a super smart academic, and thus, anyone who you believe can’t measure up, deserves to be vilified in the most heinous manner. Most people on here are giving their honest opinions and ideas. There are some trolls who just like to stir up trouble, but, for the most part, people around here debate vigorously, passionately, and as honestly as they can. You seem to enjoy smacking many of them down. Anyway, I hope you learn to modulate your rhetoric. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Ah, one word I never saw in your replies to me. You may have the last word, and it can be moron if you like.

          • Ross Williams

            [[it was YOU who barreled into the thread, chastising me for that reply.]]

            I chastised you both. Him for being a rationalizing bigot, you for being … well … I’ve been through that.

            [[your comments are long, tedious, and filled with venom.]]

            I’m good with words, yes. And I type fast

            [[if I made you feel insulted, know that was not my attempt.]]

            Frankly, I’m almost certain it was not intended. Most people do a great many things having no clue how others perceive them; I can proudly say that I’m one of the few who DOES know how others perceive me. And I’m fine with it. I have insight, objectivity, clarity, a VERY developed talent to get my point across, and a large part of the reason I write the way I do is for the simple fact that those who get hung up on my words and cannot see past them are displaying a superficial ability to communicate. And I don’t care to communicate with them.

            [[The fact that you feel entitled to treat people that way because you believe you are a super smart academic, and thus, anyone who you believe can't measure up, deserves to be vilified in the most heinous manner.]]

            I am a super smart academic, most people cannot think their way out of a wad of wet tissue paper, and most of THEM don’t like to be reminded of it; an ego thing.

            [[You seem to enjoy smacking many of them down.]]

            I enjoy pointing out factual errors, hypocrisy and the like, yes.

            The difference is that some people understand they don’t know a subject and ask to have it explained, others know it from a certain perspective and explain that perspective and don’t get faux-pious about others’, and some believe that because they are “sincere” it excuses duplicity and inconsistency, and still others that they are a practitioner in a related field – like a loyyer, e.g., – that it means that their accumulated rationalizations are automatic Gilded Wisdom From On High … it isn’t; it’s simply expedient rationalization.

            [[I hope you learn to modulate your rhetoric.]]

            I won’t; go with your strength, always. My strength is being able to use words as blunt objects to beat people about the head and shoulders with. I’ve tried being nice and conciliatory and banal – it got me nowhere.

            [[Not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron.]]

            Those who disagree but cannot do so rationally are – by definition

            [[You may have the last word, and it can be moron if you like.]]

            The last word is frequently “zymurgy”. Look it up.

          • Ross Williams

            [[The argument seems to be that discrimination is OK against some groups of Americans and not others]]

            Yes. That’s the argument you’re making.

            [[Discrimination is discrimination]]

            That’s the argument I’m making.

            [[The Courts and legislators can decide what constitutes a legally protected class]]

            They have no authority to do so. …as you well know.

            [[Should you not be required to seat Muslims or Jews or Gays or Mexicans at your restaurant because there are other restaurants around?]]
            No. Families with children are currently not seated in thousands of restaurants in the country.

          • legal eagle

            If you keep insisting that the Courts and legislatures do not have the authority to decide what constitutes a “legal class” then we have nothing further to discuss.
            If you want to argue against the rule of law do it with someone who doesn’t accept the US form of government….You’re being nonsensical…

          • Ross Williams

            If you want to insist that they have the LEGITIMATE authority, rather than the usurped authority, then find the unequivocal spot in the Constitution which grants it.

            NOT where the USSC has claimed it is. The Constitution is a short and simple document, meant to be read and understood by semi-literate 18th century farmers. I assume you’re at least as smart as one of them.

            The US Constitution was NOT intended to need a fleet of self-serving charlatans in black robes waving the bags of chicken lips over while reciting mantras to DIVINE for us what it means.

            Find the power of the government to create “legal classes” that deserve super-rights at the expense of others.

            [[If you want to argue against the rule of law do it with someone who doesn't accept the US form of government.]]

            Don’t even BEGIN trying to be a martyr. You don’t qualify.

            Of the two of us, YOU are the one who doesn’t accept the US form of government.

            Every tyrant in the history of the human race has used “rule of law” as the first excuse for his tyranny. Hey, sorry, but the fact that you called the king the son of a pig is enough reason to execute you and your children … sorry … it’s the law …”

            We are supposed to live under the RULE OF LIBERTY, where the government stays confined to its own little box. Rule of Liberty requires Rule of law to function, but it presupposes that the government has an upper limit, defined by its found documents.

            So … find the excuse for creating superior rights for some in those founding documents.

            Or shut it.

          • legal eagle

            Bye bye…..go argue with someone who gives a crap about your nonsense.

          • Ross Williams

            You’d need to have an argument in order to claim that there’s been an argument here.
            I’m right, you’re wrong, we both know it.

          • Eric Maher

            Once again, your stance doesn’t hold up, so you resort to petty insults. LOL

          • Ross Williams

            Eric, his is the institutional, statist argument.

            One of the realities of the world – and it doesn’t matter where you go – the people with the guns run the show. It doesn’t matter what the rules actually are.

            If the rules say 2+2=4 but the boys with the guns need it to be 5 … well waddaya know! 2+2=5!!

            I’ve been telling him what the rules say, he’s been saying – in effect – “but the people with the guns say that the rules don’t MEAN what they say.”

            He doesn’t like being reminded that he is a willing and complicit cog in a corrupted system; I don’t like being reminded that my government has been lying to me.

            We’re both right, he that it works in practice the way he describes, me that it SHOULD work the way I describe for the reasons I give; he is simply not honest enough to acknowledge it.

          • Sheila Warner

            Try the 14th Amendment, which started the protected class thing. Also, the 19th Amendment. Once the Constitution included classes for blacks, previous servitude, and women, of course it could be construed that other classes were out there. Remember that the Bill of Rights doesn’t define every single right an American citizen has. That’s why we have SCOTUS, which looks at the framers’ intent, while trying to decide current issues. Legal precedent is used all the time by the Court to decide things. Again, check out http://www.scotusblog,com, and you can read the transcripts of arguments and decisions by the SCOTUS.

          • Ross Williams

            [[That's why we have SCOTUS, which looks at the framers' intent]]
            I find it very difficult to take anyone seriously who uses childish shorthand. Like “scotus” or “omg” or “lol”.
            KWIM?
            But, sure, “framer’s intent”.
            …was not to allow the government to do arguably 95% of what it’s currently doing.
            Wanna keep going down this road?

          • Sheila Warner

            Sure. I use SCOTUS because I’m too lazy to constantly write out the Supreme Court of the United States. Sorry if abbreviations upset you. Bloomberg Law sponsors the Court’s activities, and it is called SCOTUSBlog. I suppose well educated lawyers are childish as well.

            “Childish” seems to be your favorite word, followed closely by “ignoramus”.

            It is your opinion that what the government is doing 95% of the time is not what the framers intended. That is a supposition, not a substantive point. You would have to look at every law passed and upheld by the courts, and then find the Constitutional prohibition of any law, and then compare the two to come up with your 95% conclusion.

            I rely on what the Supreme Court actually proclaims in its opinions. And, I remind you, that all recent opinions are easily accessible on the Supreme Courts own page. Or, you can just google the opinion you want. Opinions that were issued years ago can be found in the archives online, but they are really difficult to find.

            Good luck with that 95% thing. Again, I’ll supply you the link in which the Supreme Court made the decision in Windsor v the United States, and upon which I base my assertions.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

          • Ross Williams

            [[Good luck with that 95% thing]]
            Don’t need luck. All I need to know how to do is read the constitution, which the courts rarely advertise they’ve ever done, and which you ABSOLUTELY have not done.

          • Sheila Warner

            Ok, then.

          • Eric Maher

            Congress can’t trump the 1st Amendment (in the Bill of Rights), correct?

            Are you working on amending the Constitution to force business-owners to abandon their right to free exercise of religion?

          • Sheila Warner

            No, we just don’t see refusing to bake a cake as free exercise of religion. It’s just a cake! I like what Rose said: when Jesus fed the multitudes, he didn’t ascertain their fidelity to the Scriptures first. Who knows what kinds of sinners were in those crowds? Take a cue from Jesus. Bake the cake, but show the love of Jesus, make Jesus so attractive to those you serve that they will want to know him, too.

          • Eric Maher

            You’re telling the baker how to exercise his religion. Great. Just keep government out of it.

            >> when Jesus fed the multitudes, he didn’t ascertain their fidelity to the Scriptures first. <> Who knows what kinds of sinners were in those crowds? <<

            Love the sinner, hate the sin. Haven't I mentioned this to you before?

          • Eric Maher

            >> Same arguments were made in 1964 <<

            American society is not nearly the same, right?

            And the Civil Rights Act didn't trump the 1st Amendment in the Bill or Rights, correct?

          • Ross Williams

            [[American society is not nearly the same, right?]]
            Sadly, liberals are fighting the same battles as they existed two and three generations ago. To listen to them, race relations are consisting of widespread lynchings and Selma firefighters hosing black marchers down the street; to listen to them, a hundred young girls die everyday from sepsis due to back-alley coat-hanger abortions.
            No, to them the world stopped in 1962. And it’s ironic that they accuse a certain class of conservative of not being able to emerge from the Eisenhower Administration; neither have they.
            They deserve each other. Duct tape them together and push them off the same cliff for the death spiral they both so richly deserve. Good riddance to both.

        • Eric Maher

          Now you’re the Czar of Religious Sincerity? LOL

        • Sheila Warner

          Yes. But I’m a Christian & I have no issue with gay marriage. After all, why shouldn’t gays have everything a heterosexual couple has–a tax code that works against them, in-laws, fighting over the remote control, etc. etc, etc.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        I’d bake as good a cake as I normally would, but I’d use a good portion of the payment to buy a bunch of Chick-fil-A sandwiches for me and my employees or friends, and tell my customers that. :-)

        • Sheila Warner

          And, that’s perfectly fine. I have no problem with gay marriage. I also went to Chik-Fil-A on the CFA Day. It was mobbed. I was happy to support it.

          I find boycotts to be stupid. I bet every CEO has an opinion or two that I wouldn’t agree with. I would end up staying in my home if I boycotted stores based on disagreements. If the Christian Right decided to boycott a business run by a liberal, I’d be at that store, too.

          Boycotts are meant to financially punish someone. That’s not Christian.

    • legal eagle

      “Why would you want to force people to perform a service they wouldn’t want to? ”

      Because bigotry is not protected under the law….

      • Ross Williams

        But bullying is?

        • legal eagle

          Stop whining…..you must have made your mother crazy with your never ending whining?….LOL

          • Ross Williams

            This is whining in your world? You must have led a very sheltered life.

          • Deborah G

            I have put this moron on ignore. You can’t get a normal response from him so why try? He adds nothing to the dialog or to the air we breathe.Ignore him you’ll be happier.

          • Eric Maher

            Once again your stance doesn’t hold up, so you resort to little insults. LOL

          • Sheila Warner

            Hey Legal, you dropped out of sight on this forum. Are you currently battling on another?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            He never left. He’s just been focusing his time spewing hard-left propaganda at the bottom of my most recent column. lol.

          • legal eagle

            I’ve been around arguing with some of the regular right wing cultists….LOL
            Hope it’s warmed up in New Jersey…Don’t forget to change your clock Saturday night…Most of the people who comment on this site haven’t moved their clocks since the 60′s….LOL

          • Ross Williams

            [[Most of the people who comment on this site haven't moved their clocks since the 60's....]]
            Then they’re ahead of you be a decade.

          • legal eagle

            That’s the best you can do?

          • Ross Williams

            I don’t need to do any better than being correct. The standard social conservative operates as if it’s the early 60s, the standard liberal is fighting the same boogeymen from the 50s as if they are unchanged from the 50s.

            You can’t convince them that the boogeyman no longer exist; you can’t convince them they’ve CHANGED in any way so that the specific boogeyman they’re battling doesn’t exist, but a different one DOES … nothing.

            Constipated social conservatives and idiot liberals are simpletons wrapped in a titanic death-match with each other, in a bubble of time warp two generations in the past, and getting in the way of absolutely everyone else, not to mention any actual progress our society might make in their absence.

            They inhibit growth, they inhibit education, they inhibit life.

            A society that keeps itself stuck in its past – for ANY reason – is a society begging to left behind. To the Roman Republic, a vacation spot for wealthy patricians was to visit the old city-state of Sparta in their newly subsumed Greek provinces. How quaint it would be to see those naked Spartans marching around as if the world still operated in ways that made the Spartans relevant…! How utterly charming! A blast from the past!

            I would request that if you can’t update your views, that you keep your circus side-show to yourself, but you’d just ignore that request, too.

          • legal eagle

            I would suggest you communicate with someone who gives a crap about your views….

          • Sheila Warner

            John Daly told me you are being a lib PIA on his column. I’ll have to go check it out. I got into a p*ssing match with Ross Williams. I ended up deleting nearly all of my comments to him, so that his vituperative replies with all of their vileness hang out there for the blogosphere to gaze upon and swoon over. I wonder how he gets his head through standard sized doors. He must have custom built ones in his home.

            And, I think some have not moved their clocks since the stone age. ha ha ha.

          • legal eagle

            Some of the people on here are beyond obnoxious but…nothing wrong with seeing what makes some people tick…I sometimes read Daly’s column to see if he’s still suffering from ODS (“Obama Derangement Syndrome”).

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You NEVER read my columns, legal. That’s WHY you think I have ODS.

          • Jeff Webb

            >>I’ve been around arguing with some of the regular right wing cultists….LOL<>Most of the people who comment on this site haven’t moved their clocks since the 60′s….LOL<<

            Say, you look familiar…aren't you that old, white, bitter, left wing cultist who actually longed for the 60' (your "good old days") and always are in need of meds? It IS you! My, you haven't changed a bit! Well, except for the head scar and the drooling.

      • Eric Maher

        But free exercise of religion is, right?

  • PaulaR

    Bernie, again you generalize. People like you(secularists) always trot out what other people say about religion and their justification for their action using the bible in a general way. No where in the bible does it say that blacks are inferior or should be treated as such. The media just takes these declarations and never challenge the speakers to prove where it says that in the bible or to show where it is justified. Just because they say something and attribute it to the bible, doesn’t mean that it is there. I bet you don’t even know what the bible says on this matter, so you couldn’t challenge someone intelligently about their declarations, no matter how silly or well grounded they were. If you knew what the bible actually says about race, equality, homosexuality etc, you just might learn something instead of assuming the worst right off the bat. I believe you know little about the Christian faith and our practices, and you do not seem to want to educate yourself about it. It seems that you are content to just rail against it no matter what. Who then is willfully ignorant? Do yourself a favor and learn some new tricks, you will be a better journalist and maybe a better person for it.

    • NiCuCo

      “Bernie, again you generalize. People like you(secularists) always trot out what other people say about religion and their justification for their action using the bible in a general way.”

      No generalizations there.

    • Sheila Warner

      So, then, you deny that it was often Christians under those KKK sheets? Bernie did a good job outlining what the religious arguments were that promoted segregation. Christians in the South didn’t even believe blacks were fully human. And, now we have conservative Christians seeing gays in the same light. “Perverts” is the slur that is slung at them these days.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        > Christians in the South didn’t even believe blacks were fully human.

        Those people weren’t Christians, they were a bunch of bigots.

  • Chris Matthewson

    We’ve long had laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed or national origin. More recently, discrimination on the basis of sex (meaning gender) was made illegal, but not as completely as the first five classes. Remember, the Equal Rights Amendment (for women) was never actually ratified. Now, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been made illegal in many contexts. Also, keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based not on the civil rights amendments of our constitution, but on the (interstate) commerce clause. Certain private organizations may still, in some cases, discriminate, even on the basis of the original five classes, although this is becoming more and more socially unacceptable and deserving of societal disapproval and even condemnation.

    As our society attempts to draw sensible lines and define the boundaries where one person’s freedoms end and another person’s freedoms begin, we will become more and more dependent on legislatures and courts to make these judgments, based on rapidly-evolving views. We run into problems when these institutions get too far ahead, or lag too far behind, the attitudes of the people they serve.

    • Deborah G

      I think you mistake discrimination with the right to marry.

  • AbdullahtheButcher

    Those rednecks weren’t religious-they were just racist, cooking up justifications for their bigotry out of air. I’m not aware of the Bible condoning racism-in fact I recall a Bible verse which says we are neither slave or free, Greek or Jew, we are all brothers in Christ, or something along those lines.

    • Deborah G

      AND in the Bible there were many people who married interacially . The Middle easterners married Africans. The great beauties were from Africa[Black] However Homosexuals were deemed sinners.

    • Sheila Warner

      The Christians in the deep South stated that blacks were descendants of Ham. The Hebrew word for Ham is “burnt”. Ham’s descendants were seen as under a curse. Thus, blacks, being the color of something burnt up, were reviled.

      • Ross Williams

        Some did, many did not.
        Are you prone to such absolutist, black/white breakdowns of the people around you?

        • Sheila Warner

          I was replying to someone who said that Christians did not ever use religion as a basis for their racism. Some Christians absolutely did, and I explained why. I never said I thought the same way. Keep up with the thread, please!

          • Ross Williams

            Grow up and quite backtracking, please.

          • Sheila Warner

            What? I clarified my comment. How is this backtracking, and how is it not “grown up”? Can you ever post a comment without ad hominems?

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        Did the Bible itself say to treat blacks as inferior? That’s something a bunch of redneck racist idiots made up. And for your information, Noah said that Caanan was cursed, not Ham.

        • Sheila Warner

          Never underestimate the ability of some Christians to abuse the Bible. I didn’t say that their religious belief was valid, I merely said that there are those who believed that. You’re arguing the wrong thing with me. I never validated that point of view–I think it’s ridiculous, too, and not Biblical. But boy did some sincerely believe it.

          I grew up in a dispensationalism church, so trust me, I know how misinterpretations of the Bible can come about. Cut and paste verses out of context, connections that don’t exist, not understanding culture or genre….l lived through it well into my adulthood.

  • Thewryobservator

    What, histrionics about it aside, was the actual scope of the Arizona law? Mr. Goldberg? Anyone?

  • Mark Brickey

    What bout the Muslim Barber refusing to cut the lesbian transgender’s hair? Also, just because a person opens a business doesn’t mean that they loose their rights protected by the Constitution & Bill of Rights – Freedoms of Speech, Religion, Association! If this is so, then as soon as one walks into that business, then THEY loose their rights, too, as they have now entered a different protectional plane, missing certain rights that were left at the door.
    The ONLY reasons why these LGBT ‘s are even entering these businesses is because they WANT to stir up problems & issues! Do you think that they’d be ok with Conservative Christians or Muslims or even pro lifers to participate in their businesses or parades or whatever?
    Even if we WERE a democracy, they are a SMALL portion of the population yet the majority of us “allow” them to push us around.
    ANY PERSON deserves the same rights & protections as any one else – just as laid out in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution – no more, no less.
    Lex Rex, not Rex Lex.
    If this cannot be understood & propitiated, then what’s next? Man/Boy love? Bestiality? Incest? Polygamy?
    Why are we arresting teachers for their proclivities? Or priests? Why have marriage at all! We can go “bed” anyone or anything we can catch when ever we want!

    • Greg

      You are a sad, hate-filled person.

      • Deborah G

        He isn’t hate filled he’s being honest . Why does that seem to be such an anethma to you libs?

    • Sheila Warner

      “The ONLY reasons why these LGBT ‘s are even entering these businesses is because they WANT to stir up problems & issues!”

      You mean, in the same way that blacks sat at whites-only counters? And, the same way that Rosa Parks remained seated? My, my, those pesky LGBT folks, who just want to be treated with equality!

      • Ross Williams

        If they want to be treated with equality, then they need to do what I have to do when I find a store who won’t treat me the way I want to be treated: go to a different store.

        • Sheila Warner

          That’s true. But the proprietors of the store have come out and said that they don’t approve of gay marriage, and that is why the won’t do the cake (or whatever). If you go to a store and an employee is rude to you because they are just not nice, that’s one thing. But an outright refusal to render a service based on sexual orientation is discrimination. Gays want sexual orientation to be included in legislation that prevents discrimination, that’s all.

          I understand why people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are upset, I really do. In this nation, it is very hard to balance rights at times. Until recently, NJ had the death penalty, which I vigorously oppose on religious grounds. My state taxes paid for the executions. And, yes, I was never forced to actually participate in any execution, but my taxes certainly enabled executions to take place.

          Now, there are Christians such as myself who don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin. We believe that passages, especially in the NT, have been mistranslated. Whatever. So, it hurts us when we see gays being referred to as perverts, or that gays are “choosing” to be that way. They are people on a continuum of sexuality. We’d just like society to leave them alone and treat them the way they’d treat anyone else.

          • Ross Williams

            [[ In this nation, it is very hard to balance rights at times.]]
            Only because you don’t have the brains, or the will, to do what’s necessary.
            I will remind you that RIGHTS are what we have when people are left alone to do what they want without government interference. Once the government gets involved it stops being a RIGHT and becomes either
            1] an entitlement, if the government PROVIDES the “whatever”, or
            2] the government choosing one person who must subordinate his right to someone else – thus creating superior rights.
            If you were sincere about wanting to balance rights, then you’d keep Congress out of it, let the courts uphold the Constitution … AS WRITTEN … and a handful of shopkeepers would not bake wedding cakes, and gays would just go down the street to another bakery to buy it.
            But you aren’t sincere; you are lying and trying to [boo hoo] make yourself seem all concerned when you aren’t.

          • Sheila Warner

            Calling me a liar. Classy.

            There are times when opposing rights collide.

            The Courts uphold the Constitution when they decide the Constitutionality of enacted laws. They can’t do that if no laws are put before them. Laws are written by Congress and States. I just don’t understand why you don’t realize that fact.

            How does the government decide which sincere conscience they will uphold? Progressive Christians believe that banning gay marriage is not Constitutional based on a religious belief. Conservative Christians hold the opposite view, also based on a religious belief. Both religious views are protected by the First Amendment. So, which religious belief gets the nod from the government? It’s a whole lot more complex than you are making it.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Calling me a liar. Classy.]]

            Calling you a liar: accurate. You don’t like it? Don’t lie.

            [[I just don't understand why you don't realize that fact.]]

            EVERY court case involves a law brought into court. EVERY. Zero exceptions.

            [[How does the government decide which sincere conscience they will uphold?]]

            If they were to follow their own rules …? it’s trivially simple. There’s only a handful of things that law is permitted to be made upon – IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO FOLLOW ITS RULES. Anything legal issue finding itself in court that involves an matter that law is not permitted to be made … the law is wrong, the state has to vacate any action it took.

            In matters strictly between people where, say, I was suing a theater owner for kicking me out of his movie because I was blabbering through the whole thing … the theater owner has a Property Right to serve whom he wishes and NOT serve whom he doesn’t. If he wants to kick me out and declare he will not serve me … I get my money back.

            “Progressive Christians believe that banning gay marriage is not Constitutional based on a religious belief. Conservative Christians hold the opposite view, also based on a religious belief.”

            Sadly for this vacuous argument, religious beliefs are not subject to state approval. You made this argument yourself wa-a-ay above a few days ago. Remember? Or were you stoned?

            Ours is supposed to be a nation of POLITICAL liberty; one of those liberties – which you’d know if you were truly a libertarian – is to Equal Protection. The religious angle is vacant. It is only the political EQUAL PROTECTION which has any merit.

            [[It's a whole lot more complex than you are making it.]]

            It’s only complex to those who don’t understand the rules and attempt to use the power of government for purposes it was never designed to have.

          • Sheila Warner

            [[Calling me a liar. Classy.]]

            Calling you a liar: accurate. You don’t like it? Don’t lie.

            >>>>[[I just don't understand why you don't realize that fact.]]

            EVERY court case involves a law brought into court. EVERY. Zero exceptions.<<<<>>[[How does the government decide which sincere conscience they will uphold?]]

            If they were to follow their own rules …? it’s trivially simple. There’s only a handful of things that law is permitted to be made upon – IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO FOLLOW ITS RULES. Anything legal issue finding itself in court that involves an matter that law is not permitted to be made … the law is wrong, the state has to vacate any action it took.<<<

            Also what I said. And, matters of conscience are often rooted in religion. That's why the baker is asserting his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion, which causes his conscience to see baking a cake as violating a religious tenet.

            As to the "liar" thing. A liar is someone who deliberately deceives another in order to promote his own interests. Disagreement is not the same as lying. I disagree with you about what is factual. No lying there, just disagreement. I don't call you a liar because you present ideas as facts. I recognize that you have a perfect right to believe the way that you do. It doesn't make you evil, or retarded, or ignorant, or stupid, or thick-skulled, or in danger of experiencing incontinence. You cannot give any quote in which I was smug or arrogant. I feel so badly for you, that you think and then say the things you do. It's terribly impolite, and it will cause hardship in your relationships if you speak this way to others. This is a guess, but I assume you have plenty of loud arguments with others. If you could hear me speak, you would know that I don't have to raise my voice or say vile things to get my point out there. Also, once I perceive that the one with whom I am speaking will only continue to hurl vituperative replies, then I generally end the conversation. I've been quite patient with you, wanting a read dialogue on the role of government when competing rights collide. It's too bad that you won't be nicer.

          • Ross Williams

            [[A liar is someone who deliberately deceives another in order to promote his own interests.]]

            …or someone who makes a knowingly false statement again and again and again. As you have done.

            These events happened in this order:

            1950s: a series of court rulings invalidated Jim Crow. These were COURT RULINGS, not laws that were passed. COURT RULINGS.

            1964: the Civil Rights Act which you claim invalidate Jim Crow.

            Jim Crow was invalided by the series of court rulings in the 1950s, NOT by CRA’64. Get it through your head.

            [[Disagreement is not the same as lying.]]

            It is when the disagreement is built upon a false rendition of facts. You continually render facts falsely, even after you are corrected. Your “disagreements” are therefore lies.

            [[I don't call you a liar because you present ideas as facts.]]

            I present facts as facts; I present my ANALYSIS of facts as my analysis; I have conceded several times in this king-discussion that there are at least two other political philosophies which look at things differently, but that they are historically not supportable … since they rely very heavily on the Constitution EITHER being:
            1] the STARTING POINT of government power [your essential position], or
            2] a justification for creating a christian theocracy [the position of a few others]

            Neither is HISTORICALLY accurate; whether the position can be stated otherwise in a consistent manner … different story.

            [[It's terribly impolite, and it will cause hardship in your relationships if you speak this way to others.]]

            I speak to others the way they demand to be spoken to.

            And, by the way, this is you being condescending again. …which is insulting to me. It will cause you hardship in your relationships with others if you continue to do this.

            [[I don't have to raise my voice or say vile things to get my point out there.]]

            You don’t seem to have a point that I can discern, apart from presenting yourself as a self-superior smugly, but you are pretty vile.

          • Sheila Warner

            A lie is determined by the intent of the person. I did not intend to lie; I believe what I said.

            I already acknowledged your point about the court rulings. Then, I said that the Feds stepped in because the court rulings were being ignored. The rest of your comment is not worthy of a response. Ask anyone who holds a discussion with me, and s/he will confirm that I am civil and not prone to insults, smugness, or attacks. You see insults where there are none. If you feel insulted, that is absolutely because you believe me to be somehow self-righteous or demeaning. You prove with your words that you are those things, but I do not feel insulted. I feel only pity for you.

          • Ross Williams

            [[A lie is determined by the intent of the person.]]

            That is a common distinction; fine.

            [[...the Feds stepped in because the court rulings were being ignored.]]

            The feds stepped in because they could create political hay out of doing so. It was regarded at the time a very very sneaky trick by the Republicans [who were largely in favor of CRA'64, by the way ...] to split the Democrat party in two. A small portion of Democrats favored it, the majority did not.

            In any event, the HISTORICAL ANALYSIS suggests that using laws to punish people for the actions that their governments took is prone to back-firing, and back-firing BADLY.

            … and I point you to Reconstruction

            … and the Treaty of Versaille

            … and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964

            Reconstruction was almost single-handedly responsible for the creation of the KKK and 3, 4, 5, 6 generations of seething resentment in the south which was ultimately taken out on blacks in this country.

            The Treaty of Versaille was directly responsible for the devastating impoverishment of Germany after WWI, from which a megalomaniacal charlatan did what megalomaniacal charlatans have ALWAYS done: find a convenient scapegoat to blame for it all. Krystalnacht, anyone?

            CRA’64 has manifest itself with a severe escalation of the “seething resentment” mentioned above, and includes but is not limited to bombings of black churches, a huge spike in lynchings and a host of other crimes, a sharp increase in the entitlement franchises in our nation [another government action that is not authorized by the Constitution] that has resulted in the imposed impoverishment of blacks, their DIS-education, their voluntary re-segregation, TRILLIONS of dollars in cost, and – now, two generations later – a whole bunch of people saying, “wasn’t this supposed to help? How long do we have to wait?”

            [[I feel only pity for you.]]

            Cool!!! Then I’m apparently one of those you believe to be worthy of superior rights protected by our Mommy Government!!!

          • Sheila Warner

            Had you left out that last retort, it would have been a great reply. I see your point. I know very well that it was the GOP who pushed for the CRA. I also know that now we are swimming in lawsuits because of it. At the time it was passed, most people saw a need for it. I know about the whole Democratic split thing, too. Interesting that now the South is largely GOP.

      • PolkaDot

        You are pointing at the wrong reason for the “Whites Only” counters. Owners were MANDATED by the Government to have them. Yes, those laws were supported by many, but people that opposed them had 2 choice: complying with the law or facing the consequences of violating it. I can give you another example. It is unlikely that the number of anti-Semites in Germany in 1935 (the year when Nuremberg Laws were adopted) was significantly higher than in 1933, when Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany. What has changed, however, is the inability of non-bigoted people, for example, to provide services to Jews without violating the law. The less are the limits of the Government, the more evil it becomes.

        • Sheila Warner

          Sigh…one more time. I know that Jim Crow laws were making it illegal to serve blacks. So what? The 14th Amendment was being violated, but no one was enforcing it. Therefore, the blacks did their thing. And, finally, the 14th Amendment took care of that issue. It doesn’t matter a whit that it was illegal to serve blacks. The laws were invalid because of the 14th Amendment. That’s the point here.

          The 19th Amendment took care of the problem that the law made it illegal for women to vote.

          Do you think that there is no other class of people out there whose rights are being violated, and who need the government to step in and rectify this? The 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1870, I think, and the 19th wasn’t ratified until 1919, I think. I may be off a year or two. My point is that the Constitution needs amending from time to time so that oppressed people have equal treatment under the law.

          What it boils down to is this: some religions believe that homosexuality is a choice, and so they don’t see what they perceive as “behavior” as needing any protection. Those of us who are for gay marriage understand that sexuality is a continuum, and that gays are born gay. There’s your clash. Two philosophies in conflict.

          No one can tell just by looking at me whether I am straight or gay. Because gay can’t be seen, it is dismissed. And the laws which bar gay couples from enjoying all of the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy, including the freedom to choose to marry, are discriminatory. It’s really quite simple.

          • Ross Williams

            [[It doesn't matter a whit that it was illegal to serve blacks]]
            It does to merchants who don’t want to go to jail. It not only matter A whit, but it matters a WHOLE LOTTA whits.
            See what happens when you punish a group of people IN THE FUTURE for what others did IN THE PAST? A whole bunch of otherwise inoffensive people are caught in the middle and trying to stay out of trouble.
            The feds imposed Reconstruction on the South – a widely recognized Bad Idea – and after 12, 15 years the feds got tired of it, and let it melt away. Well all those southern whites who’d just had their kiesters handed to them by EVERYone got their revenge.
            Didn’t they?
            When is it going to sink into that granite block you call a skull that government coercion does not EVER work the way you believe it will?
            When HAS it ever worked as advertised? Just one example.

          • Sheila Warner

            I already gave you my answer, and you disagree. My skull is not granite simply because I don’t accept your premise. The Jim Crow laws were current at the time of the Civil Rights struggle. In 2014, those laws are past.

            You don’t seem to understand how the Courts use precedent to assist them in deciding a case. If we never look at the past, we will make the same mistakes in the future. Thus, looking at the past, including the judicial reasoning regarding the Constitution at the time the laws were adjudicated, is important.

            If you say a law should not be passed because of previous behavior that may or may not be done in the future, then we should not have laws against rape, murder, fraud, or any other criminal action. Those laws are in place to criminalize future behaviors.

            I’ve been very civil with you, not hitting you with ad hominems constantly, and calmly and succinctly laying out my case. The closet I came to ad hominem was to quote your comments to me, and pointing out that they are immature. I honestly did not know if you were an adult or not. You never answered me. I assume you are an adult, but a part of me just isn’t sure. Please remain civil in your responses.

            As for me, I will continue to sigh, and then politely present my case.

          • Ross Williams

            [[My skull is not granite simply because I don't accept your premise]]

            Your skull is granite because you believe you can reduce facts that get in your way to someone else’s mere “opinion”.

            It is NOT OPINION that that Jim Crow was set aside a decade prior to the Civil Rights Act. The “civil rights STRUGGLE” can arguably be said to encompass a full century, and the fact that you are changing terminology in midstream is the logical fallacy of equivocation, and it’s extreme intellectual dishonesty. I find it insulting to be presented with it.

            That’s right, sweetie, you just insulted me.

            And now I’m insulting you? Gee… what are the odds!

            [[You don't seem to understand how the Courts use precedent to assist them in deciding a case]]

            The use of precedent is a corrupting influence. It has allowed the courts to lay incremental layer upon incremental layer of rationalization as to why, e.g., the 4thAM prohibition of government searth without a warrant doesn’t really apply if we’re talking about … terrorism avoidance … drunk driving … etc. The exemptions do not exist in the 4thAM, period. Only idiot loyyers sucking up to power-whoring judges believe the do.

            …and you as well.

            [[Those laws are in place to criminalize future behaviors.]]

            Only if the action is taken, and not pre-emptively.

            In any event, it is a completely dishonest reduction. **I** am not put in prison today because someone ELSE raped two college girls twenty years ago.

            [[I've been very civil with you]]

            You are smarmy, self-righteous, faux-pious, self-pitying by proxy, and thoroughly disingenuous. I find your manner to be extremely insulting and I will talk to you accordingly. If you don’t like it, then don’t me that way.

          • Sheila Warner

            “That’s right, sweetie, you just insulted me.”

            How so? By stating I didn’t accept your premise regarding your three points about homosexuality? By pointing out that the laws passed prior to the Civil Rights era (is that better? not sure what you meant by changing my terminology) were being ignored? Am I smarmy because I present my case in a way with which you disagree?

            I think that you are very angry with me. Your rhetoric reveals that anger. I can picture you, seething with that anger, as you busily type out vile things such as “wet your panties”.

            I have not insulted you. I have been polite. I have never said that I am always right, I have never said I am a Constitutional scholar, I have never said that I am more or less moral than anyone else. You have read those ideas into the filter through which you read my comments.

            I assume you believe that I am arrogant because I pointed out that I spelled argument correctly? You quoted me with a “[sic]” on that word. That was a gentle correction for you. Not all people know how to spell, and that’s ok. I didn’t misspell that word, although I have misspelled others. I will defend my spelling when it is correct. And, I don’t use “[sic]” when I quote another without first consulting the dictionary. I bet this paragraph has you really mad, because I am very calmly and very politely pointing all of this out. You will perceive this as an insult.

            You admit that you have been disgusted with conversations with liberal feminists. Thus, you read my comments through a particular predisposition. You just don’t understand that some people can disagree with you. You are so entrenched in the rightness of your arguments, that you see yourself as right and anyone who disagrees with you as wrong, stupid, ignorant, and/or retarded. So, be that way. It won’t get you far in public discourse. Such rhetoric completely destroys your credibility.

          • Ross Williams

            [[By stating I didn't accept your premise regarding your three points about homosexuality?]]

            Once again. THEY ARE NOT MINE. They belong to someone else.

            You are insulting me BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THEY ARE MINE. You are lying to me and about me. That, among other of your faulsts, is insulting.

            [[is that better? not sure what you meant by changing my terminology]]

            No it is not. THERE WERE NO LAWS PASSED. There were court rulings. The two are not the same.

            [[Am I smarmy because I present my case in a way with which you disagree?]]

            You are smarmy because you are greasily self-righteous.

            [[I think that you are very angry with me.]]

            You haven’t displayed any tendency to think yet. You may BELIEVE I am angry with you, but you are too stuipid to be angry with.

            [[I have not insulted you.]]

            And now you are lying, which I find insulting, so you are insulting me yet again.

            [[...I spelled argument correctly? You quoted me with a "[sic]” on that word.]]

            I [sic]ed your term argument BECAUSE YOU DO NOT MAKE ARGUMENTS. You make self-righteous pronouncements.

            [[You just don't understand that some people can disagree with you.]]

            Anyone can disagree with me as they please.

            However, there are rules of rhetoric in existence for a few thousand years for doing it properly, and I discussed those rules above. Perhaps you haven’t gotten to them yet.

            Facts are facts, period. You cannot rationally deny facts. Events happened in this order – fact. This event happened – fact.

            Citing events that DID NOT happen, or citing events that happened BUT NOT IN THE WAY DESCRIBED, or citing events that happened OUT OF SEQUENCE – NOT fact. When done repeatedly … lie.

            Analysis is the process of citing TRUE facts and trying to draw sense and relevance from them for the purpose of drawing a meaningful conclusion. When analysis cites FALSE facts, the analysis is dishonest and the conclusions invalid.

            If you can disagree with me by citing TRUE facts, and construct a valid analytical conclusion, then you are fine. There are a number of people here, in this website, who have done that. I have ZERO problem with them.

            I have a problem with YOU because you cannot do that. You cite false facts, you put them in the wrong order, you misstate the ones you DO get in the right order … you are DISHONEST.

            On top of which, you litter your screed with a dog’s vomit of logical fallacy – mine is limited, as you have pointed out, to ad hominem. Yes, that is ONE fact you have correct. But you have far outstripped me in the illogical nitwit game. I find people who cannot think but insist on making their thoughts public to be very insulting. You are not good at academic discussion. Stop trying.

          • Sheila Warner

            Well, a well reasoned, precise reply from Eric on here, who did not attack my integrity, but identified what I may have missed in my thinking, did the trick. He changed my mind. You are angry, and I feel sorry for you.

          • PolkaDot

            “Do you think that there is no other class of people out there whose rights are being violated” Class – no, people yes. “and who need the government to step in and rectify this”? NO. Because…I am tired of sounding like broken record… Good night and let me know when and if you will understand what I kept saying all along.

          • Sheila Warner

            Trust me, I understand. I merely disagree.

          • Ross Williams

            [[ I understand. I merely disagree]]

            Disagreeing with a factual reduction is called “being wrong”. You are frequently wrong.

            Disagreeing with an analytical position by saying “I disagree” is baseless opinion … and it’s fine, but it sorta implies that you should bow out of a prolonged discussion simply because you have nothing to add.

            Disagreeing with an analytical position by proposing a COUNTER-analysis is the basis of academic discussions, but if the counter-analysis fails to account for factual reality, then it is a DISHONEST counter-analysis; to the degree you offer your own analysis, you frequently cite facts that are wrong, don’t exist, are out of sequence, or are simply misstated … thus making your analysis wholly flawed and your input dishonest.

            …hence the reason you and I are at odds with each other: you don’t know how to conduct yourself in an academic discussion.

          • PolkaDot

            Obviously you don’t. There is nothing to disagree upon.

    • legal eagle

      More absurd hypotheticals to justify bigotry…How sad..

  • ivannavi

    I sincerely agree with what you say. And, while we’re at it let’s level all the playing fields.

    It’s time we do away with all affirmative action type quotas that also allow for discrimination [against whoever] on the basis of religion, gender, race, or ethnicity.

    How about we base such decisions using the same standards of measurement.

  • Corky Asbury

    You and your ilk are laying the groundwork to destroy any freedom of religion. Following your logic then any Baptist minister who refuses to perform a gay wedding is merely a bigot. Never mind that the Bible says that this is an abomination. You conveniently like to equate the gays with blacks. Pardon me, but gay is not a race. God does not create any man gay. If you argue that God creates a man gay then it must follow that God creates some men to be child molesters. Why would you discriminate against a child molester if God created him that way? Even you can recognize the silliness of such an argument.

    I can see the handwriting on the wall and I am sure that persecution of Christians is coming to America. I don’t know if I will live long enough to see it, but it is coming.

    • legal eagle

      If you persecuted feel free to leave…Move to Ireland…

      • Eric Maher

        Submit or leave! That’s the American way!!

        • Corky Asbury

          So right Eric. I love how tolerant the left pretends to be. Until you disagree with them.

          • Rose

            Corky, most of us do not understand how the baking of a cake constitutes approval of gay marriage or diminishes the baker’s own faith.

          • Eric Maher

            Who claimed it diminished his faith?

            The baker welcomed gay customers. But he didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding, which the baker considered a sin. There’s the difference.

            It’s as if he refused to make a non-wedding cake that said “I hate God” in icing.

            But, more importantly, I support the right to refuse service to anyone.

            There’s a crucial difference between (1) “This is a good idea” and (2) “Everybody should be forced to do this.”

            Tolerance is good. Being forced by the law to obey an official definition of tolerance is very bad.

            Bigotry is bad. Being forced by the law to abandon personal principles is very bad.

            If a business or a store wants to refuse service, that business or store should have that freedom. If their stance means they don’t have very many customers
            (or means they have lots of protesters at their door) …

            The Bill of Rights doesn’t just protect nice practices, pleasant beliefs, agreeable speech.

            Pro-freedom.

      • Ross Williams

        I’ve been to third world countries where there’s more freedom than in the US. I actually prefer Mexico, and I’ve already got my retirement community picked out there.
        I’d suggest that idiot liberals who don’t like people exercising freedoms that annoy them move to, oh, North Korea, or Cuba, but then they just whine.

        • legal eagle

          Well move to one of those countries and stop annoying your family with your nonsensical rants…

    • JMax

      A Baptist minister does not perform weddings for the public at large and is always free to decide what weddings he will perform.

      As far as blacks vs. gays, a second class citizen is a second class citizen is a second class citizen whether they be Jewish, Irish, female, disabled, or gay.

      • legal eagle

        You are much too logical to continue to comment….LOL

        • JMax

          I must educate the educationless.

          • legal eagle

            Good luck with that…..They don’t want to be educated they want to claim victimization….The “woe is me” crowd always needs feeding…

          • Eric Maher

            >> they want to claim victimization. <<

            Now you're against the people who claim discrimination?

          • Ross Williams

            [[Now you're against the people who claim discrimination?]]
            Ironic, idnit? When a bigoted florist refuses to sell flowers to a gay wedding … it’s bigoted, it’s self-righteous, it’s discriminatory … but in a FREE COUNTRY it’s permitted for a citizen to do.
            When the homosexual says he’s being discriminated against … he’s correct. But it’s not pertinent, because in a FREE COUNTRY the florist doesn’t have to sell flowers to ANYone if he doesn’t want to.
            So when the homosexual complains that he’s being discriminated against and the government swoops in and forces a florist to set aside the property rights in his own business and his ability to limit his clientele that a child-excluding restaurant has, and claims discrimination of his own – this time perpetrated by the government itself which is the only entity in this FREE COUNTRY not allowed to discriminate … it becomes the shopkeeper who is the whiner.

          • Sheila Warner

            Wow, I wish I had thought of this a few comments back. Deborah G was complaining that the gays only want to be considered victims, when they say they are being treated as 2nd class citizens. But, her own complaints about being persecuted make her–dare I say it?–a victim.

          • legal eagle

            “A victim of this
            A victim of that
            Your daddy’s too thin
            Your mama’s too fat
            Get over it”
            Don Henley

          • Sheila Warner

            LOL!

          • Deborah G

            You must simply go away you bore the intelligent

          • JMax

            Yes, because the intelligent already know this stuff.

          • Deborah G

            and how old are you? The reality is you give yourself far too much credit. Your gay ideology blinds you to fact.

          • JMax

            Pretty old. I don’t have a “gay ideology” and I’ve presented nothing but fact.

        • Corky Asbury

          There is no logic to this argument at all. Do you really want the government to tell everybody what they can and can’t do based on what they think is right? Have you never heard of the constitution or the Bill of Rights?

          • legal eagle

            The answer is no. The reality is that the government is not telling me what to do or what to think…If they are doing to you I would consult an attorney or a psychiatrist…

          • Ross Williams

            Rose: Have you never heard of the constitution or the Bill of Rights?

            “legal”: The answer is no

            I highly suspected this, but I am very surprised to hear this being said. It simply follows a tradition of legal thinking in this country 6 generations in the making.

          • Eric Maher

            >> the government is not telling me what to do <<

            Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!

      • Corky Asbury

        If they can force a baker to bake a cake then they can force a minister to marry. Are you too simple to understand the argument?

        • NiCuCo

          A church is not a place of public accommodation, a bakery is.

        • JMax

          A baker provides services to the public. A minister does NOT provide services to the public. A minister provides services to a select group, the members of his church. A minister and his church ARE NOT subject to the laws of public accommodation.

          Are you too simple to understand the difference?

          • Ross Williams

            A baker and a minister both provide service to whatever portion of “the public” as enters their doors.
            Seriously, how retarded are you?

          • JMax

            Not so. Any minister or priest may stipulate any policy he wishes on who he marries. THAT is free exercise of religion.

          • Ross Williams

            “We reserve the right to refuse service to …”
            Are you QUITE finished being a rationalizing toady?

          • JMax

            Anyone can post a sign but they can’t refuse service to a person because of their race, religion, country of origin, and in some places sexual orientation.

          • Ross Williams

            …because Equal Protection applies only to some people and not others.
            Yes.
            We know.
            Thanks for playing.

          • JMax

            It doesn’t apply to people who dress inappropriately or behave inappropriately. It does apply to Jews, blacks, the Irish, and in some jurisdictions gays;.

          • Ross Williams

            So you’re fine with Freedom being a superior condition to some and not others.
            Tell me, big guy, have you seen a shrink for your megalomaniacal delusions?

          • JMax

            You DO know, don’t you, that people give up some freedoms voluntarily in order to participate in society?

            Can’t drink and drive. Can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Can’t cross a street mid-block. Can’t sacrifice animals. Can’t libel or slander. Can’t refuse a customer a service offered to everyone else based on color, creed, ethnicity, and in some places sexual orientation.

          • Ross Williams

            You DO know, don’t you, that the only freedoms we can be COMPELLED to give up to live in THIS society are those which the government – as defined by our CONSTITUTION – is permitted to compel?

            Find an authorization in the Constitution for the government to compel people to not drink and drive … or to regulate traffic in any other way by, say, wearing seat belts. Look in A I § 8, as that defines the specific powers of Congress to make laws … and on what subjects.

            Find an exclusion in the 1stAM allowing Congress to abridge free speech in any way. You slander me, I can sue you for damages, but it is not, nor is it permitted to be, a crime.

            Find any power of the government to compel businesses to do business with people they don’t want to serve.

            The alternative to finding these – you must realize – is that you must concede that we do NOT in fact live in a free country, that the government does NOT follow its own rules, and that some people DO in fact have superior rights to others.

            Or else you will be a liar.

            I’m fine with either result. If you wish to start being honest, then … great. If wish to remain a liar … I’ll continue to call you one.

          • JMax

            Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that laws requiring the wearing of seat belts or driving while intoxicated are unconstitutional?

            And you do know, don’t you, that civil laws are also passed by Congress or the states?

            You are also suggesting that civil rights laws are unconstitutional?

            Nobody lives in a totally “free” country.

          • Ross Williams

            [[You are suggesting that laws requiring the wearing of seat belts or driving while intoxicated are unconstitutional?]]

            I don’t have the authority to declare them unconstitutional, so let’s call them NONconstitutional. They are not supported by the Constitution, no.

            [[You are also suggesting that civil rights laws are unconstitutional?]]

            I would say that “civil rights” laws which permit the government to deny Property Rights to shopkeepers because those shopkeepers are being rude to various potential patrons are not “civil rights” but “superior rights” laws … and they are also NONconstitutional.

            [[Nobody lives in a totally "free" country"]]

            That would be correct. But the limitations on its citizens’ freedom, in countries with constitutional limitation of governmental power – LIKE THIS ONE – is, by definition, limited to those areas in which the government is PERMITTED to limit freedoms.

            The government is not permitted to limit gays’ access to marriage; the government is not permitted to limit shopkeepers access to property rights.

            If you disagree with EITHER of those contentions, then YOU find those words, those UNAMBIGUOUS words, in the CONSTITUTION.

            If you cannot, then we live in a country in which the government has taken more power than it was given, and it’s misusing that power – in this instance – to grant superior rights to some people in favor of a temporarily superior group of others.

          • Ross Williams

            And, by the way, it was best that you edited out your feeble “220+ years of jurisprudence” comment, because if you’ve ever taken that civics class you are very very very very well aware that the 220+ years of jurisprudence you mention demonstrates quite well the point I’m making.

            The courts have done little but find excuses to do what they want at any given time – and you know it. They’ve perverted the meaning of the Constitution repeatedly, contradicted THEMSELVES repeatedly and in the space of as little as two generations, they’ve ignored whole sections of the Constitution because they didn’t like what it said …

            Are you aware that the 10thAM has been called a “meaningless” amendment, and one that can, and should, be ignored? And this was said by a SITTING Supreme Court “justice”? That is the amendment which SPECIFICALLY limits the powers of government to what the Constitution permits it to do. NO WONDER the government has been doing more than its been allowed to … the people whose job it is to stop it don’t like the rule that limits their powers.

            Are you getting it through your head YET?!?

            Or are you going to keep up with your feeble, facile, infantile claim that mommy government knows best, and that taking away freedoms just works SO well? …despite absolutely NO evidence to corroborate the notion…

          • Ross Williams

            It was also wise of you to edit out your frankly stupid claim that my “broccoli and jacket” comment was
            “absurd” as lacking a “compelling interest of the people”.
            I mean, seriously, for someone trying to rationalize how wearing seatbelts has such a compelling interest to DENY that zipping up your jacket would have the same compelling interest …?
            What is the “compelling interest” in forcing everyone to buy health insurance? And how would being compelled to eat our broccoli be, in any material way, meaningfully different?
            No, son, it’s good that you edited these out, because it means that instead of you piously “educating the uneducated”, you recognize that YOU are the one in need of the education. You’re teachable.
            Now shut up and be taught.

          • JMax

            Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

            Most laws of public accommodation are made at the state and local levels.

          • Sheila Warner

            You said it much better than did I.

          • Ross Williams

            Great. Now read the 14thAM
            Read the part that was written to deny states the authority to reimpose slavery at the state level after it was banned at the federal level.
            Does that part limit the states authority to curtail a citizens rights to being free from slavery?
            Why … no it does not.
            It declares that every right that a citizen has by virtue of being a US citizen must be honored and upheld by the state, and the state cannot interfere with it.
            It doesn’t matter if the denial of property rights in favor of suspect classes is done by a state government, a county government, a city government, a school district, or a Homeowners Association … IT CANNOT BE DONE. Not if you’re going to obey the Constitution.

          • Sheila Warner

            Which is why Jim Crow laws were illegal. Too bad it took so many years for those laws to be expunged. The Fifth Amendment speaks to the issue of having one’s property removed absent a compelling public interest, and must include compensation if the property is confiscated.

            I suppose that one could refer to the Ninth Amendment as giving one the right to do whatever he wants to lawfully do with his property. That’s the amendment which gave us Roe v Wade, where the SCOTUS found a right to privacy.

          • Sheila Warner

            The Constitution delegates the power to write laws to the Congress. Any power not directly delegated to the Federal government is reserved to the States. The States, therefore, can make laws about driving, marriage, taxation, etc., as long as those laws do not violate the Constitution. When there is a question of Constitutionality of laws, the Federal Circuit courts and, sometimes the Supreme Court, rules on the issue of Constitutionality. There are no “non” Constitutional rights; either the Congress or the States, may pass laws which restrict people’s freedoms. Have you ever heard of eminent domain?

          • Ross Williams

            [[The Constitution delegates the power to
            write laws to the Congress.]]

            Not any law is wants to. It is limited by A I § 8 of the Constitution.

            [[Any power not directly delegated to the
            Federal government is reserved to the States.]]

            Not exactly. Read the Constitution.

            [[The States, therefore, can make laws
            about driving, marriage, taxation, etc., as long as those laws do not violate
            the Constitution.]]

            Exactly.
            As long as they don’t violate the Constitution. The laws you’re lauding do.

            [[When there is a question of
            Constitutionality of laws, the Federal Circuit courts and, sometimes the
            Supreme Court, rules on the issue of Constitutionality.]]

            And once in a while they get it correct.

            [[There are no "non"
            Constitutional rights]]

            I don’t recall anyone saying there were.

            [[either the Congress or the States, may
            pass laws which restrict people's freedoms.]]

            Only if they are permitted to; there are
            very very very few areas where the government is allowed to legislate …
            according to our Constitution.

            [[Have you ever heard of eminent domain?]]

            Are you attempting to suggest that a citizen’s property
            rights in his own business are being “taken for public use”? If so, where is the “just compensation”?

          • Sheila Warner

            “Are you attempting to suggest that a citizen’s property
            rights in his own business are being ‘taken for public use’? If so, where is the ‘just compensation’?

            No, I didn’t say that. Someone on here said that property rights are absolute, based on the 5th Amendment. I used eminent domain as an example where the property right is not absolute.

            And, YES, Congress enacts legislation, the Supreme Court interprets the laws, and the President executes the laws (he’s supposed to, anyway).

            And, YES, the powers not enumerated to the Federal gov’t is reserved to the states or the people. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Someone, I thought it was you, said that laws can be nonConstitutional. Ridiculous.

            So, since Jim Crow laws violated the Constitution, the Federal government had the authority to have them outlawed. Why? The Fourteenth Amendment:

            “AMENDMENT XV

            (Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870)

            Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

            Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

            Jim Crow laws clearly violated the 14th Amendment, and Congress surely had the authority to enforce it, which it did with Civil Rights legislation.

          • Sheila Warner

            Found your nonconstitutional comment while I’m going through here and deleting most of my comments to you. What an exercise in futility those were. You also contradicted yourself at times. And, there were some valid points I made that you didn’t acknowledge, so I assume you agreed with at least some of what I said.

            Anyway, here’s your quote: “I don’t have the authority to declare them unconstitutional, so let’s call them NONconstitutional. They are not supported by the Constitution, no.”

            You’ll likely have some retort to this, too, so you still get the last word.

          • Ross Williams

            [[What an exercise in futility those were]]

            Not for me!

            You claim you don’t like conversing with combative sorts like me. I don’t doubt that! No one likes to have their cherished and objectively unsupportable beliefs challenged. Like almost everyone, you prefer those who are polite and banal in their disagreement. They are SO-O-O much more pleasant to deal with, aren’t they?

            But I’m going to let you in on a little secret. All those pleasant, banal conversations you’ve had with those you disagree with? Their words pleasantly go in one ear, tickle your Pleasant Conversation circuit, and pleasantly slip out your other ear. YOU DON’T RETAIN THEM.

            However, if you have words with a scurrilous curmudgeon like me who so mightily upsets you to the point that you wet your panties over it … those words go in your ear and lodge sideways in your brain, and nothing you do will dispel them. You lose sleep over it – I certainly don’t. And then 5 years from that conversation, 10 years, 20 years, 40 years … you will encounter an event in your own life, and those words you found so objectionably detestable when you first heard them will come screaming back to you and you’ll discover that, Lo! and behold! that insufferably cocky bastage was right!

            You see, sweetie, this is a GAME. It’s FUN. There’s no “anger” here, it’s a more/less deliberate operation to make you so put out with me that my words will stick inside your head like a burr. Forever.

            And you aren’t going to believe me because you vainly consider yourself “too sophisticated” to have been played.

            [[You also contradicted yourself at times.]]

            Not even slightly.

            Your NONconstitutional quibble is hardly a contradiction of anything. I DO NOT have the authority to declare something UNconstitutional – only the USSC does. But the Constitution is not some mystical holy writ designed to be kept unto the High Priests of Law; it was written to be read and understood by semi-literate 18th century farmers. If an 18th century farmer can read it and understand it, then I certainly can. And I have read it. And I do understand it. I am fully capable of telling when a law is not supported by the Constitution, even IF the USSC is too busy explaining how up is really down and 2+2=5. And when I see a law that is not supported by the Constitution that the USSC has rationalized … then it is NONconstitutional.

            [[there were some valid points I made that you didn't acknowledge, so I assume you agreed with at least some of what I said.]]

            Some yes, others were not worth it – bigger fish to fry. NO ONE is entirely bereft of valid points to make, not even you.

            [[You'll likely have some retort to this, too, so you still get the last word.]]

            It’s still ‘zymurgy’.

          • Sheila Warner

            Well, I assume you did as I expected and went on a diatribe. As I scrolled past your long comment without reading it, I considered how much space you are using up. For, when I see your name, I will move on. Gee, I wonder if anyone else reads what you say and gives a d@mn. But I’m not curious to stick around to find out. I got the answer I was awaiting from Josh. So, I am off to find decent people.

          • Deborah G

            I think at this point you like I have found this guy is a total moron and refuse to engage with him on any level. Isoloate and ignore. THAT is the best way to handle Homosexuals you do not wish to interact with.

          • Sheila Warner

            “Find any power of the government to compel businesses to do business with people they don’t want to serve.”

            The Civil Rights Act.

          • Ross Williams

            Dimwit, the Civil Rights Act is not part of the Constitution.
            PLEASE stop playing stupid.
            I asked nicely, I said “please”.

          • Sheila Warner

            Ok. I won’t call you a name. The Constitution delegates the power to enact laws to the Congress. The Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which is now law. Hence, the law is valid, and the gov’t can tell businesses not to discriminate.

            The States are permitted to pass laws, too, because the Constitution has the 10th Amendment. But State laws may not violate the Constitution; therefore, if a law is questionable, the people have a right to appeal to the courts.

            Of course not every single law is “in” the Constitution. When the Constitution was written, the authors had no knowledge about cable tv, cell phones, automobiles, or any other modern technology. I read the blog of the Supreme Court of the United States. I can tell you that all sorts of laws involving our modern times are heard by the Court. I highly recommend that you follow that blog. It will give you quite a bit of insight into how our Constitution is applied by the courts. http://www.scotusblog.com/

            Oh, and BTW, the AZ state legislature can vote to override the veto. If the citizens are truly up in arms about this, they need to let their representatives know this.

          • Deborah G

            And the free right of religion defines sellin a Homosexual couple a cake or not.

          • JMax

            A business is not a religion. If it serves the public, it operates under the auspices of state and local ordinances which require it to obey the laws of public accommodation.

          • Deborah G

            There is NO law that requires someone do something AGAINST their religious beliefs PERIOD.

          • JMax

            There is if they want to operate a business which serves the public. But if they want to maintain their “religious liberty” they can find another occupation.

          • Sheila Warner

            True. A priest in the Catholic Church will only married baptized Christians.

        • Sheila Warner

          No, they can’t. A church is a private organization under the protection of the First Amendment.

          • Ross Williams

            And a business is private property under protection of the 5thAM.

          • Sheila Warner

            Yes, but who is trying to take property away? The Fifth Amendment demands just compensation if a business is taken away for public use. You’re not making sense–again.

      • Deborah G

        You can only be a second class citizen in America if you chose to be,. Dr Carson being a prime example, he chose never to engage in victimology and look what that man attained. He lived in aghetto, single mom no advantages whatsoever.. Sorry victimology is not the American ideal it is a systematic ideology of failure that the liberals use to promote their agenda. Can’t have a strife without a victim. Me? I chose NOt to be a victim as a woman, as a short one at that and as anything else. IF someone choses to be a victim and allows themselves to wallow and be bullied then they chose that. No one HAS to be a victim in America.

        • JMax

          “IF someone choses to be a victim and allows themselves to wallow and be bullied then they chose that.”

          Exactly. Gays refuse to be bullied.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Gays refuse to be bullied.]]
            Refusing to be bullied does not mean becoming bullies themselves.
            Who insists on doing business with a business that doesn’t want their business? …and then gloating about it afterward as a “victory”?
            Bullies.

          • JMax

            “Who insists on doing business with a business that doesn’t want their business?”

            Those who won’t tolerate illegal discrimination.

          • Ross Williams

            Discrimination is only supposed to be illegal for THE GOVERNMENT to do.

            Have you ever read the Constitution?

            Don’t answer; you obviously haven’t.

            There’s nothing in A I § 8 that permits Congress to define who is entitled to not have neanderthals being rude and intolerant to them.
            But, since you apparently are unhappy being an American, with the responsibility to make your own choices, and you’d prefer to have your government doing all the choice-making for you … can I assume you’re going to emigrate soon?

          • JMax

            “Discrimination is only supposed to be illegal for THE GOVERNMENT to do.”

            Good thing for you being a moron is a protected class.

            Article I Section 8: …and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

          • Ross Williams

            If you’re going to hang your hat on “general welfare” then you’re consigning yourself to the concept that our Constitution is the starting point of government power, and not its upper limit.

            Now, I will concede that a great many people, and most of them far more articulate than you, hold that position, but it is historically insupportable. “General welfare can be “interpreted” to mean eating our broccoli and button our jackets lest we catch our death of cold. And if that the kind of government you want … then simply move to North Korea right now and skip the middleman.

            General Welfare is SUPPOSED to mean that if Congress does all the SPECIFIC things mentioned, “general welfare” will be the result. NOT that Congress can do what it wants, when it wants, because it can come up with a temporarily good reason for doing so.

            Don’t you remember the liberal’s arguments during Dubya, and all of his onerous legislation? I realize that both idiot liberals and constipated conservatives have a difficult time remembering any farther back than the last election … but try.

            Is governmental use of “general welfare” to be what it wants fine when you like it, but improper abuse of power when you don’t?

            Try to come up with an answer that transcends party, dinkus.

            I am still correct; the only entity that was supposed to be disallowed from discriminating in this FREE COUNTRY is the government. The fact that they’ve redefined that power to give preference to some people over others simply means that we do not live in a free country.

          • JMax

            Article I Section 8: The Congress *shall have the power* to…provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States.

            Historically insupportable? So 220+ years of jurisprudence means nothing to you?

            Your broccoli and jacket example is absurd because any law has to address a compelling interest of the people.

            Have you had civics class yet? Usually comes in your HS senior year. General welfare means what the Congress thinks it means where the Supreme Court doesn’t disagree.

            I do not remember any “onerous” legislation under W. What are you talking about?

            So you believe the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s is unconstitutional?

            Nobody lives in a totally “free” country.

          • Deborah G

            Then I want Congress to defend me from perverted gays and provide me with welfare. Isn’t that how it goes in Ovamitland?

          • Sheila Warner

            The PATRIOT Act is the onerous law under GW Bush. IMHO, of course, but I remember when it was first enacted, President Bush was doing warrantless wiretapping. President O is not the first President to seek more power in the Executive Branch, and he will not be the last, either.

          • Deborah G

            We haven’t been free since OBAMA started to spit on the Constitution and his bag man Holder strong arms and obfiscates for him.

          • Ross Williams

            There hasn’t been a president since … Jefferson, maybe? Madison? Monroe? … who operated within the letter AND spirit of his Constitutionally limited scope of authority. Congress arguably never has; the USSC hasn’t for 150 years.
            Pointing at Obama as anything more than the latest in a LONG line of Boy Tyrants is dishonest. He’s arguably MORE of a tyrant, but when we’re so far removed from the government we were promised, such matters of degree are less important than you think.

          • Sheila Warner

            I suppose that means you believe Jim Crow laws should still be permitted?

          • Ross Williams

            Sheila, if you’re going to be deliberately dishonest, don’t beat around the bush with such socratic condescension; just say so.

            Which part of “THE GOVERNMENT is prohibited from discriminating” begins to imply that Jim Crow-style discrimination-imposing laws are permissible?
            If you are done playing stupid …?

          • Sheila Warner

            Well, you’re the one who keeps saying only the gov’t is prohibited from discrimination. That’s simply not the case. The Jim Crow laws were effectively banned by the gov’t after the Civil Rights fight was finished. Woolworth’s can no longer exclude blacks from their lunch counters. Woolworth’s is not a gov’t agency. Your argument simply does not hold water.

            Interestingly, you referred to me as dishonest and stupid. All I did was ask you a question. Seems as if you are over-reacting just a bit, don’t you think?

          • Ross Williams

            [[Well, you're the one who keeps saying only the gov't is prohibited from discrimination]]

            And I’m correct again!! What are the odds!!

            [[That's simply not the case.]]

            Except for the fact that it is …

            Lookit, toots, The Constitution is the rules imposed on THE GOVERNMENT. The Constitution limits the authority of the government to impose itself on The Poeple

            With me so far? This is basic civics … the class that you were apparently stoned throughout, and the “JMax” drip slept through.

            The Constitution is the UPPER LIMIT of government authority, not the starting point. So you now have all you need to know about “framer’s intent” right there: UPPER LIMIT of power.

            Among the powers of the government contained in the Constitution IS NOT the power to remediate “social issues”. If you believe it is, … then find those unambiguous words in the thing.

            [[The Jim Crow laws were effectively banned by the gov't after the Civil Rights fight was finished.]]

            Repeating something false only makes you wrong repeatedly; Jim Crow was banned by a series of Courtrulings in the 50s, a decade before the Civil Rights Act.

            [[Woolworth's is not a gov't agency.]]

            The state of North Carolina, e.g., is. It was NC that prohibited blacks from Woolworth’s lunch counter, not Woolworths. Woolworth’s was trying to stay out of trouble.

            [[Your argument simply does not hold water.]]

            Luckily for me, it holds truth and accuracy and pertinence. You can have your argument [sic] hold water if you’d like. I’ll stick with being correct.

            [[Interestingly, you referred to me as dishonest and stupid.]]

            There I go, being correct again.

            [[All I did was ask you a question.]]

            Don’t sell yourself short, there, sweetie. You advertised yourself as smug and condescending from your first word, giving off the unctuous slime of believing that you are the most moral person in the room; you consistently phrase your sneers with sloppy terms, factual errors, non-sequential events, axiomatic gibberish ["discrimination eliminates choice", seriously?], circular reasoning – when you deign to use reasoning AT ALL as opposed to your more typical “proof by assertion”, …

            Well, toots, if you’re going to be demeaning and condescending … so will I. Only, and you can take this to the bank, I’m far better at it than you.

            Your call.

          • Sheila Warner

            First of all, I spelled argument correctly. See:

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument

            Secondly, you have not produced any ad hominem attacks that I have made. Quote me. I’ll give you one that you might have perceived to be one. I questioned whether or not you were an adult, based on my observations of how adolescents attack each other. So, that POV that I have is backed up by what I’ve seen.

            Thirdly, I got all As in Civics, which I took in 8th grade. I did not smoke weed, which you implied in your comment. So, you tacitly accused me of breaking the law.

            Fourth, I understand that the Constitution is designed to rein in the government. It was written for the government. It also puts responsibility on the government to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It put in the 14th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, so that the government cannot pass laws that block the rights of any citizen. Jim Crow laws blocked rights of blacks under the 14th Amendment.

            Finally, the laws passed in the 50s to address the Jim Crow laws were being ignored in the Southern states. It remained illegal for blacks to drink at whites-only fountains, to register to vote, and yes, to eat at the lunch counter. It doesn’t matter that the northern Woolworths were serving blacks at the counter. It mattered that the owners of Woolworths and other similar franchises were NOT serving blacks. Those issues needed to be addressed; hence, the Civil RIghts Act.

            Are you denying that those owners, and also government officials, were perpetrating illegal activity?

            “You advertised yourself as smug and condescending from your first word, giving off the unctuous slime of believing that you are the most moral person in the room; you consistently phrase your sneers with sloppy terms, factual errors, non-sequential events, axiomatic gibberish ["discrimination eliminates choice", seriously?], circular reasoning – ”

            Quote me when you make those statements. Discrimination does indeed eliminate choice. The blacks did not have the choice to eat at lunch counters, or to register to vote, or to sit where they pleased on buses. Tell me that the blacks were wrong, and that they did have that choice. Then explain to me what happened to them when they tried to exercise their rights to those choices. Beatings, burned crosses, burned houses, and lynching.

            Look at that. Another polite reply from me!

          • Ross Williams

            [[you have not produced any ad hominem attacks that I have made. Quote me.]]

            I didn’t say you used ad hominem. I said you are insulting and offensive.

            I HAVE been quoting you.

            This is just another example; you are equivocating. I said you were insulting and offensive, you equivocated to ad hominem.

            Equivocation is among the MANY MANY fallacious constructs you use that are insulting and offensive to me.

            [[I understand that the Constitution is designed to rein in the government.]]

            I’ve seen no evidence of that understanding. Every time I find another comment of yours it is making childish excuses for yet another expansion of government power into areas the Constitution doesn’t allow it.

            [[It also puts responsibility on the government to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]]

            And you quibble about me calling you an ignoramus…

            Look, tootsie, the Declaration of Independence is the only American Historical document which uses “pursuit of happiness” and its purpose was to tweak the nose of King George, and little else.

            The Constitution protects life, liberty and PROPERTY. I’ve suggested this before:

            READ

            The CONSTITUTION.

            You are an ignoramus.

            [[... so that the government cannot pass laws that block the rights of any citizen.]]

            So that THE GOVERNMENT cannot deny the rights of any citizen. The Constitution does not apply to citizens; the Constitution does not convey any authority whatsoever to COMPEL the citizenry to the same model of behavior as laid out for the government.

            Therefore …

            Citizens can discriminate all they want.

            [[Finally, the laws passed in the 50s to address the Jim Crow laws were being ignored in the Southern states.]]

            There WERE NO laws passed in the 50s to address Jim Crow; there were COURT RULINGS declaring Jim Crow to be unconstitutional.

            [[Those issues needed to be addressed; hence, the Civil RIghts Act.]]

            They did NOT “need” to be addressed beyond how they already were: declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. …and enforce those rulings on the states which insisted on trying to keep them.

            [[Are you denying that those owners, and also government officials, were perpetrating illegal activity]]

            The government officials were continuing UNCONSTITUTIONAL activities; business owners were caught in the middle and trying to keep their heads down, mostly.

            [[Quote me when you make those statements. Discrimination does indeed eliminate choice.]]

            Okay, here’s the quote: “Discrimination does indeed eliminate choice”

            It is false, it is smugly condescending, unsupportable by anything other than your axiomatic dictum that declares it to be so simply because you uttered it. …which is circular reasoning [at best].

            Once again, sweetie, you insulted me.

            [[The blacks did not have the choice to eat at lunch counters]]

            And the operators of those lunch counters had no choice, either. They were required to obey the law or risk the punishment for it. The original denial of choice was the one given by the government to require the condition.

            You aren’t going to get around that.

            [[or to register to vote]]

            Not entirely true; the process for blacks was cumbersome and onerous, and required arbitrary conditions set by county registrars before it could happen. But … this was the GOVERNMENT setting these rules, which denies Equal Protection.

            [[or to sit where they pleased on buses]]

            A CITY GOVERNMENT function.

            [[Tell me that the blacks were wrong, and that they did have that choice]]

            Not when THE GOVERNMENT takes actions it’s not permitted to. Why can you not get this through your block head? Jim Crow was THE GOVERNMENT. It was not individual choices.

            [[Then explain to me what happened to them when they tried to exercise their rights to those choices. Beatings, burned crosses, burned houses, and lynching.]]

            …and it picked up after what …? after the government “fixed” the issue by FORCING matters.

            If you’re as old as you indicate when you claimed to have lived through this period, then you are either very well aware that you’re sequencing is almost entirely incorrect, or you are stoned.

            [[Look at that. Another polite reply from me!]]

            …full of lies, factual incorrectness, smug indifference to reality, condescencion …

            Yes. You’re just brimming with slimy “politeness”.

          • Sheila Warner

            Um. The Civil Rights Act is a government law that denies private businesses from discriminating. Woolworth’s was a private business, and it had to allow blacks at their lunch counters after the Act became law.

          • Ross Williams

            This may come as a shock to you, dimwit, but Woolworths “discriminated” because they were REQUIRED to.

            The Woolworths lunch counters in Michigan and New York and Montana and New Hampshire didn’t keep blacks away; they did in the south … where STAE LAWS compelled them to.
            There is no rational argument to be made that the SAME Woolworths which realized profit from serving blacks in the north would not have realized the same profit from black in the south had Jim Crow not been in effect.
            None.

          • Sheila Warner

            Right. So? Jim Crow laws were undone by the Federal gov’t following the Civil Rights Act. The whole fight was about state’s rights. In the end, the states lost. So, now private businesses such as Woolworth’s have to serve blacks at the counters. Just as they did in the north. Your argument does not have merit, b/c I am saying that the Federal gov’t ended up trumping the State gov’t, and now, the Federal gov’t does not allow private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. (Or gender, religion, etc, but my point is being made in the context of Jim Crow laws).

          • Ross Williams

            [[Jim Crow laws were undone by the Federal gov't following the Civil Rights Act.]]

            Jim Crow was undone well before the Civil Rights Act.

            Seriously, why do you insist on advertising that you are CLUELESS?

            Jim Crow was ruled unconstutitional in a series of USSC rulings in the 50s. The Civil Rights Act was 1964.

            [[Your argument does not have merit]]

            Yet I’m still correct and you’re still not. Funny how that works, idnit?

            The states’ laws were trumped by the series of USSC rulings of the 50s. Woolworths in Charlotte NC was then free to do what the Woolworths in Endicott NY did, and it didn’t take the Civil Rights Act to do it.

          • Sheila Warner

            Business owners, school administrators, county clerks (who oversee voter registration), and others, were still adhering to Jim Crow laws. It took the Civil Rights struggle and the CRA to codify at the Federal level, that Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Any laws passed in the 1950s did not change how blacks were being treated in the Southern states.

            Remember that it was primarily a state issue back then. Just as it was during the Civil War. The Southern states did not believe that the Federal government had the authority to enact laws which contradicted state laws. The South wanted to be free to keep slaves as they did prior to the Civil War, and then to be free to oppress blacks by denying them certain rights.

            Still rather enjoying your ad hominems. Notice my polite reply.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Notice my polite reply.]]

            I notice your insultingly self-satisfied, smug, condescending reply, that I find intellectually assaulting. I notice your betrayal of fact in favor of axiomatic creed, which I find offensive.

            It is not simply the lack of pejoratives that makes “polite”. I use pejoratives, but I am honest and factually correct; you don’t, but are anti-intellectual and sleezy.

            I don’t think you are as polite as you believe yourself to be.

            [[Business owners, school administrators, county clerks (who oversee voter registration), and others, were still adhering to Jim Crow laws]]

            You think there is INSTANT gratification in the political world? It sometimes does happen, yes, but those times are called “revolutions”. I don’t think you want one of those just to get your way. They’re very destructive and deadly.

            In a society that wouldseek to escape the results of instant political gratification, you have to be patient. Social changes are a GENERATIONAL modification, and for significant social changes, MULTI-generational.

            And the thing with forcing change through the power of government, versus allowing people to come to the conclusion all on their own, is: force begets resentment. Resentment manifests itself in the childish behavior of “lashing out”. And THIS will last for generations, thus compounding the original issue.

            How long did Reconstruction last? 12, 15 years? How long did southern BACKLASH to Reconstruction last? 80, 100 years? Is it even over with yet? truly?

            Without Reconstruction, the whole post-bellum hissy fit might well have spent its last energy after a few generations. But no, just GOTTA grab that pound of flesh, don’t we? That makes everything better, taking a pound of flesh.

            Right?

            [[Any laws passed in the 1950s did not change how blacks were being treated in the Southern states. ]]

            Court rulings are not laws.

            There’s that lack of knowledge of US Civics again. And you STILL quibble about being described as an ignoramus? Ironic, that…

          • Sheila Warner

            “Court rulings are not laws”

            You are the one who repeatedly tried to refute my statement that the Civil Rights Act (a law) did away with Jim Crow laws, by pointing to the 50s courts.

            “It is not simply the lack of pejoratives that makes ‘polite’. I use pejoratives, but I am honest and factually correct; you don’t, but are anti-intellectual and sleezy.”

            So, I am rude because I don’t agree with your facts. Your insistence that you are factually correct demonstrates that you just can’t handle it when someone disagrees with your claim of the veracity of your facts.

            Notice that I didn’t use “[sic]” on “sleezy” even though I could have. It’s “sleazy”. I made a factual statement.
            Does that mean I just insulted you, somehow?

          • Ross Williams

            [[You are the one who repeatedly tried to refute my statement that the Civil Rights Act (a law) did away with Jim Crow laws, by pointing to the 50s courts.]]

            And I am correct. IT WAS the 50s court rulings which invalidated Jim Crow. CRA’64 was a decade after the fact.

            [[So, I am rude because I don't agree with your facts.]]

            It is not possible to “disagree” with facts. Facts are facts, and you can’t get around them. You are rude because of the way you conduct yourself, which I’ve explained over and over and over again. you seem to be incapable of seeing yourself in a mirror.

            Are you a vampire?

            [[Your insistence that you are factually correct demonstrates that you just can't handle it when someone disagrees with your claim of the veracity of your facts.]]

            I AM factually correct. You insist on trying to criticise the CONCLUSION I draw FROM those facts, by denying what’s in every history book.

          • Sheila Warner

            Court rulings were ignored. Jim Crow laws were still being applied. Technically they were invalidated, but if the invalidation is only on a piece of paper, then they were still hanging around. The Civil Rights Act in the 60s, yes, a decade later, finally killed Jim Crow.

            I so pity you!

          • Deborah G

            Those who are simply looking for controversy and fighting. IF someone doesn’t want my business I simply go to where it is wanted. Why is that so hard for you gays to accept?

          • JMax

            What if the black folks at the Woolworth’s counter had had that approach? Injustice ignored will be allowed to perpetuate.

            BTW, where did you get the idea I’m gay?

          • Deborah G

            From your slant on the entire conversation.If not you are so far left of center that even Gay people here think you are one of them.

          • JMax

            Really? Who here is gay and which of them think I’m gay? The majority of Americans support gay marriage so I would say I’m right in the center.

          • Ross Williams

            The majority of Americans also supports the concept that a merchant has the right to run his store any way he chooses, even if it IS in ways that drive away customers.

          • Sheila Warner

            Yes, and many gays are conservatives. This idea that all gays are politically left is not true. It shows that those who think and say these things don’t really understand that gays are ordinary Americans, like you and I are.

          • Sheila Warner

            I get that a lot, too. When I stand up for gays, I’m accused of being gay, too. As if straights can’t support gay rights. {{shrugs}}

          • Sheila Warner

            Deb, they are taking a page from the Civil Rights era, where blacks sat at whites-only lunch counters, sat where they wanted on buses, and registered blacks to vote. All of which were illegal in the deep South.

          • Ross Williams

            [[All of which were illegal in the deep South]]
            Right. ILLEGAL.
            It is not illegal for gays to buy a wedding cake, and there’s no shortage of places who will gladly sell them one. There no more than a handful of places so upset about the notion that they are refusing. The two are NOT comparable conditions
            One was a matter OF LAW, the other is an individual decision to be a neanderthal.

          • PolkaDot

            2 thumbs up! You seem to be the only one in this discussion who understands the issue at hand. The rest have to hit the history books.

          • Sheila Warner

            I don’t have to hit the history books. I lived through the Civil Rights era, and I saw and heard it all. I saw Gov Wallace standing in the doorway of the school, declaring “segregation now, segregation forever”, I saw the fire hoses and the dogs unleashed on blacks. I saw the Freedom Riders’ beatings and the firebombing of their bus. I saw civil rights activists jailed. I saw the National Guard protecting black students who wanted to attend school with whites. I saw the cross burnings, the houses burnt down, and the KKK rallies.

            The fact that Jim Crow laws in the Southern states made it illegal for whites to serve blacks, or to marry them, or to give them the right to vote, is irrelevant. Those laws are dead and gone, because they violated the 14th Amendment.

            Remember that it was once ILLEGAL for women to vote. So what? The 19th Amendment took care of that one.

          • PolkaDot

            Once again, you are missing the point: illegal means “forced by the government”.. But, with all due respect. I think I am wasting time because you refuse to hear what I am saying.

          • Sheila Warner

            Illegal means violating the law.

          • PolkaDot

            Thank you for the correction, I meant to say “made illegal” means “forced by the government”

          • Ross Williams

            [[The fact that Jim Crow laws in the Southern states made it illegal for whites to serve blacks, or to marry them, or to give them the right to vote, is irrelevant]]

            Only to someone who insists on dishonestly framing the discussion.

            The fact that it was ILLEGAL to be accommodating means – BY DEFINITION – that you do not have the same condition now.

            Period.

            End of discussion.

            [[The 19th Amendment took care of that one]]
            the 19thAM was unnecessary … unless, of course, you don’t think women are persons …Same argument with the once-and-out ERA. “The Constitution doesn’t protect women!!” Why because it doesn’t specifically mention women as having X, Y and Z? It doesn’t protect men, then either.
            It DOES say that all persons shall have X, Y and Z … so … if you think the Constitution doesn’t, or didn’t, protect women, then you must think women are not persons.

          • Sheila Warner

            Without the 19th Amendment, women would not be allowed to vote. How would you have solved that problem?

          • Ross Williams

            [[Without the 19th Amendment, women would not be allowed to vote]]

            Unfounded. You might as well say that “without an amendment declaring homosexuals to be equal in every way, they won’t have the right to get married.”

            [[How would you have solved that problem?]]

            You make an argument that women are persons, and as such are entitled to Equal Protection of the voting laws. And you don’t stop until it gets through to them.

            “Them” is the idiot judges who only rarely and arbitrarily acknowledge that they’ve read the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

          • Sheila Warner

            A neanderthal. You just can’t help yourself, can you?

            See my other comment. Discrimination erodes freedom of choice.

          • Ross Williams

            [[See my other comment]]
            I’ve seen your comments.
            You are wrong. You excel at wrong.

          • Sheila Warner

            Just like those blacks who sat at those counters, right? Sometimes you have to shake things up to get needed change.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Just like those blacks who sat at those counters, right?]]
            Your historical illiteracy is showing again. Be modest; cover up. Don’t advertise yourself to be such an ignoramus.
            Blacks staging lunch counter sit-ins could not have gone across the street, or down the block, or even across town to a diner that would have them. There were none. It was ILLEGAL to serve blacks under Jim Crow..
            Gays who enter a bakery to order a wedding cake and fund the owner to be a neanderthal can go across the street, down the block or across town to another bakery.

          • Sheila Warner

            I know that blacks could not just go down the street. That a gay couple could find another bakery (although I don’t know the lay out of the city in which the baker turned away the gay couple). The point is, why should the gay couple have to go to another store, which may charge more, or not have as big a selection, or doesn’t have a specific cake that is only sold at the Christian bakery? Discrimination erodes freedom of choice, both for the blacks and for the gays.

          • Deborah G

            So do Christians refuse to be bullied. Just because someone wants soething doesn’t mean they have a right to it. . The fact is the person suggested they were second class citizens and I said no only if they chose to be. They are not second class citizens even if they don’t have a takeover of marraige, underage kids don’t have the right to drive or drink that doesn;t make them second class citizens it makes them abide by rules. Kids don’t get to run the family either. Just because they want to..That doesn’t mean they are entitled to any special privilage either. Gay marraige is NOT a right , marraige is between a man and a woman not two homos. Their trying to takeover a time homored tradition IS going to be met with push backs and most likely make them further isolated NOT accepted.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Just because someone wants soething doesn't mean they have a right to it]]

            Actually, yes they do have a right to it [probably].

            But almost no one understands what a right actually consists of. A RIGHT is what we have when the government sits down, shuts up, and let’s us do what we want. When the government gets involved, it ceases being a right and – if the government actually provides it [as health care] it becomes an entitlement – and if the government compels it from another party, it becomes a SUPERIOR right.

            [[Gay marraige is NOT a right]]

            Equal Protection is a right, and MARRIAGE is a legal construction. Because marriage is provided by law, that law must be applied equally or it becomes the only form of discrimination actually barred in this country: that which is done by the government.

            No one has “redefined” marriage by applying it to gays; it is simply being applied equally … as our form of governance requires.

            Our form of governance does not require that everyone LIKE it, nor does it require that they be silent in their dislike. or polite in their nonsilence. But it DOES require that it be allowed.

            And the very same argument goes to shopkeepers who choose whom they wish to do business with. The only entity in this country not permitted by its rules to discriminate is the government – people are free to discriminate all they wish.

            Our form of governance does not require that everyone LIKE discriminatory shopkeepers, nor be silent, nor be polite. But it DOES require that it be allowed.

          • Grace Quirrell

            Bravo, Ross! :)

          • Deborah G

            So we need to legislate them to be protected FROM marraige in order to be fair.

          • Ross Williams

            The only way to eliminate gays equal protection access to marriage is to eliminate marriage as a legal construction, yes. Shack up as you please.

            Of course, that will bring with it a whole range of Unintended Consequences that may make your “cure” worse than the “disease”.

            I’m painfully aware that you don’t like gay marriage, Deb … so what? You don’t have a right, any more than anyone else does, to be free from having people doing things you consider nauseating and repulsive.

            Gay marriage turns your stomach. Go stand in the “Turned Stomach” line. You’ll be behind those who think pornography is disgusting, and racism is appalling, and swear words are offensive, and, and, and. Everybody alive, and who has EVER been alive, is in line ahead of you.

            You aren’t special. But in this country you are supposed to be FREE … and freedom means nothing unless it includes the freedom to turn someone else’s stomach.

            Go; be free. And celebrate your upset tummy as the proof that others are free.

          • Sheila Warner

            Even the Westboro folks had their right to free speech upheld by SCOTUS. Yes, they are free to revile this nation, and we, as a nation, are free to revile them, too.

          • Deborah G

            I would fight for anyone’s right to free speech or religious freedom. I am well aware I am not special LOL my husband I joke about that a lot. Like if we died in three days someone would deb who? We don’t have that opinion of our “specialness” What I doo have is an opinion. You have your the gays theirs. I believe free speech is a right everyone has no matter how offensive or repulsive the speaker is. That being said I will never believe two guys sodomizing each other is anything but an abomination. If they want to? fine just don’t broadcast it any more than I broadcast what goes on in my bedroom.

          • Sheila Warner

            “…people are free to discriminate all they wish.”

            No they aren’t. That’s why we have the EEOC. That’s why workers who are discriminated against can file suit. People do not have an unfettered right to discriminate.

          • Ross Williams

            [[No they aren't]]
            REALLY? So … you can serve alcohol to a 19 y.o. “adult”?
            The Constitution applies ONLY to the government. Free people – if they are FREE, are just that: FREE.
            Freedom is not polite and it’s very very messy. how badly do you like freedom?

          • Sheila Warner

            I never mentioned alcohol, so I have no idea how your statement applies to my point. BTW, serving minors is a crime in all 50 states. It’s not about discrimination; it’s about obeying the law.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I have no idea how your statement applies to my point]]
            Because you are being willfully ignorant.
            Let’s see if you can follow the ball, here, dimwit:

            I said people are free to discriminate all they wish.
            YOU said no they aren’t.
            This tells me that you are not going to use your noggin to make distinctions among the adults. An adult is an adult is an adult [I'm selecting out adults because I don't want to get wrapped around the whole "underage minor" axle]
            If you aren’t going to discriminate among adults, then you’re perfectly fine serving alcohol to a 19y.o.
            Arncha?
            STILL having problems? lay off the ‘shrooms.

          • JMax

            “underage kids don’t have the right to drive or drink that doesn;t make them second class citizens”

            No, it makes them minors.

            Courts in 17 states say that gay marriage IS a right, and the state has no compelling interest to deny gays that right. The ones who are becoming isolated are the ones that can’t accept that fact.

          • Deborah G

            No they say it is LEGAL a huge difference. I have no issue with gays moving to states that have laws that allow them.

          • JMax

            No, the courts say it is a right based on equal protection of the law. Marriage between two people is a right and that right cannot be denied without a compelling reason for the state to do so.

            And over 50% of Americans agree.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

          • Sheila Warner

            JMax: Until Windsor, I didn’t realize that gay couples living in a gay-banned state were not permitted Federal benefits. We had civil unions in NJ until the court finally said the ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. I always thought that civil unions were enough. However, the fact that a gay couple is denied the same Federal benefits as those in states where gay marriage is legal, to me, is unconstitutional. I believe, that at some point, the Equal Protection clause will prevail in all 50 states. There is no compelling reason to deny anyone Federal benefits simply for where they live.

          • JMax

            Exactly!

          • KStrett

            Your problem is with the benefits and tax system then?

            A single person could argue they are being discriminated against too. Why are they being punished for not being married?

            Are polygamists being discriminated against for being denied the right to marry and/or denied the same Federal benefits straight couples get?

            Secondly, you are presupposing homosexual couples and straight couples are equivalent.

            1. Men and women are designed to be attracted to each other.
            2. Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex
            3. Therefore, homosexuality has to be a type of abnormality.

            Once you concede that homosexuality has to be a type of abnormality you can not argue they are being discriminated against for being denied the right to redefine marriage or the state not recognizing same sex couples as equivalent to normal couples.

          • Ross Williams

            Anything that is not a condition of the majority of a given population is technically an “abnormality” … though that term isn’t used in a legal, medical, sociological, psychological or any other basis to get where you’re trying to go with it.

            Left-handedness is an abnormality

            Blue eyes is an abnormality

            Liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism is an abnormality.

            Because you are not a majority condition, YOU are an abnormality.

            Think very very very carefully how you want to proceed …

          • KStrett

            Ross, you are making a straw-man argument and just flat out wrong. It is not a abnormality to have blue eyes, be left handed, or to hold certian political positions.

            “Think very very very carefully how you want to proceed …”

            Why would I do that, Ross?

            What I said was a fact.

            1. Men and women are designed to be attracted to each other.
            2. Homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex
            3. Therefore, homosexuality has to be a type of abnormality.

            You didn’t disagree with my argument. Instead you attempted to knock it down using flawed logic.

            Again, once you concede that homosexuality is a type of abnormality, you can not argue homosexuals are being discriminated against because they can’t redefine marriage.

          • Sheila Warner

            Abnormal psychology is a recognized field within the medical community.

          • KStrett

            “It’s correct as far as it goes, but using that argument, ANYthing that is not a majority condition is an “abnormality”

            Your contention is false. A genetic abnormality is not the same as being left handed, having blue eyes or any variation from the norm.

            Your objection is predicted on the category error logical fallacy. You are comparing apples and oranges to construct a straw-man.

            “Got a special ghetto for them, too?”

            Holding the position that redefining marriage isn’t a right equates to wanting to force all gay people into a special ghetto?

            ” in a nation built on POLITICAL LIBERTY – to find a partner?”

            No one is stopping a homosexuals from finding a partner! The issue is redefining marriage.

            Once you concede that homosexuality is a type of abnormality, you can not argue homosexuals are being discriminated against because they can’t
            redefine marriage. Please stop with the histrionics.

          • Sheila Warner

            Well, I don’t accept your premises in the three point list, so replying to your comment is pointless.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I don't accept your premises in the three point list]]

            Huh?

            This is shades of the anti-intellectualism I encountered among a “certain class” of feminist in Sociology grad school over 20 years ago. They delighted in “rejecting” factual statements. “I REJECT that men are physically stronger than women and therefore better suited to manual labor”, e.g..

            Doesn’t matter if you “reject” it, it’s still true and it doesn’t STOP being true just because you decide to wet your panties about the matter.

            For what it’s worth, the boy is correct – as far as it goes, he just hasn’t got the edumacation to go far enough, and he doesn’t know what to do with what little he’s got. Your refusal to “accept” what he says only supports MY contention that you don’t have the brains to be involved in this discussion, either, from any but a knee-jerk emotionalist claptrap perspective in the first place.
            Neither does he, for what it’s worth, which is why I said that the two of you make a good set of hidebound bookends on the matter. You two deserve each other. Go find a room somewhere so you can talk past each other all day long without annoying the grown-ups. You “reject” him; he claims ignorance.

            What he is attempting to speak to is non-normative conditions [as opposed to "abnormality"]. But he doesn’t have the wits to understand that things he considers acceptable fall into that same category; he’s depserately trying to rationalize his bigotry against gays by using a pesudo-scientific claim wrapped in a pseudo-logical construct, for the purpose of assuaging his moral conscience. And YOU don’t have the brains to read through it.

            I don’t understand why not; it’s the same thing you do.

          • Sheila Warner

            I reject your premises, still. That means that I don’t believe that what you wrote down in your three points were factual. Of course, that means in your mind that I am some stupid person. Funny that you referred to me as a feminist. That’s a first for me.

            When discussing the issues of fact with a person. I usually thing of Dr Semmelweis. When I was in nursing school, we learned about him. He was the first doctor to connect physician hygiene with nosocomial infections after childbirth, and instituted hand washing. In spite of the success in cutting infections, his theory and methods came under fierce opposition. Facts did not matter to his opponents. Read about him here:
            http://explorable.com/semmelweis-germ-theory

            I reject your three premises. There’s no other way to say it politely. I certainly do not want to say you are wrong. We just merely strongly disagree about them. I don’t think you are stupid because you hold to those premises in your three points. I merely disagree that they are facts. It’s a real pity that you frequently resort to some pretty vile words to try to make your point. “Wet your panties” is vile.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I reject your premises, still]]

            They aren’t mine. They belong to K Strett. The fact that you attributed his bigotry rationalization to me is extremely dishonest of you, and support my contention that you are … well … dishonest. I also find it insulting that you don’t have the courtesy to read what others say and make the intellectual dinstinctions necessary to promote a discussion.

            [[in your mind that I am some stupid person.]]

            In my mind, and in this discussion board as well. Funny how that works, no?

            [[you referred to me as a feminist.]]

            No I did not. And this goes back to you refusing to give me the courtesy of reading what I actually said.

            [[I certainly do not want to say you are wrong]]

            You wouldn’t be able to make it stick if you did.

            [[We just merely strongly disagree about tjem.]]

            Disagreement about true statements is a waste of time and intellectual energy. You are far better off in the long run acknowledging where your acadmic opponent cite true conditions but simply fails to piece those true conditions together properly. …you know .. ANALYZE the data.

            “Rejecting” data is the attempt to deny reality. Only fools do that.

            [[I don't think you are stupid because you hold to those premises in your three points]]

            Again, they aren’t mine, they belong to K Strett.

            [[I merely disagree that they are facts]]

            They are stated IMPROPERLY, but they are true enough, particularly to a layman.

            [["Wet your panties" is vile.]]

            And dishonestly accusing someone of holding a position he does not hold is probably worse.

          • Sheila Warner

            You inserted yourself into the conversation with K Strett, immediately confirming that you agreed with him; therefore, his points are yours as well. If you disagree with K, say so. You also inserted yourself into my comments to Josh and to John Daly. Are you the comment cop around here?

            You tacitly imply that I am a feminist–”This is shades of the anti-intellectualism I encountered among a ‘certain class’ of feminist in Sociology grad school over 20 years ago.”–then have the audacity to feign that you never said exactly that I am a feminist.

            “‘Rejecting’ data is the attempt to deny reality. Only fools do that.” What “data” did I reject? Data refers to a body of facts. You and I disagree over the meaning and purpose of some of the Bill of Rights. But, of course, your reading of the Constitution is the only correct one, so anyone who doesn’t see it your way is automatically a dimwit. Another word you flung my way.

            I get you, now. You are a successful academic, and rightly so. You cannot understand those who are not a part of your cohort. You cannot fathom that anyone would ever come up with a different analysis of facts. The problem is that dealing with the Constitution is not the same as dealing with science. Just look at the wide varieties of opinions among Constitutional scholars. Read the decisions of the Supreme Court and see the visceral manner in which they fight over opinions that are split. I am more confident in the Supreme Court than you are, because my philosophy of governing is different than yours. I celebrate the way the Court works. You despise it, and therefore, despise opinions and comments like mine. I am not your enemy, although you are treating me like an enemy. This mindset has taken hold in the Congress, too, and it’s very sad.

          • Ross Williams

            [[You inserted yourself into the conversation with K Strett, immediately confirming that you agreed with him]]

            I agreed with the facts he presented, though I went to great pains on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS to explain to him that they were stated incorrectly.

            And then I set about to criticize the conclusions he came to FROM those facts.

            That is not exactly being in agreement with him, now, IS IT?

            No, it’s not.

            But this is what an academic discussion is all about; THESE are the facts, and we arrange the facts THIS WAY, and draw THIS conclusion, and arrange the facts THAT way and draw THAT conclusion.

            Try it sometime.

            [[If you disagree with K, say so.]]

            I did. You were probably too busy being self-righteous and snotty to figure that out, though.

            [[Are you the comment cop around here?]]

            No, I’m an academic; this is what I do.

            [[You tacitly imply that I am a feminist]]

            Your inference is not my responsibility. I very very very specifically said that you took the same facile position of “rejecting” facts that were inconvenient to you; that is not the same thing – and it’s not even close to the same thing – as saying you are one of those people who did it prior. I could also have said that you were acting like a teenager … would saying that you act LIKE a teenager be the same as saying you ARE a teenaager?

            Really?

            [[What "data" did I reject]]

            SERIOUSLY? How many times do you need to hear this?

            For starters, that Jim Crow was invalidated a decade before the Civil Rights Act.

            IT’S IN THE HISTORY BOOKS. Deal with it.

            [[But, of course, your reading of the Constitution is the only correct one]]

            Of the two of us, I’m the only one taking a consistent position regarding the Bill of Rights … Equal Protection applies to both the gays wanting to get married as well as the baker who doesn’t want to bake them a cake. So my reading is the only CONSISTENT one.

            You, on the other hand, are maintaining the position that the Bill of Rights applies only to those who have been wronged as a “class”, and is not applicable to those who get in the way of it. …when you aren’t too busy misrepresenting what the Bill of Rights is in the first place.

            [[Another word you flung my way.]]

            I’ll let you know when it stops applying.

            [[You cannot fathom that anyone would ever come up with a different analysis of facts.]]

            I understand them fine, and they understand me. The issue is with those who don’t know how to make intellectual arguments in the first place – which is why I used [sic] on your use of the word “argument”, since you don’t know how to make them.

            [[Just look at the wide varieties of opinions among Constitutional scholars]]

            Most of them boil down to a rationalization of why, when the Constitution requires, e.g., a warrant before the government can search an individual, it doesn’t really mean that.

            [[Read the decisions of the Supreme Court and see the visceral manner in which they fight over opinions that are split]]

            That’s one of the things I routinely do, dearie, and it’s why I know that most of the “constitutional” “scholars” are flaming retards looking for a convenient excuse to do as they please.

            [[I am more confident in the Supreme Court than you are]]

            Hence denying that you are really a libertarian.

            [[I am not your enemy, although you are treating me like an enemy]]

            I am treating you as you present yourself: a self-satisfied dope.

          • Sheila Warner

            I am aware that the 50s rulings preceded the 60s CRA. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Our disagreement is that I saw a need for the Feds to step in and REALLY kill Jim Crow. The court rulings were words on paper, since the actions of the whites continued unabated. How am I not analyzing this correctly? Because you don’t believe the law was necessary, right? Because you think it was a government overreach.

            “That’s one of the things I routinely do, dearie, and it’s why I know that most of the “constitutional” “scholars” are flaming retards looking for a convenient excuse to do as they please.”

            The Justices are serious about the Constitution and what it means and how it should be applied. The fact that you read opinions and get upset at the Justice’s reading of the Constitution, referring to them as flaming retards proves again that anyone who doesn’t somehow match your idea of an academically ideal way of thinking is dismissed as less than you.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I saw a need for the Feds to step in and REALLY kill Jim Crow]]

            When has taking a pound of flesh EVER WORKED?

            One example.

            Just one.

            [[court rulings were words on paper]]

            Laws are just words on paper as well.

            [[actions of the whites continued unabated]]

            The CRIMINAL actions INCREASED. The social treatements – to listen to many – are unchanged.

            So … how well did CRA’64 work?

            Objectively?

            [[How am I not analyzing this correctly?]]

            Because you are failing to incorporate the observed realities. Either in the SPECIFIC example of CRA’64 itself, where CRIMINAL CONDUCT increased in the decade after it, and the SOCIAL treatments are simply “different”, and not remarkably “better”. Nor in your knowledge and appreciation of OTHER examples of government trying to “fix” such things, exactly NONE of which have worked as designed, and ALL of which create a whole host of “unintended consequences” that are nearly uniformly disastrous to the society.

            You may make an argument that “SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!”, but if you try to make the argument that “…AND THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO IT!!!” then you are making an argument that has no examples of success in the history of human civilization.

            [[Because you don't believe the law was necessary, right?]]

            I think the law was unnecessary because it was doomed to failure. One of my degrees is history.

            [[Because you think it was a government overreach.]]

            It WAS government overreach, the people who wrote our definition of government were historians as well, and knew – as I do – that government is not good at direction “social betterment”, and that’s the reason they gave the government no authoirty in such matters.

            [[The Justices are serious about the Constitution and what it means and how it should be applied.]]

            If they want to know what it means, then they are advised to read it. If they want to know how to apply it, then: as written.

            Any deviation from that is them attempting to insinuate themselves into the Constitution. And yes, they are serious about THAT.

            “I hate to hear people say this Judge will vote so and so, because he is a Democrat — and this one so and so because he is a Republican. It is shameful. The Judges have the Constitution for their guidance; they have no right to any politics save the politics of rigid right and justice when they are sitting in judgment upon the great matters that come before them.”
            - M Twain

            I’m in good company, I think.

          • Sheila Warner

            I already gave you the last word. It’s far more interesting to talk to people who inform me with respect.

          • KStrett

            “What he is attempting to speak to is non-normative conditions [as opposed to "abnormality"]. But he doesn’t have the wits to understand that things he considers acceptable fall into that same category”

            Not true at all. A few people objected to my argument comparing non-normative conditions with an abnormality.

            Homosexuality is not the equivalent of being left handed but an abnormality. In other words, the homosexual activist own argument when they state they were born that way, is saying homosexuality is a genetic abnormality.

            Why? Because we know men and women are designed to be attracted to each other. If the entire world turned gay, the population of the earth would be gone in about 100 year.

            ” he’s depserately trying to rationalize his bigotry against gays by using a pesudo-scientific claim wrapped in a pseudo-logical construct,”

            You can not claim bigotry by stating facts! Nor, can you claim bigotry because I hold the position that homosexuals don’t have the right to redefine marriage. You just assume disagreeing with you is bigotry.

            “But he doesn’t have the wits ”

            I am done with your insults.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Not true at all]]

            Exactly true. There is no clinical diagnosis for “abnormality” that exists as you need it to exist to distinguish homosexuality from left-handedness.

            Sorry.

            Up until a few generations ago, even in this country, left-handedness was considered a condition that needed “correction”, and until a few generations before that was considered unholy and a mark of the devil. There’s a reason that the latin term for left-handed [sinister] also means “evil”.

            In the grand scheme of things, there’s just about as many people who are left-handed as there are who display an attraction for the same sex – ~10-11%

            There’s just as much “evidence” that human beings were designed to be right-handed. Blue eyes is even more a minority than that, across the whole human race.

            [[If the entire world turned gay]]

            This is simply a retarded reduction; might as well base an argument on “if 2+2=5″.

            [[You can not claim bigotry by stating facts!]]

            The “facts” do not exist as you are stating them, period. You are in the general neighborhood of stating them correctly, but you aren’t on the same street. I’ve restated them FOR YOU on at least one occasion in order to make them correct, but you would have none of it.

            Your argument – if it can truly be called that – is an exercise in equivocation. That is a logical fallacy, in case you were wondering.

            Learn it, learn it quick, learn it forever: there is no “abnormality” about homosexuality that does not also exist for left-handedness.

            The US Constitution prohibits distinctions in the laws between one person or group of people and another person or group of people. This is called “Equal Protection”. A law which DOES distinguish between one group and another is not permitted to exist.

            This is why no one is changing the definition of marriage. A definition which includes race – as many states laws did prior to the mid-60s – were not permitted to exist and had to be rewritten. State laws which distinguish sex today are not permitted to exist and THEY must be rewritten.

            Learn it, learn it quick, learn it forever: NO ONE IS CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. There is only one definition allowed to exist.

            [[I am done with your insults]]
            Oh? Are you also done being a witless bigot who cannot be coaxed into properly stating his childish quibbles? Because that’s one of only two ways that I will cease describing you as you present yourself.

          • KStrett

            “There is no clinical diagnosis for “abnormality”

            There is no clinical diagnosis for abnormalities, therefore there is no such thing as a genetic abnormality?

            Great objection!

            “left-handedness was considered a condition”

            You conceded that men and women are designed to be attracted to each other. People are not designed to be only right handed!

            “This is simply a retarded reduction”

            My point shows that in order for the human race to survive, men and women need to procreate. Homosexual can not procreate. You can not say that about being left handed or blued eyed.

            “Your argument – if it can truly be called that – is an exercise in equivocation”

            I am not equivocating at all. Nor, have you shown that I am.

            “Learn it, learn it quick, learn it forever: there is no “abnormality” about homosexuality that does not also exist for left-handedness.”

            The only logical fallacy is the category error in your objection. Homosexually is not the same as being left handed. You are comparing non-normative conditions with genetic abnormalities.

            “The US Constitution prohibits distinctions in the laws between one person or group of people and another person or group of people.”

            If group A has the right to do X, so must group B.

            You have to believe that polygamists can redefine marriage too, right?You won’t answer that question.

            “This is why no one is changing the definition of marriage….A definition which includes race ”

            The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Interracial marriage did not change the definition of marriage. Interracial marriage
            bans were a restriction on an existing right.

            Two men or women getting married is changing the definition and the right of marriage. You are comparing an unconstitutional restriction on a
            right with a new right that has been invented out of thin air. This is comparing apples to oranges or the category error logical fallacy.

            Again, if you want to argue the definition of marriage is not being changed, please tell me when two men or women were married in the 1700, 1800, or 1900s?

            You did not address either one of my points and you will not.

            ” Are you also done being a witless bigot”

            Take care…

          • KStrett

            You have to disagree with one of the premises and point out why the premise is wrong or show my logic doesn’t follow! You can’t just brush the argument away without a defeater to one of my premises.

          • Sheila Warner

            Sure, I can. I don’t have a great need to disprove you. I don’t care whether or not you object to my rejection of your premises. It’s just not that important to me. That’s why I didn’t answer. Some threads aren’t worth it, to me. So, if you assume your assertions are true based on my answer, have at it. I am tired of this whole forum.

          • KStrett

            What you are arguing is the equivalent of disagreeing with 1 +1= 2 without offering why. You can’t just say I disagree that 1+1 =2!

          • KStrett

            “Marriage between two people is a right”

            Marriage between one man and one woman is the right. You changed the definition from one man and one women to one person to another. This gives a false impression of discrimination.

            Why do you get to impose the new definition of marriage on everyone else?

            I want to change the definition of marriage to include the twins I am in love with.

            Am I being discriminated against because I am being denied the right to change the definition of marriage to the one I want?

            Should a judge rule that I have a basic human constitutional right to change the definition of marriage to include one man to two women?

          • Ross Williams

            [[Marriage between one man and one woman is the right]]

            MARRIAGE is a legal construction; EQUAL PROTECTION is the right.

            EQUAL PROTECTION requires that you make the conditions that apply to SOME apply to ALL. If you allow THESE two people to get married, you must therefore allow THOSE two people to get married.

            If your “holy” “definition of marriage” doesn’t allow that, then your “holy” “definition of marriage” violates the Constitution.

            Doesn’t it?

            The answer you are looking for is “Yes, Ross, I guess it does.” G’head; say it.

            Now stop pretending you’re a jockey and come down from your high horse.

          • KStrett

            “If you allow THESE two people to get married, you must therefore allow THOSE two people to get married.”

            All you are doing is changing the definition of marriage before the fact so you can falsely show discrimination.

            The definition of marriage is not two persons but one man and one woman.

            Your own logic chain under equal protect clause dictates everyone has the exact same right to change the definition of marriage.

            Why are you refusing to answer simple question about your own position?

            Why do you get to impose the new definition of marriage on everyone else?

            I want to change the definition of marriage to include the twins I am in love with.

            Am I being discriminated against because I am being denied the right to change the definition of marriage to the one I want?

            Should a judge rule that I have a basic human constitutional right tochange the definition of marriage to include one man to two women?

          • Ross Williams

            [[Am I being discriminated against because I am being denied the right to change the definition of marriage to the one I want?]]
            Make your legal case for it. The arguments against polygamy are strained at best. The first one assumes that a second concurrent marriage is a fraud, but if its entered knowingly and willingly there is no fraud angle. The second argument against it is the socialist one: “to each according to his need” … and the “need” is one-per.
            Make your case. I’m on your side on that.

          • KStrett

            I have already made a case.

            Your own logic chain under equal protect clause dictates everyone has the exact same right to change the definition of marriage.Do you stand by that?

            You still have not answered my questions!

            Am I being discriminated against because I am being denied the right to change the definition of marriage to the one I want?

            Yes or No?

            Should a judge rule that I have a basic human constitutional right to change the definition of marriage to include one man to two women?

            Yes or No?

          • Ross Williams

            [[I have already made a case]]

            You haven’t done anything close. You’ve whimpered and you’ve whined. You acted like a liberal.

            You haven’t made a case.

            [[Do you stand by that?]]

            Since that isn’t what I said, I cannot be asked what you asked me. “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

            I very plainly said that the definition of marriage isn’t changing, it is being applied equally. If you cannot read what I write, then the issue is not mine, it is yours.

            [[Should a judge rule that I have a basic human constitutional right to change the definition of marriage to include one man to two women?]]

            That is not an honest representation of the matter.
            The definition of marriage does not change; the application does.

          • KStrett

            “You haven’t done anything close.”

            You are clearly evading answering my questions. Your own case to allow same sex couples to redefine marriage dictates everyone has the exact same right to change the definition to the one they like. You said it your self.

            “I very plainly said that the definition of marriage isn’t changing, it is being applied equally.”

            You are incorrect. In order for marriage to be applied equally everyone must have the exact same right to change the definition of marriage, otherwise you don’t have marriage equality. You have a made up new right just for homosexuals.

            If the definition of marriage isn’t changing, please tell us when two people of the same sex have been married prior to recent events.

            When in this country’s past have two people of the same sex been married?

            “That is not an honest representation of the matter.
            The definition of marriage does not change”

            You are still dodging the question!

            I have shown the definition of marriage does in fact change.

            1. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman

            Notice the definition is not two people but one man and one woman. Thus, the definition of marriage does change.

            If one group has the right to change the definition of marriage, your own argument under equal protection dictates everyone has that exact same right.

            Should a judge rule that I have a basic human constitutional right to change the definition of marriage to include one man to two women?

            Why is this so hard for you to answer?

          • Ross Williams

            [[You are clearly evading answering my questions]]

            I answered; you dislike the answers; you claim they are not answers; you whine and whimper and stamp your feet like a crybaby.

            [[The definition of marriage is one man and one woman]]

            Actually, no, it wasn’t in most states. At the time this whole thing started 6, 8 years ago there were [I recall] MAYBE 10 states where the legal definition of marriage required one man and one woman. And gays in those other 40 states said “we’re not excluded, so give us a license!” And the state clerk still said “no”.

            In any event, prior to Loving, the definition of marriage in VA DID require the two be of the same race. Did the prohibition of miscegenation change the definition of marriage?

            Quit crying.

          • KStrett

            “I answered; you dislike the answers”

            Do you or do you not believe polygamist have the exact same right to redefine marriage?

            I don’t recall seeing an answer to that question.

            “Actually, no, it wasn’t in most states.”

            Homosexual were not getting married ever until recently!

            If you want to argue the definition of marriage was not one man and one woman you must provide evidence to support your contention.

            When did homosexuals marry in the 1700, 1800, and 1900s?

            “In any event, prior to Loving, the definition of marriage in VA DID require the two be of the same race.”

            You are making the category error logical fallacy.

    • NiCuCo

      “Following your logic then any Baptist minister who refuses to perform a gay wedding is merely a bigot.”

      Whether someone is a bigot is a point of view, not a law. No church has to marry gays, and the First Amendment whould prohibit such a law.

      • Ross Williams

        The 5thAM would prohibit a law that denied a shopkeepers property rights … oh, darn, it doesn’t. Which means that your feeble assurance that religious freedoms are guaranteed to be protected by the same outfit that has seen fit to deny property rights is a bit … let’s say … laughable.

        • John

          Has anyone ever heard that the State can’t interfere with Church? It’s the law…

          • Ross Williams

            Tell that to David Koresh.

          • brickman

            Speaking of child molesters.

          • Sheila Warner

            Right, and the proposed law in AZ would have forced people to prove their religious beliefs in order to get the exemption. Do you want the government to decide the veracity of your religion? I do not.

    • Deborah G

      You will live long enough it is already here. In fact Christians are far more discrimated against than Gays.

    • Sheila Warner

      You can’t compare pedophilia with being gay. Why? Because children cannot legally give consent, which makes pedophilia a crime. Totally different from two consenting adults, who wish to have a lifelong and committed relationship.

      • AbdullahtheButcher

        As Bernie himself said in one of his books-there are a minority-please note, I said minority-of gay men who are attracted to teenage boys, just as there’s a minority of straight men who lust after teenage girls. Look at the Catholic priest scandal. Were any of those teenage youths able to legally give consent?

        • Sheila Warner

          Those Catholic priests are pedophiles. That doesn’t mean they are gay. See what you did? You automatically assumed a sexual orientation because it was men who molested boys. Pedophiles come in both genders, with attractions to varying ages and genders. I don’t believe that any of them are necessarily gay. Pedophiles tend to take jobs with, or volunteer to work with, children. Why do you believe the priests are gay, but not Jerry Sandusky?

          So, duh! Of course the priests who are pedophiles broke the law and are criminals. I want the book thrown at them, and I am disgusted that the Bishops looked the other way. That has changed. More and more are being investigated, and are being charged if the victims meet the statute of limitations. It was good that the Church had to pay out billions of dollars to victims. Someone had to blow the whistle. Now that it has come to light, the Vatican is cracking down on pedophiles.

          BTW, I converted to Catholicism nearly 10 years ago. I love the Church, and I love my faith. I’m smart enough to know that there are plenty of pedophiles out there that aren’t priests. The reason the Catholic Church scandal was widely covered in the media, is because it is a huge church, all over the world. Not so in Protestant churches, where pedophiles are abusing children, too. More often than the public knows, because there is no such entity as “The Protestant Church”. Each denomination and independent church is disconnected from the others.

          • AbdullahtheButcher

            As I said, I recall Bernie discussing this matter in one of his books. He said that true pedophilia was sexual attraction towards kids who did not reach puberty yet. While some of the victims did indeed meet that description, most were teenagers. Bernie himself basically stated that the majority of the perps were gay, if my memory serves me, and that there were a minority of gays who were attracted to teenagers. Sure, most gays are certainly not like that, after all there are some straight men who want teenage girls and that doesn’t reflect on the majority of heterosexuals. I too feel that the Church was wrong to have looked the other way, and the culprits should have the book thrown at them.

      • Josh

        It goes beyond societal attitudes and structures about consent and adults, too. A paraphilia is not nearly the same as orientation.

        Despite the attempts for decades to classify homosexuality as deviance, actual science saw that it never stuck as such.

        • Sheila Warner

          Okay, I had to look up paraphilia. I found a good description of it here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias

          So, it becomes criminal where there is no consent. I share your view that homosexuality is not deviance. It is one orientation on the continuum of sexuality. It’s only criminal if a homosexual commits homosexual acts on an unwilling or nonconsenting individual. That is the definition of rape.

          Being gay does not mean pedophilia or rapist. But lots of people hear about man-on-boy molestation and automatically assume that the perpetrator is gay. That is way off base. Just look at Jerry Sandusky as a recent example. Not gay, but truly a pedophile.

          • Josh

            Exactly. A paraphilia is not orientation. Sandusky’s perverted self wasn’t attracted to males. It’s the prepubescence. In a sense, it’s an object, not a gender. Is psychological; paraphilias are obstructive and damaging to the person with them, and especially sometimes to the objects of their desire. Orientation is biological attraction.

            Of course, the melding of the two stems from paranoia. Yeah, a lot of people still unfortunately think that if a gay guy is in the armed forces or in the locker shower room, he’s going to start foaming at the mouth and attempt to hump everything in sight. Or start teaching kids to abuse them.

            But it’s just attraction. Folks can process what it’s like by using their own attraction.

            As a heterosexual male, if I’m in a woman’s shower, I’d probably be very tempted to look, but I wouldn’t jump on anyone. And, of course, being attracted to women doesn’t mean I find every woman attractive. If I come to out of a blackout and I’m in a Jenny Craig Center shower, with huge chicks, I’d probably look away with the quickness and get outta there. Nothing against big gals. Have at it! But my orientation doesn’t mean every woman is in danger if I’m around them.

            That type of backward thinking projected on homosexuals is very dangerous.

  • jonshepp

    Comparing blacks (word used in article) with gays is too much like comparing oil with water or Matthew Shepard with Jesse Dirkhising. Shepard’s death had been used by Obama for a national gay hate crimes bill even though the death was not about being gay, Shepard killed over drugs by a friend on meth. And Jesse’s death? Obama brushed him aside as acceptable collateral damage.

    While Matthew became a poster child for the media, that same media had thrown dirt on 13-year old Jesse’s dead body again and again to be sure he stayed buried, as if he did something wrong to offend them, virtually every ‘major’ newspaper and TV news outlet marching in goose step to not report on the theft of his life and civil rights. (See URL below for police report on Jesse.)

    http://www.freedomisknowledge.com/otw/jesse.htm

    And GLAAD on the murder of Jesse and WHY I even mention the above? NOT EVEN AN acknowledgement or a simply, “We’re sorry, we don’t do those things” to the American public through the national media. GLAAD instead chose through a national press release to call anyone homophobic who dared to mention Jesse’s death was caused by two gay adults.

    That’s when I walked away, not caring any more about the gay movement.

    To that end I wouldn’t be surprised, looking at all the acceptable images from Planned Parenthood, if a baker today might be asked to put offensive images on a cake, if not doing so because of employees, the baker then threatened with a homophobic law suit. Check out our ‘normal’ world of images compliments of Planned Parenthood in the documentation below, and you will know anything is possible.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7XR9yH2ETk

    Finally blacks don’t come to schools, government, and institutions to demand everyone’s face be the same color. They rightfully only want their part of the pie.

    Therefore I think this is an issue of freedom vs. fascism, with citizens voting in their respective states again and again to keep marriage between a man and a woman only to have the U.S. court put the heel of its boot on voter’s necks, as if those votes to protect tradition values were annoying cigarette butts on pavement snuffed out in the name of social engineering. So much for the BS every vote counts. What a joke.

    But all this may not matter. Pandora’s box is now wide open. Soon gays will be the ones on the sideline as multi-marriages and marriages of living things walk by, everyone seeming to forget Princeton’s Peter Singer who now travels around to colleges talking about sex with animals. Singer had been placed in Princeton’s human ethics department. As Murphy’s Law reminds us, if it can happen, it will.

    When Princeton’s president was asked about Singer’s hiring in 1999, the reported answer was as if the official knew Obama was coming to lead the world from its errors: ‘Universities need more diversity.’

    Oh, when looking at the above video, be sure to check out the vagina cup cakes.

  • bonzo3244

    So a black owned catering company would have to accept a catering job from the KKK for a cross burning? Right? Goes right along with your logic there.

    • crclark

      You would think the KKK could sue the catering company but I believe you have to be a protected class to sue for discrimination.

      • Ross Williams

        Yes. You have to be recognized by the federal government as a person deserving of superior rights.
        …and that IS what it is.

        • NiCuCo

          You have to be recognized by the government as a person deserving of equal rights.

          • Ross Williams

            [[You have to be recognized by the government as a person deserving of equal rights]]

            Don’t be disingenuous.

            That group includes EVERYone. Yet only some people are “protected”. Thus … the lie in that construct.

            There’s a gay bar/grill in West Hollywood who has a photo lineup of anti-gay legislators who supported CA’s Prop 8 not permitted in the bar.

            Is that unlawful discrimination? or is that just some posturing for the purpose of grabbing a playful pound of flesh?

            The Constitution is clear: Equal Protection of the Laws.
            If the laws permit my loudmouthing in movie theaters to be shown the door, then the laws must permit gays to be shown the bakery’s door.

            Period.

            If two separate standards are applied … for ANY reason … then some people have superior rights.

            Period.

          • NiCuCo

            “If the laws permit my loudmouthing in movie theaters to be shown the door, then the laws must permit gays to be shown the door.”

            If the laws permit my dancing on the stage in movie theaters to be shown the door, then the laws must permit gays to be shown the door.

          • Ross Williams

            Bingo.
            If this were Pygmalion, you’d be declared to get it.
            Let me explain it for you in a short, bumper-sticker form, which I’m sure is about all you can digest at once:
            Discrimination is only disallowed to THE GOVERNMENT, in these United States; The People can discriminate as they please, for they are free.

          • NiCuCo

            “The People can discriminate as they please”

            And places of public accommodation cannot.

          • Ross Williams

            The places of “public accommodation” which cannot are those operate by the government. We’ve been over this.
            You’re wrong.
            Get used to it.

        • grainbirds

          Only equal rights. The assumption is that the rights of those not being discriminated against are already being protected. But you might be able to advocate to have new categories included.

          • NiCuCo

            There was, if I remember correctly, a man who was the only straight lawyer in a law firm in Denver. He sued the firm for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I know nothing of the merits of the case. Protection works both ways.

          • grainbirds

            I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re saying. Could you please elaborate? For one thing, in what way did the lawyer allege the firm discriminated against him? And what did you mean about protection working both ways? Thanks!

    • grainbirds

      He did write that people should be able to refuse serving haters like neoNazis. The Klan would fall into that same category, for people of any race.

      • Corky Asbury

        Who gets to decide what “hate” is? Do you not understand that when you give away your freedom to the gov. that it is lost forever and for everybody?

        • grainbirds

          I didn’t say I necessarily agree with Bernie’s contentions. I’m not sure – the whole issue is so complex. I think that’s why there’s so many comments. I was just pointing what he said, but I see now that you already knew that.

          But I agree with your point. The fact that most Americans agree that neoNazism and racism are evil doesn’t change the fact that declaring them hateful or evil is a moral decision. So in that sense, a Christian refusing to serve people because they consider same sex marriage immoral, is no different than someone refusing to serve the Klan because they consider Klan members immoral.

        • PolkaDot

          Who gets to decide? Thought Police.

  • crclark

    While I sympathize with the business owners who feel they’re violating their faith I can’t help but believe they’re also violating their faith if they refuse to serve others.

    • Ross Williams

      They are hypocrites, yes. But being a hypocrite is not unlawful.

    • grainbirds

      Some people have suggested that that’s exactly what happened – that the baker and photographers were set-up. If so, those who did this probably see it as a Rosa Parks kind of thing. I’m not saying I agree.

      • Sheila Warner

        It is a Rosa Parks “thing”.

        • Ross Williams

          You are continuing to dishonest.
          Or else you are ignorant of history.
          Because I’m a nice guy, I’ll let you decide which it is.
          A CITY BUS is a government accommodation, and as such it is not permitted to discriminate. There are no government institutions refusing to sell wedding cakes to gays getting married.
          Try again.

          • Sheila Warner

            Not all buses are public. You’ve never chartered a bus for a trip, or ridden on one?

            Again, the Federal gov’t tells businesses that they cannot discriminate against people based on a number of factors. So, yes, the gov’t has the authority to pass laws that ban discrimination. So far as I know, gays are not a recognized group. That’s why they are doing what the blacks did in the 60s–they are visiting businesses in order to bring their plight to the public’s attention, and, hopefully, bring about changes to the law.

        • grainbirds

          Do you mean that activists arranged for these incidents in order to promote their cause? I recall reading Rosa Parks saying that civil rights activists had planned to make a statement with an incident such as hers, and that she happened to be the person who carried it out. She was being humble.

    • Eric Maher

      The baker welcomed gay customers. But he didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding, which the baker considered a sin. There’s a difference.

      Hate the sin, love the sinner.

      • Sheila Warner

        This is the zillionth time I’ve heard this argument. So, the baker only considered gay marriage a sin, not gay sex outside of a gay marriage? “hate the sin”–which is it? Is being gay a sin or not? If it’s not, then why not let gays marry? If it is, why serve gays at all? Everyone who uses this argument is talking in circles.

        • Eric Maher

          >> This is the zillionth time I’ve heard this argument. <> So, the baker only considered gay marriage a sin, not gay sex outside of a gay marriage? <> “hate the sin”–which is it? <<

          Do you really not understand what “hate the sin, love the sinner” means?

          It means, it’s a good idea to be kind and generous to a sinner, but it’s a bad idea to participate in their sin. So, you don’t have to run screaming from a sinner.
          You can make cupcakes for the sinner, you can make bread for the sinner, you can make birthday cakes for the sinner. But, apparently, the baker considers making a gay wedding cake to be sanctioning or participating or approving of a
          sin, and the baker doesn’t want the be forced by law to do so. The baker thinks feeding a sinner is not a sin. The baker welcomed gay customers. But he didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, which the baker considered a sin.

          • Sheila Warner

            Thanks, Eric. for expounding. I was raised as a fundamentalist and dispensationalist, so of course I’ve heard the phrase love the sinner, etc.. There was still an aura of smugness attached to that statement. Because when we used it, there was just a modicum of the Pharisee in us; you know, the one who stood outside thanking God that he wasn’t like sinners. I have bad memories about that particular phrase in the fundamentalist lingo into which I was immersed.

            I don’t understand why a baker would believe that he is participating in a gay wedding if all he does is bake a cake. But, that’s how he thinks, so, there it is.

  • William M Walker MD

    For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with LGTB. I have BIG problems with BIG government. The loss of personal freedom in America is truly frightening. I see Mr. Goldberg’s argument on this issue as furthering government intrusion into American freedom. I am a free market capitalist quite aware of all the shortcomings within that definition. The issue at hand is one that would easily be worked out by consequences of discriminatory business practices elucidated by others in this discussion (e.g. “firststater” and “Ross Williams” vida infra.).

  • William M Walker MD

    OK Mr Goldberg. How about we take the civil rights issue off the table? Can we agree that given the USA’s regrettable history of sanctioned slavery and subsequent discriminatory consequences to African-Americans, that issue is rather unique? Absent that issue your argument weakens considerably.

    I worry very much about America and individual freedom. Do you think that being required by government decree to serve the general public is that far removed from being required to sell goods at prices prescribed by that government (read “capital controls”) as well? How about diversity among the employer’s staff? Surely that must be a consideration. And health insurance must also be made available given certain conditions as well. Do you feel it is reasonable to lens all these issues through the perspective of historical civil rights abuses in America? If so, I guess you win. Let me know how it feels in a decade or two.

    This frog is feeling the water warming up.

    • LAPhil

      Thank you. The government should have to respect the rights and freedoms of business owners as well as those of “protected classes” (in which gays have never been legally included).

    • legal eagle

      Lets do away with the FDA also…then you can practice medicine anyway you please….

      • Ross Williams

        …as opposed to doctors having been reduced to technocrats by a bazillion reams of “guidelines” written over the last two generations mostly by accountants.
        …employed by the FDA …
        Yes.
        How’s that working for us? Have we lost enough life expectancy compared to our first-world neighbors yet?

      • Eric Maher

        We should do away with the FDA. Let states handle it. More constitutional that way.

        And yes, refusing to sell you a cake is just like surgical malpractice. LOL

        • Sheila Warner

          “We should do away with the FDA. Let states handle it.”

          Yeah, that state’s thing really worked well when hundreds of people got sickened by contaminated steroid injectable medication at that “regulated” compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts. We had people right here in my own hometown who got sick. There was another case of people falling ill from medications compounded in Tennessee. Sure, let the states handle it….

          • Ross Williams

            Wha …? Weren’t you just touting the efficacy of state control of matters above?
            Why … YES YOU WERE!!!
            Do you have ANY idea what you want? Or are you making it up as you go along?

          • Sheila Warner

            I was speaking about the Federal government’s role in stepping in when the state doesn’t fulfill its duty to protect its citizens, such as in the case where MA and TN did not properly monitor compounding pharmacies.

            I have never said that the states always get things right, nor have I ever said that there is no need for some Federal oversight of the states. Again, produce my quote.

            Sometimes the states get it right, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes the Feds get it right, and sometimes they don’t. Neither gets it right all of the time.

            Got it, now?

          • Eric Maher

            >> “We should do away with the FDA. Let states handle it.” Yeah, that state’s thing really worked well when hundreds of people got sickened by contaminated steroid injectable medication at that “regulated” compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts. We had people right here in my own hometown who got sick. There was another case of people falling ill from medications compounded in
            Tennessee. Sure, let the states handle it. <<

            What is your point? Are you saying “state control is faulty and federal control works perfectly?” Are you saying the government's job is to eliminate all mishap and illness?

            More importantly, are you saying the US Constitution permits the federal government to regulate food and
            regulate drugs?

            I call to your attention the 10th Amendment, which says if the Constitution doesn’t say the federal government is permitted to do something, then the federal government is PROHIBITED from doing
            that thing.

            This is because the whole design of the US Constitution is to LIMIT the scope of the federal government. It leaves lots of power to the state governments, and it leaves lots of power to the
            people themselves. This is why lots of people are small-government Republicans, and small-government libertarians.

            Are you a big-government advocate? If so, why?

          • Sheila Warner

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Okay, then, what happens when a state passes laws that are clearly unConstitutional, such as the Jim Crow laws?

            When the states fail to do due diligence to protecting its citizens from harm, then those states have an obligation to change existing law or to enact better law. Massachusetts failed to do that, and hundreds of people were directly injected with contaminated medication that caused meningitis. Lots of people died. You bet, I’d want the Feds to step in and do something, even if it was just a fine or a warning from the FDA about the need for strict state oversight.

            Does the Constitution expressly state that the Feds should oversee the medications we take, via the FDA? No, nor does it say the Feds cannot do so. The framers could not imagine the plethora of medications and medical devices across this nation, They could never envision the modern technologies we have in place today, nor envision an America with 50 states and over 300 million citizens.

            Am I in favor of big government? No, but I don’t want government to be too small, either. I believe, going back to the FDA, that there should be consistent standards for medication across the entire nation. I believe that sometimes a patchwork of laws in matters that affect citizens everywhere, can be a confusing and negative way to go.

          • Eric Maher

            >> “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
            States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Okay, then, what happens when a state passes laws that are clearly unConstitutional,
            such as the Jim Crow laws? <> I’d want the Feds to step in and do something <> Does the Constitution expressly state that the Feds should oversee the medications we take, via the FDA? No, nor does it say the Feds cannot do so. <> Am I in favor of big government? No, but I don’t want government to be too small, either. <> there should be consistent standards for medication across the entire nation <> I believe that sometimes a patchwork of laws in matters that affect citizens everywhere, can be a confusing and negative way to go. <<

            No. Actually, the design in the body of the Constitution talks about things that do indeed affect citizens everywhere, such as printing money, and having a navy, and foreign diplomacy, and national elections. But things that do not affect citizens everywhere, things we deal with in our day to day lives, the federal government is not allowed to interfere with. Buying an aircraft carrier doesn’t affect my day-to-day life. Buying medicine does. Buying a cake does.

            If Wisconsin comes up with a great regulatory program, or a great program to promote business, then the state-level government of Arizona or Oregon will notice, and adapt it. Freely. Not subject to what people a thousand miles away in Washington DC want. They talk about “fifty laboratories trying to determine good ways of doing things.” Not just one lab in Washington.

            Personally, I want small federal government AND small state-level government. But at least I know a small federal government is what the Constitution calls for.

            “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

          • Sheila Warner

            “…they have to be sorted out, either through the courts, or passing new laws, or amending the Constitution.”

            That’s the Feds stepping in. It was necessary for the Congress to enact legislation at the Federal level to once and for all, rid the South of the Jim Crow laws and actions. A new law was passed.

            There are many labs which are coming up with new drugs. It is the FDA which assesses the safety and efficacy of those drugs. Sometimes the labs get it wrong. Sometimes the FDA gets it wrong. But, honestly, I believe that having Federal standards for things such as medications is good for the public. If I visit an out of state pharmacy, I want to know that the aspirin I buy there is the same quality as the aspirin I buy in my home state.

            We’ll agree to disagree. You made some really good points.

          • Eric Maher

            >> then, what happens when a state passes laws that are clearly unConstitutional, such as the Jim Crow laws? … “they have to be sorted out, either through the courts, or passing new laws, or amending the Constitution.” … That’s the Feds stepping in. <> It was necessary for the Congress to enact legislation at the Federal level to once and for all, rid the South of the Jim Crow laws and actions. <> It is the FDA which assesses the safety and efficacy of those drugs. <> I believe that having Federal standards for things such as medications is good for the public. <> If I visit an out of state pharmacy, I want to know
            that the aspirin I buy there is the same quality as the aspirin I buy in my home state. <> You made some really good points. <<

            Thanks. I appreciate your patience and your civil tone.

          • Sheila Warner

            “Maybe I could have been clearer there. What I meant was, individual citizens use lawsuits in court to declare the laws as unconstitutional. That’s not the government stepping in; it’s the people making the government do what the people want, and the people making the government stop doing the unconstitutional thing.”

            The redress of grievances. You are exactly right. And, you made your point about the Constitution in a very civil and substantive way. You have changed my mind.
            After all, it was the civil disobedience to State violation which effected that redress of grievances. Too bad someone else on here didn’t accord me the same substance in a clear and direct way.

            I was thinking about all of the ridiculous government agencies we have. The NEA, the GAO, the CBO, the Education Dept., and the absolutely insane double dipping of having both the DEP & the ERA. I’m not sure about the IRS. It’s so corrupt. Could the states collect all of the taxes and forward to the Federal government the portion that is Federal?

            And, by the way, I am in complete sympathy with the baker, the photographer and the florist. I think it would be better for them to just provide the service based on the law of love Jesus promoted, but you can’t dictate another person’s conscience. I am in discussions with Christians on here about gay rights because I enjoy the dialogue. I won’t change any minds, I bet, but I’m happy to state why I changed my own mind about gays being sinful.

            Okay, then, thanks for your kind reply. You have converted me. I’m a Libertarian because of my problem with the constant spending and all of the agencies and departments which we don’t need. My problem is that I am pretty much a social liberal. I will certainly run my liberal ideas through the points you have made here, in the future.

    • Sheila Warner

      Why should Bernie take the civil rights part out of his argument? Just because you want him to? Write your own column, then, if you don’t like his.

  • Guest

    Jim Crow wasn’t the exclusive property of the South. In 1961 I personally viewed a whites only sign at a Seattle roadside restaurant. Bernie is right. Open to the public means open to everyone.

    • Eric Maher

      The baker welcomed gay customers. But he didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding, which the baker considered a sin. There’s a difference.

      Of course, it’s good that you oppose bigotry and you oppose hate. But that’s not what the baker’s situation involves. And regardless, the level of bigotry and hatred today is not NEARLY enough to merit government intervention.

    • Ross Williams

      [[Bernie is right]]

      Bernie is wrong.

      [[Open to the public means open to everyone]]
      Fine. Open up a movie theater, I’ll come prop my feet up on the shoulders of the lady in front of me, and chatter throughout the entire movie.
      If you’re “open to everyone” then you’re open to me, and I’ll hold you to it.

      • NiCuCo

        The owner has a rational basis for telling you to not chat or put your feet up. The owner cannot refuse you service because you are a person who likes to do so, but can keep his antisocial conduct in check.

        • Ross Williams

          [[The owner has a rational basis for telling you to not chat or put your feet up]]
          Because I’m a nice guy, I’ll give you the rope to hang yourself with.
          Be a dear … tell me WHY he has that “rational basis”.

          • NiCuCo

            It is an undue and unnecessary interference with the purpose of the establishment.

          • Ross Williams

            [[undue and unnecessary interference with the purpose of the establishment]]
            Which is…?
            Come on, dinkus. Quit stalling. You’re wrong, you KNOW you’re wrong, your only support for being “right” is that the law is defined improperly to give certain people superior rights.
            The purpose of the establishment is to cater to a customer-base which wishes to watch a movie without having me blabbermouthing for the whole thing.
            The purpose of a florist can be to serve a customer base which wants to by corsages while not being confronted by homosexuals buying wedding arrangements.
            Why is one “protected” and the other not?
            The correct answer is: because Equal Protection is only available to certain people.
            Stop dissembling.

          • NiCuCo

            “confronted”

            ?

          • ednebet

            So you are admitting that certain groups already DO benefit from having more rights? And that gays are not one of those groups? You can spin it however you want, but Christians (and I say Christians bc of the fabric of our country) benefit from the most rights and protections in this country.

        • ksoileau

          “The owner has a rational basis” If this is the proper criterion, who gets to decide which bases are “rational” and which are not? A Department of Rationality? Litigation to settle whether a given basis was “rational” or not?

          Nah. People have a right to service whom they want, whether they are being “irrational” about it or not.

          • Ross Williams

            [[who gets to decide which bases are "rational"]]
            That’s the issue. “The Government”, in large part.
            The government concedes that a business has the right to cater to a specific desired clientele. “People who silently watch movies and not disturbing the people around them” is such a desired clientele.
            And there is a legitimate need for that. Who wants to pay money to have their movie-watching experience ruined by me being a blabbermouth?
            But there are a number of people who dislike gays – you don’t have to go far down the page to find who they are. Don’t these people have AS legitimate an expectation of not having their own, e.g., flower-buying experience ruined by having gays RIGHT NEXT TO THEM buying wedding arrangements?
            Why can’t a florist cater to neanderthals and closed-minded bigots? If we were a free country, where the government allowed its people to make their own choices and take the ramifications for them, that florist could exist.
            But we are NOT a free country; some people’s rights are superior to others, and – as always – it is based on whomever is the Favored Demographic of the day.

          • NiCuCo

            “Don’t these people have AS legitimate an expectation of not having their own, e.g., flower-buying experience ruined by having gays RIGHT NEXT TO THEM buying wedding arrangements?”

            Not in a place of public accommodation.

          • ksoileau

            Public accommodation doesn’t address sexual orientation. Do try to be honest.

          • NiCuCo

            Public accommodation applies to whatever class of people the law says it applies to. It is what is protected ,not who.

          • ksoileau

            The current law doesn’t address sexual orientation. Are you capable of honest debate?

          • NiCuCo

            “The current law doesn’t address sexual orientation.”

            Federal law, correct. I believe that the answer to “Don’t these people have AS legitimate an expectation of not having their own, e.g., flower-buying experience ruined by having gays RIGHT NEXT TO THEM buying wedding arrangements?” is no. Federal law is not there yet.

            Whether a flower shop is a place of public accommodation does not depend on whether the issue is race, sex or sexual orientation. Whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal depends on the law.

          • ksoileau

            So because YOU think federal law should be different, you dishonestly pretend that it is different until someone like me calls you out. You are a disgustingly dishonest person.

          • ksoileau

            So you pretended that federal law addresses gays until I called you out on it. What admirable integrity.

          • ksoileau

            So you pretended that the law addressed gays until I called you out on it.

          • ednebet

            So gay people just being present in an establishment is sexual in nature?

          • ksoileau

            We’re discussing the law, not whether “gay people just being present in an establishment is sexual in nature”.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Not in a place of public accommodation]]
            Yet a movie-goer has a legitimate expectation to not have me interfering with his movie-watching by blabbering …
            And a wealthy liberal elite couple has a legitimate expectation of not having my rugrats playing tag under their table where they’re eating their $80 chateaubriand
            …don’t they?
            And you are so hidebound and hypocritical that you can’t see that they’re the same thing.
            Were you beaten in the head as a child?

          • NiCuCo

            “If this is the proper criterion, who gets to decide which bases are “rational” and which are not?”

            The court.

            “People have a right to service whom they want, whether they are being “irrational” about it or not.”

            Part of the social contract in this country is the concept of public acccomodation.

          • ksoileau

            “Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.” No mention of sexual orientation.

          • ksoileau

            “The court.” The courts are hardly a reliable arbiter of rationality. They reverse themselves regularly over time on a wide variety of issues.

          • Ross Williams

            [[Part of the social contract in this country is the concept of public acccomodation]]
            The construct of “public accommodation” – as obligatory by any institution apart from the government itself – was cut from whole cloth by courts tripping on their own powers by allowing legislatures to exceed their own.
            Find the words in the Constitution that obliges citizens, while operating a business, to make it accessible to everyone.
            And once you do, then I’m putting my feet up on the shoulders of the lady in front of me and blabbering throughout the movie, and if you do anything about it, I’m suing you.

          • PolkaDot

            Which court? The same one that decided on constitutionality of Dred Scott case?

          • Sheila Warner

            Gays are the new Dred Scott. Get ready for the Court to make a correction. It must finish what it began in the Windsor opinion.

          • Ross Williams

            Emotional, hyperbolic twaddle. Far too many dissimilarities.
            A more apt example would be divorced fathers are the new Dred Scott.

          • Sheila Warner

            “Emotional, hyperbolic twaddle”
            You’re over 18, right, or am I mistaken and have been conversing with an adolescent? Seriously. I teach 8th grade students at my church, and trust me, they often resort to such discourse. Their emotions get the better of them.

            “Far too many dissimilarities.”
            How about a listing of the dissimilarities you find, instead of childish replies? A true discussion might be possible, then.

          • PolkaDot

            This is what the statists on both sides of the isle want – substitute the problem of taxation with the “problem” of marriage”. The Windsor case is not about marriage; it is about the ability of the State to continue their oppressive confiscatory practices by making the public fight about the non-issue. You see, when people do not support gay marriage, it does not mean that they support anti-sodomy laws. To

          • Eric Maher

            >> The court. <> Part of the social contract in this country is the concept of public acccomodation. <<

            Where do you get that?

            How does it rank compared to the right to religious expression (in the Bill of Rights)?

          • legal eagle

            So you think NFL games shouldn’t have referees calling violations of rules? Might make for a chaotic outcome…
            Judges are the equivalent of refs…Don’t want to bound by the law…move to the jungle..LOL

          • Ross Williams

            I’d prefer NFL games where the refs are at least familiar with the rules of the game and apply them equally. I saw two games [by chance] involving Steve Smith of the Panthers head-butting opponents after the whistle and not getting flagged once, even when it was in clear sight. In both games an opponent was flagged, once for wildly swinging his arm [and not hitting anything] and in another for [apparently] saying something.
            15 yards. Personal foul.
            These refs need to find a job they are qualified to do. Like trash collection.

            …on second thought … trash collection wouldn’t work for them.

          • Eric Maher

            Ah, the “courts are never biased” argument. Good luck with that. :-)

          • Sheila Warner

            He didn’t say that.

          • Eric Maher

            That’s the argument he’s using.

      • ednebet

        Why can’t people who are anti-gay come up with better comparisons? They never run parallel to each other in any kind of way. Gays just being present in an establishment compared to somebody displaying inconsiderate, obnoxious behavior?

  • littlemoe44

    Well Bernie,
    Here’s where we split the sheets. I grant you that inter-racial marriage was once considered illegal and considering that all who live today are related to two individuals back so many thousand years. So what was the big deal over that–other than bigotry and archaic racial beliefs. What doesn’t get a lot of press is that blacks, mid-easterners and Chineese and Japaneese and about every other culture in the NON-White world don’t want white people in their gene pool–Hawaiians are famous to this day for that.
    The Muff-Divers and the Fudge Packers are NOT a genetic combination that can procreate amongst themselves and produce anything except disgust and ire of most of the rest of society. It’s against the natural order, most formally accepted religions throughout the world. Hap’s that there are a few in San Francisco, Oregon and the artsy fartsie little burgs in Arizona where there probably are religious organizations that foster and profess beliefs that are centered on unnatural carnal copulation. “First Church of The Gooey Death & Discount Church of Worship” to quote the I-Man; just might be one.
    Unnatural acts between same sex individuals are NOT countenanced by most folks beliefs. Mine and yours for instance. So they go to another store–so what? Comparing this this to race relations is a reach. Really.
    You have your own particular take—good for you. I and the rest who don’t share your codification of the flatulently cross dressing boys and girls and their overall life styles also have a particular take. We are entitled to it.
    Here’s a statement that is considered racist, “some of my best friends are black”. That one gets a lot of comment. I can’t tolerate the vicinity of the fagoots. Never will. About the dumbest comment I’ve ever heard anyone say is “who cares what they do with their bodies”. Aids is still rampant and that’s a prime cause. Is that a focus with the Obama Mommie Care philosophy? Is that as bad as being obese, eating fries or drinking 32 oz. of coke? My guess is no.
    Let them buy cake someplace else. Hell, don’t tell me we’re short on Gay bakers and chefs for crying out loud————–

    • legal eagle

      Thanks for sharing your bigotry….Your parents must be proud…

      • Eric Maher

        Yes, we must outlaw bigotry!! ;-)

        • Deborah G

          Whenever a moron liberal disagrees with you and dislikes what you think the first words out of their mouth are “RACIST” and “Bigot” they are one trick ponies and can’t be expected to be rational or even be expected to be engaged in a relevant conversation other than to be the predictable sophomori teenagers they always seem to behave like.

          • brickman

            I am not a liberal and I’ve never been called a racist or a bigot.

          • Josh

            If you’ve never been called a racist or a bigot, you must not post often enough! lol

          • brickman

            Check my post history 2500 comments.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You lean left, brickman. That’s why. The race card is something liberals play on conservatives. Very rarely does it happen the other way around.

          • brickman

            Sorry, I’m a centrist. I only seem left to people like you. I’m pro life, pro death penalty (the true lefties are snickering at that), worked 97% of my working life in the private sector, think identity politics are stupid, didn’t dodge the draft, served in the military, supported the Iraq War, loved the Reagan Tax Reform, voted for him twice (twice more than Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer combined), don’t believe that if someone is a talented journalist/artist/musician that they can’t be a cop killer, believe the military should be funded to win any war, believe the Second Amendment is an individual right, think Castro is a tyrant, and hundreds of other issues. I’ve been concerned with developments in America way before 9/11 so maybe you are playing catch up, but I’m a centrist.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Interesting. Of course, now that you’ve offered up that information, legal eagle and rose will call you a racist. lol.

          • brickman

            I don’t call anyone a racist, so that is one more proof that I’m not a liberal. I do agree with them on some issues. People say I’m inconsistent but I judge each issue in its own merits not ideology. People are fairly well behaved on this site. I see worse. Conservatives on the other sites call me a disgusting human being, a traitor, a taker of welfare, a low information voter and worse. When I see people say that I know that they know that they lost the argument. It’s the same with people yelling racist, fascist or worse. Take it as a compliment and remember that they are the jerks.

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            >>I don’t call anyone a racist, so that is one more proof that I’m not a liberal.

            Good point!

          • Sheila Warner

            I’m a centrist, too, but I did not support the Iraq war. I am pro-life and anti-death penalty. I think Reagan was the perfect President for his time, not simply because of the financial mess we were in, but because he instilled American pride in us once again. His optimism about the nation, coupled with his determination to defend it, is something we need now. I’m a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment (even though I don’t any guns) I agree that both Castros are tyrants. I never assumed that Russia was no longer a threat to us. I agreed with Mitt Romney that Russia was our most dangerous global threat. My husband and I have had conversations about the Russian threat since the fall of the wall in Berlin. We knew Russia would be waiting in the wings and emerge as a force to contend with once again. My aunt served in the Navy in WW II, my father in Korea, my brother in the first Gulf War, my niece in the second Gulf War, and my nephew is set to deploy to Afghanistan later this year. My husband served in the Air National Guard for 10 years, but didn’t see combat. I believe that our nation has not taken care of our returning wounded vets. There should be no need for a Wounded Warriors Project, because those vets should be taken care of by a grateful nation. I would exempt any vet who was wounded in the line of duty from paying federal income taxes. So, I’m a centrist, too. And I’ve never called you a racist! ha ha

          • brickman

            There are people on threads that I disagree with but respect but you are the person I most agree with. Everyone views Putin as an obstacle to a better world. Personally, I’m more concerned with China. Russia is on the way down, China on the way up. I agree with your point about Reagan changing the way that Americans felt about the country. I think Clinton did the same. What makes us centrists are the people disagreeing with half of what I just said.

          • Sheila Warner

            I voted for President Clinton. He was a really good politician, and he did some good things in office. The economy got going at the right time for him, too, which helps a lot. You’re really concerned about China over Russia? I have to think about that. I believe China will be the major financial giant in the world if we don’t get our fiscal house in order. When the debt is debated, I often wryly say that we’d all better start learning Mandarin. Do you believe that the Chinese are as ruthless in acquiring more power than the Russians?

    • AnMar22

      Bake the cake. Let them get married. In a few years, they’ll get divorced, like the rest of us!

    • Benmaxcon

      Ditto to everything you wrote. A gay airline steward brought AIDS from Africa into the United States. And AIDS got started in monkeys. Gee, wonder how it spread from monkeys to gay men?
      As for whether homosexuality is natural or not, consider Exhibit A: homosexual NBA player and his genetically identical twin heterosexual brother. How do the “I was born this way” gay crowd explain that one.

      • NiCuCo

        “How do the “I was born this way” gay crowd explain that one.”

        Genetics can be influencing rather that deterministic.

        • brickman

          Do they believe in genetics?

          • NiCuCo

            “Do they believe in genetics?”

            Who?

            There can be genes that are not expressed. (This does not mean recessive.)

          • brickman

            People who believe we are created from clay. I wonder how they view the similarity(genetically speaking) of man and other animals. Culture wars over the science of Genetics may be coming.

          • NiCuCo

            “People who believe we are created from clay.”

            Sorry, I missed that.

            “Culture wars over the science of Genetics may be coming.”

            I would maintain that in the area of homosexuality it has been here for some time.

        • PolkaDot

          Settled science?

      • Ross Williams

        [[AIDS got started in monkeys]]

        Yes it did.

        [[Gee, wonder how it spread from monkeys to gay men?]]
        By the diet of the Africans … who ate monkeys. Then it passed from person to person by bodily fluids, migrating from Africa to Haiti primarily in the unsterilized transmission of minute traces of blood by intravenous drug use, and from there to the US where it is transmitted in unprotected sex from males … who are the ones which typically have the bodily fluids that get sent to their partners during sex.
        Any further questions?
        Seriously, this is twenty year old information at this point; keep up.

        • NiCuCo

          “it is transmitted in unprotected sex from males … who are the ones which typically have the bodily fluids that get sent to their partners during sex.”

          My concept of how a woman gets pregnant must be wrong.

          • Ross Williams

            Only if you’re not a seahorse.
            In most other sexed species the male’s sperm gets sent to the female. Her vaginal secretions rarely enter the male.
            Sorry if this causes you nightmares.

    • brickman

      Seems like you still have your sheet.

    • Grace Quirrell
  • LAPhil

    I can’t get my mind around the idea of forcing a business to bake a cake just to make a point about discrimination. It seems forcing the issue in the case of the Oregon baker who refused to do this on the grounds that it would force him to participate in a gay wedding, something which he felt violated his religious principles, suddenly became more important than the wedding cake itself. If this were not the case the gay couple perhaps would have just gone way mad and and found another baker who had no problem with their request. If the couple had been successful in forcing the bakery to bake the cake, would it have been reasonable to expect it would be totally made to their liking, with love as it were? Personally I would have expected it not only to taste bad but also not to look all that good. At the end of the day the couple would have just been cutting off their nose to spite their face.

    • NiCuCo

      I can’t get my mind around the idea of forcing a drug store to serve blacks at a lunch counter just to make a point about discrimination.

      • Ross Williams

        Back when black sit-ins were all the rage, they were denied service because THE LAW prohibited it. It wasn’t the business-owner’s choice. Prior to Jim Crow laws, most businesses were open to anyone who paid cash; the only color they cared about was green.
        There are no shortage of bakeries, florists, photographers etc, willing to have gay weddings for customers. Gays are not being denied rights by an act of government prohibition like blacks were. In fact, the number of places NOT willing to serve gay weddings across the entire nation can probably be counted on two or three hands.

        • Eric Maher

          Ross, thank you very much. You hit the nail on the head.

          Many people here are opposing bigotry and hatred, and that is very good, but they should reconsider their tactics.

          • PolkaDot

            Mayor of NYC and Governor of NYS will not tolerate intolerant bigots. This is exactly what people should be opposing, not the right of individual business to serve who they please.

      • LAPhil

        Sorry, not the same thing. Racial discrimination is against the law, even for a private business in this country. There is no such law regarding gays even though you may not like it. The bakery had every legal and moral right to refuse to bake the cake.

        • MontanaMade

          (to the attached link…) and yet this is totally tolerated!! In this country- gays CAN and DO refuse service to those they deem unworthy to receive the service- but try the other way around and all of the sudden the sky is falling!
          ridiculous!

    • Deborah G

      You know I have to disagree with you here. ANYONE with moral convictions would most likely take it up as a task from God and do they best they could because that is the kind of people they are. Decent , morally upstanding people. They would no more spit in a cake and act like a liberal moron than jump off a bridge. The fact they felt they were religiously free enough in America to not have to do something they felt was totally worng is a sad reflection of how unfree the liberals want us to be.

      • NiCuCo

        “ANYONE with moral convictions would most likely take it up as a task from God”

        There are moral people who don’t believe in God, or, at least , the God that you refer to.

        • Deborah G

          You totally missed the point and the response. Of course there are decent people who are not Christians my response was I did not think a person with Christian convictions like the baker IF forced to make the cake would behave any other way except decent and lift the task up to God not spit in it which would be bad behavior and something not acceptable to their religion either.

          • NiCuCo

            Then we agree.

  • dmh

    I really appreciated your commentary so I stopped by your site. My concern about a conscientious objector bill would be what about a conscientious war objector who refuses to serve our nation’s military? I also think when you stop serving people – you stop reaching them – they stop reaching you. I also worry about mental illness and isolation. What about the families of the Nazis or Westboro who may not be exposed to real people and may one day need to be able to talk to someone with a different viewpoint. I don’t pretend to know the answers but I am concerned that excluding anyone from a public place is a dangerous precedent.

  • kayakbob

    Well Bernie, I am NO biblical scholar. I guarantee someone that IS a bible scholar will quote a verse or passage in the Bible that smacks me down, so just don’t go there for support of my views.

    Paragraph 3 is curious. “..once you open a business to the general public you have to serve the general public.” Ok. But in the very next statement you begin to carve out exceptions, “like Nazi’s who might want a caterer to bring in food for their annual hate convention.”

    So,with all due respect, what is the next exception? The Klan? OK. And then…?

    My
    personal beliefs, as many of you by now know, is that once you open a
    business to the general public you have to serve the general public. I
    would be open to a “conscientious objector” law that allows business
    owners to turn away vile customers, like Nazis who might want a caterer
    to bring in food for their annual hate convention. – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/stop-refusing-bake-cake-sex-marriage/?utm_source=BernardGoldberg.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=81c2c75c63-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c1903183b6-81c2c75c63-284970409#sthash.fDGOCWQ0.dpuf
    My
    personal beliefs, as many of you by now know, is that once you open a
    business to the general public you have to serve the general public. I
    would be open to a “conscientious objector” law that allows business
    owners to turn away vile customers, like Nazis who might want a caterer
    to bring in food for their annual hate convention. – See more at:
    http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/stop-refusing-bake-cake-sex-marriage/?utm_source=BernardGoldberg.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=81c2c75c63-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c1903183b6-81c2c75c63-284970409#sthash.fDGOCWQ0.dpuf

    • NiCuCo

      “like Nazi’s who”

      If you are going to put Goldberg’s statement in quotation marks, don’t put an apostrophe in Nazis.

      • kayakbob

        Point taken.

    • William M Walker MD

      Very well stated kayakbob. Thank you!

  • Rose

    As someone who is very familiar with The Middle East, I can tell you that Muslims/Arabs have different degrees of devotion, just as we do. For instance, I know southern Baptists who skipped the prom due to dancing but most went to the prom and danced. I know Catholic women who are on the pill. Many Muslims and Jews eat bacon and ham and many Muslims drink alcohol. Homosexuality is considered wrong in many Arab lands, but they do not behead or persecute gays. We human beings often think something is wrong but do it anyway.

    • Eric Maher

      >> Homosexuality is considered wrong in many Arab lands, but they do not behead or persecute gays. <<

      And in some Arab lands they DO behead and persecute gays.

      In America, sometimes people are rude to gays.

      • NiCuCo

        “sometimes people are rude to gays.”

        They were really rude to Matthew Shepard.

        • Ross Williams

          Recent evidence suggests it was not even close to how it was portrayed in the media.

          • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

            Nooooooooo . . . don’t attack the narrative!

            You are not going to bring up “The Book of Matt” are you, the heavily researched book by Stephen Jimenez?

            Oh, man!

            Just because the evidence tends to show that Matthew was actually friends and a former sex partner with one of his killers, and that, further, Matthew was likely a meth dealer, who may have been holding out on one of his killers, the guy who had apparently been on a 5 day meth binge at the time of the killing . . .

            Didn’t you take Hillary’s admonition to heart? Isn’t that supposed to be the general rule when it comes to the narrative?

            Shouldn’t you instead be trying to protect the narrative and asking, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

          • Ross Williams

            Yeah, well, I’m a notorious iconoclast.
            I remember about 8, 10 years ago a small library in Chicago’s Boystown neighborhood had a small fire – burned several books in the Race shelf. On the other side of the shelf was homosexual issues books. Boystown is Chicago’s gay neighborhood, and the gays were livid that the city [LIBERAL city, where being conservative nearly qualifies you as an Endangered Species] was not doing more to “solve” the “hate crime”.
            I essayed at the time that just because gay books in a gay library in a gay neighborhood were burned doesn’t mean anyone has it out for gays.
            A week later they found the culprit: a mentally retarded homeless woman who sometimes slept in the library for warmth, had started a fire to warm up a can of … something. The homosexuals quietly evaporated and whispered “…never mind …”

        • Eric Maher

          I heard that was a drug deal gone bad.

          • Sheila Warner

            Just saw this comment. You are correct. And that fact was reported by a gay journalist, by the way. Matthew Shepard was not killed because he was a gay man.

  • firststater

    Well said Bernie. Hopefully thoughtful writings such as this will put an end to the debate on this one. Bake the cake, collect the money and move on, after all that is what you are in business for and if you were to keep up the bias you likely won’t be in business any more and not have to fret over who not to bake a cake for.

    • Ross Williams

      Right. A business which turns paying customers away because they make his skin crawl would lose business, not remain profitable … go bankrupt.
      Why do you want that bigoted business to stay in business?
      If you were the competitor of that bigoted business, would you want the government to force your competitor to take business he didn’t want? or would you want the government to keep its fat nose out of the picture so YOU could take those customers?
      If you were a restaurant owner with entrees exceeding $75 per, would you want patrons with small children who cannot use their inside voice as customers? Or would you tell them to find the nearest Olive Garden, where they have children’s menus and crayons?
      And would you be sued into dust by the feds for doing so?
      Why do people insist on refusing to think their positions through?

      • Deborah G

        Not really because the majority of people agree with him/her and he would keep his base of similar people just like a Gay business would appeal to gays. My guess is straight people would not patronize it unless of course they were some of the moron liberals who fall all over themselves just to prove how liberal they are.

        • Ross Williams

          [[the majority of people agree with him/her and he would keep his base of similar people ]]
          You’re new to reality, arncha?
          Newsflash, Deb: about 75% of Americans are sympathetic to homosexuals, even if quite a lot of them are sick and tired of hearing about their issue more/less constantly.
          It ain’t just “liberals” who would go to another bakery if one decided it was too “moral” to serve gays. Libertarians, republicans who are living within a decade of today … virtually ALL people under the age of 30 … the demographics are quite telling.

        • Eric Maher

          Hatred and bigotry are not NEARLY as pervasive as you seem to think.

          Many leaders want us to think hatred and bigotry is rampant, but there’s no evidence of it.

          I find it a good rule in life to never quickly believe a negative, without real evidence.

      • firststater

        Beats me, I can’t figure it out either

      • NiCuCo

        “A business which turns paying customers away because they make his skin crawl would lose business, not remain profitable”

        As with the businesses that excluded black before 1964′s?

        • Ross Williams

          Don’t be deliberately ignernt.
          Businesses in the Jim Crow south were PROHIBITED from serving blacks – as a MATTER OF LAW.
          The shopkeeper had no choice in the matter.
          In the north, stores refusing blacks were exceptionally rare; prior to Jim Crow in the south, they were also exceptionally rare.
          Only when the government got involved did it become a UNIVERSAL condition. And then, of course, the government got involved AGAIN and it became ANOTHER universal condition. At both times, an individual’s freedom to be:
          1] accomodating under Jim Crow, and
          2] a bigot under CRA’64
          was denied.
          …because taking away freedoms has ALWAYS made things better.

          • NiCuCo

            “Businesses in the Jim Crow south were PROHIBITED from serving blacks – as a MATTER OF LAW.”

            Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

          • Ross Williams

            Yes, pardon me, WHITE-OWNED businesses were prohibited from serving blacks. Black-owned could serve black all day long.

    • legal eagle

      Just as was the case after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the process of rationalizing discriminatory practices takes time and is often a generational problem….

      • Ross Williams

        It’s ALWAYS a generational problem. “Often”?
        Are you aware of another generational problem occurring EVERY time the government gets involved and starts compelling people to behave themselves? Resentment.
        What was the result, for well over a generation, to the holy Civil Rights Act? Right: bombings and riots. And that’s better … how?

        • legal eagle

          Its called “Metathesiophobia” which is fear of change. A common human reaction. Only cure, that I am aware of, is time…
          Fear doesn’t have to be rational. Neither does discrimination.

          • Ross Williams

            Discrimination is only IMPROPER – in a FREE COUNTRY – when the government does it.
            That’s what our society was defined to be.
            If you want me to agree with you that bigoted bakeries who won’t make wedding cakes for gay nups are rude, condescending and discriminatory … that’s been my point all along. But if this is a FREE COUNTRY, then they can do it, and no one – particularly not the government – has any place to compel them to stop.

          • legal eagle

            “FREE COUNTRY”? There are legal limits to all rights….I assume you know that…Want to carry a gun on a plane? Want to scream fire in a crowded theater? Want to drive drunk?
            If you are looking for an excuse to rationalize your bigotry….You are in the right place..

          • Ross Williams

            [[Want to carry a gun on a plane?]]

            In a Free Country, I could.

            [[Want to scream fire in a crowded theater?]]

            In a Free Country I could.

            [[Want to drive drunk?]]

            In a Free Country I could.

            [[If you are looking for an excuse to rationalize your bigotry]]
            I’m not the one rationalizing. That’d be the christians who aren’t satisfied with running a business as they see fit, they have to make childish excuses why it’s “moral” and proper. And it’s also those declaring that the government is a Solve-All … despite it’s NEVER having succeeded at fixing such a ‘problem’ without creating a whole slew of problems behind it.
            No, bub, I’m a libertarian, who supports BOTH the right of gays to get married as an expression of the political liberty of EQUAL PROTECTION we are supposed to be guaranteed, …
            AS WELL AS
            The shopkeeper’s concurrent right to not serve those gay weddings as his own expression of the very same EQUAL PROTECTION.
            You do not get to play false dichotomies with me, boy.
            Either the Constitution applies, or it doesn’t.
            Choose right now which you wish it to be. I will hold you to it.

          • legal eagle

            More B.S…..Libertarian is the new code word for right wingers who are against any government regulation , unless it fits their agenda….No FDA regulation, no EPA regulation, no FAA regulation….The Wild Wild West… That’s why your poster boy Rand Paul wont be President…he has to be anti-abortion…

          • Ross Williams

            [[Libertarian is the new code word for right wingers who are against any government regulation]]

            No, libertarians are, to idiot liberals, Republicans who don’t believe in god. To constipated conservatives we are Democrats who don’t like taxes.

            Get your pat denunciation correct.

            The government is allowed to regulate what the Constitution ALLOWS it to regulate. I see no environmental stewardship clause in A I § 8. Do you?

            Not if you aren’t hallucinating, you don’t.

            I may agree with you that it might be a good idea … but until the rules of the Constitution are obeyed as they are written and such a power is FORMALLY conveyed to the government … the government doesn’t have that power.

            Does it?

            The answer is, of course, “no”.

            Paul Rand IS anti-abortion in case that escaped you, which means that his claim to being an actual libertarian is false. The Constitution conveys no authority upon the government to concern itself with pregnancy or family planning in any form; ergo … abortion is a right. A libertarian knows that. And a libertarian knows that even if the idea turns his stomach, using the power of government to do anything about it is improper.

            As it stands, I am correct and you know it; you know you cannot argue it with me because your argument is based upon layer after layer after layer of incremental rationalizations why the government does not need to follow the rules imposed upon them.

            Find the “Terrorism Exemption” in the 4thAM, for example. Or the “Drunk driving exemption”. They don’t exist, and we both know it. Those exemptions are in the reams of rationalization spit out by succeeding court ruling explaining how up is really down … if you close one eye, lose focus with the other, cross out a few Constitutional phrases and add another few … “for clarification”.

            There hasn’t been a court in 150 years which has shown consistent evidence that it’s read the Constitution, let alone understands what it means. And the armies of loyyers which serve every level of court up to it are far more interested in currying favor with their self-serving judge than doing their job.
            So you are guilty of mental masturbation every bit as much as I am, son, only … I am correct and you are not … and we both know it.

            Now.

            Decide whether the Constitution applies.

          • legal eagle

            I try not to argue with irrationality….I do enough of that in court…..Your comments fall under the category of “mental masturbation”….

      • Eric Maher

        The baker welcomed gay customers. But he didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding, which the baker considered a sin. There’s a difference.

        And the Civil Rights struggle is not so relevant, since this is a question of the right to religious expression.

        • legal eagle

          You know this how?

          • Eric Maher

            It’s what I hear. Everybody’s been talking about it.

      • firststater

        did you mean eliminating discriminatory practices?

        • legal eagle

          I did… thanks for the correction…

  • Curt Parker

    In other words, Bernie, the rights of homosexuals to impose their beliefs trump religious beliefs. Here’s an idea: If homosexuals want a wedding cake, go to a local Islamic bakery.

    • Ross Williams

      Curt, dude, homosexuality is not a “belief”. It is a biomechanical result of sexual attraction … which makes it a brain chemistry thing. It’s as innate as blue eyes.

      • Deborah G

        To date no one has been able to prove it is a genetic disorder. They claim there may be a connection due to some hormones while in utero but the reality is it is srtill deemed a behavior brought on by early childhood caustive efeects of some gender specific trauma.

        • Ross Williams

          This hasn’t been the thinking in The West in probably 40 years; you need to go to Russia.

          • JBubs

            Doesn’t matter if The ENTIRE West thinks otherwise. Deborah G is correct. BTW Ross, to which “biochemical result” do you refer? Is it similar to those that result in pedophilia? Alcoholism? Should we therefore send these adults children and booze?

          • Ross Williams

            No, Deb is not correct.
            To the degree that pedophilia takes sexual advantage of the unsexualized, it is an aberration. To the degree it takes advantage of the not fully-sexualized, it is coercion and assault.
            If you want to make an argument that coercive manipulation of minors simply by having the impulse to do so is comparable to the sexual attraction to an adult of the same sex, then … make it.
            If an alcoholic has the money to buy alcohol, whose business is it to officially refuse it?

          • JBubs

            I made no argument. I simply took your claim that homosexual attraction is the result of a “biomechanical” process and took it to its logical conclusion. You claim that Deborah G is wrong, I asked you to clarify. Specifically I’d like to know how homosexual attraction “is a biomechanical result of sexual attraction”. I am really curious to know what it is and how it works. I don’t want to remain ignorant on such important matters.

          • Ross Williams

            [[I made no argument]]

            I know. You made unsupported assertions. I ASKED you to make an argument … y’know … support your assertions.

            [[ I simply took your claim]]

            Ain’t my claim. It’s the claim of the neuro-folks who study behavior and its connection with brain chemistry.

            [[I'd like to know how homosexual attraction ...]]
            So would the neuro-folks. Brain chemistry is a complex and intricate thing, but when a person sees an object of sexual attraction, his hypothalamus [?] spits out a chemical that starts an avalanche of chemical baths that end up with dopamine and norepynephrine that causes perspiration, rapid heartbeat, dizziness and, in men, erections and, in women, vaginal lubrication.
            HOW it happens is chemical cascade; WHY the ‘how’ happens differently in some people than in others is anyone’s guess. That’s why the research.
            Some people are turned on – literally – by certain types of music. Why that ‘how’? Who knows. But it’s consistently observed.
            Homosexuals are not “choosing” to be attracted to the same sex; they just are.

          • JBubs

            Thank you for clarifying your issues.

          • Deborah G

            perhaps you should I like America before some moron thought he could fundamentaly change that which was fine.

          • NiCuCo

            I am guessing that gays decided to be gay the same way that I decided to be left handed. Ross did not say genetic and he did not say disorder.

          • Deborah G

            I;m guessing you are being sophomoric in your argument

          • NiCuCo

            How so. Why am I left handed? Is it genetic or a choice? Perhaps, genetically influenced, but no genetically determined. I am sure it is not a choice.

            Read this article:

            Right Hand or Left Hand? This Explains Why You’re Straight or Gay

            The brain of a gay man is clearly different from a straight man’s; no wonder that even their bodies function differently. A new Canadian research published in the journal Neuropsychology and made on gay men comes with new aspects on the link between sexual orientation and right or left-handedness.

            Homosexuals of both genders had been known to have a 39 % increased probability to be left-handed compared to heterosexuals. But the new research also shows higher rates of extreme right-handedness. The new research also strengthens other findings showing that having older brothers increases the chances for men to be gay. It seems that the number of older brothers controls the connection between handedness and sexual orientation: the extreme right-handedness is encountered only in men missing or having few older brothers.

            “These new research findings add further weight to the idea that biological factors play a significant role in the development of sexual orientation,” said Robert-Jay Green, Executive Director of the Rockway Institute, a national center for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender research and public policy at Alliant International University.

            The research was made on 538 gay or bisexual men and 373 heterosexual men interviewed about their handedness for 10 physical activities, but also about the number of biological brothers. Most subjects were right-handed, but gay/bisexual men displayed an increased chance of both left-handedness and extreme right-handedness compared to the straight subjects. “The number of older brothers increased the likelihood of being gay or bisexual in moderate right-handers only. In both non-right-handers and in extreme right-handers, older brothers either did not increase or lowered the likelihood of being gay or bisexual.”, wrote author Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario.

            “If elevated extreme right-handedness is an indication of early neurodevelopmental anomalies, then an elevation of this handedness pattern in gay or bisexual men gives additional evidence that one route to same-sex attraction is through early developmental stressors (in the womb) or through a factor correlated with such stressors. Still, a genetic explanation can also be forwarded.”, he added, as researches have found genes involved in both handedness and sexual orientation.

            There are genes involved in handedness which also control the immune system and immune reactions are believed to influence male births. “In conclusion, the main findings-evidence of extreme right-handedness in gay men, along with the moderating effect of older brothers at both ends of the handedness continuum-potentially move forward two important research programs (on handedness and birth order) related to men’s sexual-orientation development.”, wrote Bogaert.

            “The results of this research suggest there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality among a significant number of gay/bisexual men. What we don’t know yet is how strong or widespread such biological predisposition is or whether it is a result of genes, maternal hormones during pregnancy, or maternal immune system functioning during conception,” said Green.

            http://news.softpedia.com/news/Right-Hand-or-Left-Hand-This-Explains-Why-You-039-re-Straight-or-Gay-72042.shtml

          • Deborah G

            it is one study and hardly a good sampling . Interesting sure but relevant? have to much more research and better cross section numbers.

          • NiCuCo

            Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Feb;39(1):75-80. Epub 2008 Jun 7.

            Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden.

            Lรฅngstrรถm N, Rahman Q, Carlstrรถm E, Lichtenstein P.

            Source

      • Curt Parker

        And you have substantial, peer-reviewed clinical studies to support your supposition?

    • Rose

      Why do you assume an Islamic baker would refuse. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. Some have very tolerant views. Some just don’t care one way or the other.

      • Ross Williams

        Far more muslims are fundamentalist as a ratio – even in the relatively NONfundamentalist US – than christians.

        • legal eagle

          Did you take a survey?

          • Ross Williams

            Let’s go no further than the mainstream media.
            Arab Spring occurred in 6, 8 countries. What was the INVARIABLE result?
            That’s right. They elected islamist dictatorships – fundamentalist muslims who are against democracy, women’s rights, “western” folly and laziness.
            Of the Christian denominations in the US, how many officially sponsor anti-gay sentiments? I don’t know of one. How many UNofficially? a handful. Of the INDIVIDUAL christians, how many support it? …since about 75% of Americans are supportive of most aspects of gay rights, … not many.
            DO stop being a dick.

          • NiCuCo

            And we just have presidential candidates in primaries that don’t understand evolution or anthropogenic global warming.

          • Ross Williams

            Very few people understand evolution, though most are willing to accept that it is the way it works.
            Even the anthropogenic global warmers don’t understand anthropogenic global warming, judging by the number of scandals involving manipulated and outright contrived data, and the childish rationalizations used to explain why it hasn’t been happening for the same length of time that it was from the kickoff year on 1980 when the climatology community finally dropped their New Ice Age alarmism.

          • NiCuCo

            From FactCheck.org

            “Climategate”

            “Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don’t change scientific consensus on global warming.

            “Summary”

            “In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

            “The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.

            “Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.

            “E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.”

            http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

          • Ross Williams

            You say “stolen”, others say “liberated”.
            Is Edward Snowden a traitor or a whistleblower?
            …and yes, they’re the same thing. Institutional secrets tend toward corruption for institutional agendas. Don’t be a putz.

          • NiCuCo

            The point is that there were no manipulated and outright contrived data,

          • Ross Williams

            You’d be incorrect.
            You’d be SO incorrect as to veritably have your fingers shoved deeply into your ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA to drown out anyone saying otherwise.

          • legal eagle

            How do you “officially sponsor” anti- gay sentiments other than opposing equal rights for gays based upon religious beliefs?
            Also, I don’t want to compare dicks?

          • Ross Williams

            [[How do you "officially sponsor" anti- gay sentiments ]]
            Seriously?
            Are you going to advertise THAT much of a departure from understanding how the world around you works?

      • Deborah G

        Most likely they wouldn’t be served and would be intimidated by the response and our stupid government would be afraid as well to go after a Muslim as we have seen with our Muslim in chief liberal.The reality is no one not gays or straight people, Christians or Muslims should have their rights taken from them to appease another group much less a bully bunch of Homofascists

        • legal eagle

          Don’t forget Muslim in chief black liberal….Don’t suppress your hatred….

          • NiCuCo

            Don’t forget Muslim, Kenyan, socialist in chief black liberal. Anyone have any more?

          • Ross Williams

            Muslim – probably not, and irrelevant at any rate
            Kenyan – in the same way that I am German. Heritage is an interesting factoid, but not much more. We are supposed to be Americans.
            Socialist – check. All presidents since Hoover have been more/less increasingly socialist in nature, with the possible exception of Reagan, so this doesn’t say anything relevant in and of itself without doing some comparative analysis.
            Liberal – that goes without saying.
            Black – not if we’re going to be academically honest. He’s a mutt. He is SPECIFICALLY not “african-american.” To the degree that “african-american” has an academic meaning, it is an american

      • Curt Parker

        Muslims can be moderate until one of their fundamentalist, sword carrying brothers reminds them of what their holy book demands.

  • Sheila Campbell

    Well, I have thought about this issue a little bit. My take on this is – say you wanted to hire a musician for your reception. He played Classical music only. You knew this but you wanted him to play punk rock. He turned you down because he does not like punk rock nor wants to play it. He gives you a couple of names of other musicians that would, but no, you want him to do it. So you get extremely violent and punch him out then threaten to sue him because he won’t play for your reception. That’s ridiculous, Yes? Another thought, was say you wanted to hire a restaurant to cater an event. You’ve been to their establishment many times and you like their food. They are willing to do it until you say you wanted them to supply Prime Rib. Problem is they are Vegans and do not do meat and it makes them shudder to even think about touching meat let alone cook, cut and serve it. So you react similar to the previous problem with the musician. Would these people have to supply their services? No. We live in America. Many of us happen to have different ideals, beliefs and standards for which we live by. Besides, that is what the capitalistic society provides for the public, competition. If we won’t provide it someone else will and if they don’t then the people who want it can start a business that does.

    • Rose

      Your examples are not the same. The vegan would actually have to cook and touch meat, which he never does. He would have to change his routines and ingredients. The baker would not. The baker would not have to attend the wedding. Again, the musician would have to severely alter his product, the music. The baker could bake the same cake, use the same recipes, etc.

      • Rose

        Also, the baker was not punched or abused. And I doubt the gay couple realized in advance that the baker would refuse their business.

        • legal eagle

          Rose,
          Your rationalizing with people like Ross Williams? Good luck with that….LOL

      • Ross Williams

        You’re rationalizing, Rose.

        Just so you know …

      • legal eagle

        It is not discriminatory, under the law or reality, for a restaurant to refuse to serve something that is not on the menu….The hypothetical is absurd.

        • Ross Williams

          The menu is what the restaurant stocks.
          Wedding cakes are not stock items … they are all custom jobs.

          • legal eagle

            I explained to you about “jim Crow’ laws….federal v. state and local

          • Eric Maher

            Yet you’re not brave enough to try saying it again.

            You know this isn’t a private conversation, right? LOL

          • Ross Williams

            [[I believe I explained to you about my comments on "Jim Crow' laws....federal v. state and local.]]
            Not that I saw, but I’m going to have to assume it was full of loyyerly rationalizations about how up is really down.
            The Constitution is a rather simple document and doesn’t need rarified individuals like yourself to ‘splain it.
            The government is obliged to apply its laws equally – period. Doesn’t matter which layer of government it is. The feds have the Constitutional authority to declare any law in the land, at any level, unconstitutional. They do NOT have the Constitutional authority to rewrite their laws. Nor to impose a federal law upon them that they wished had been written at that lower level.
            The USSC wants to declare Jim Crow unconstitutional? Great; they can. They want to impose CRA’64? They can’t.
            Oh, but they did anyway? and the courts upheld it?
            Color me surprised. Who knew the primary function of government was to collect more power for itself, even if they weren’t allowed to?

        • Eric Maher

          This is not the first time I’ve seen you have trouble understanding a hypothetical. LOL

          • legal eagle

            I have a problem with hypotheticals and hypodermics…..LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Lying however… you’re fine with.

    • lemonfemale

      Some good points here I think. To quote my son, picture a Jewish baker asked to make a cake for a Krystallnacht anniversary celebration. But the musician only is in business to play classical. The vegans only offer veggies.If I clean houses, you can’t expect me to paint them. I’m not in that line of work. I think that would cover the examples above. A photographer might decline to do weddings. On the other hand, we could try boycotting a company that refused to serve a same sex marriage before we went to court over it. (I’d gladly carry a sign in front of their door.) As Bernie points out, there are some seriously depraved religious beliefs out there.

  • George Noyb

    Bernie, for me it has nothing to do with a deeply held religious belief. Folks are spinning those words to try and make a more substantial argument.
    It’s yucky and I just don’t want any part of it. So, can’t I refuse service to someone just because I don’t like them, religion be damned ?

    • NiCuCo

      Not in a place of public accommodation.

    • Eric Maher

      I support the freedom to be rude, since the Bill of Rights doesn’t just protect nice practices, pleasant beliefs, agreeable speech. But the right to religious expression is in the Constitution.

      Anti-discrimination laws slashed the freedom to be rude, unfortunately.

      • NiCuCo

        “Anti-discrimination laws slashed the freedom to be rude, unfortunately.”

        They just limit how you can be rude.

        • Eric Maher

          Yep. Slashed.

          I prefer freedom.

  • jteagle5

    The racial bigots purposely misconstrued the Bible concerning interracial marriages, etc. God’s warning to the Jews was not to marry those who would worship false gods. In the New Testament the warning is not to marry an unbeliever if you are a believer because darkness and light don’t have anything in common. However, the Bible also says that if you (as a believer) are married to an unbeliever that it does not give license to divorce, but if the unbeliever wishes to depart, let him or her (2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:14. The irony of this is that when liberals are offended by manger scenes, Bibles in hotel rooms, any Christian who dare stand up and speak out what they believe and why, and a thousand other free speech rights which assault their so-called principles, its all okay. I am not allowed to put an angel on my apartment door because it might offend someone, but I am not allowed to be offended by anything that depicts evil at Halloween. However, conservatives and Christians, in the liberal mindset, have no free speech rights unless it agrees with theirs. I am offended every time the talking heads call Social Security an entitlement. I worked and paid into the Social Security system for 46 years and yet I have not yet seen Congress pay back a dime of all the money the robbed from the so-called Trust Fund. I am offended at many so-called black leaders like Sharpton and Jackson who continue to play the race card by dredging up the past (and I am black). Why would they call me a racist when I express my opinion about the President’s policies that I don’t like. There are some restaurants now who are banning kids during the dinner hour and they serve the public. Has anyone taken them to court? Today, the America I grew up in has been turned upside down and inside out by liberal policies. If anyone thinks the President is being sincere about one of his new initiatives, “My Brothers Keeper” I will sell them the Brooklyn Bridge. This is all about 2014 and 2016 and getting the Black and Hispanic vote. The Christian couple who chose to lose their business rather than bow to the politically correct ideals running rampant in this country did the right thing. Anything that any person supports makes them complicit. When all is said and done and we come face-to-face with God, we will be held accountable for what we did or did not do in accordance with the Bible on which we base our lives. And in the scripture God tells us, he would rather see us suffer for doing what is right than for doing what is wrong. Those who choose not to believe in God or the Bible, have a freedom of choice to do so and I don’t feel anyone has the right to deny them this freedom. Even God, gives people that freedom; He does not force anyone to believe in Him. But every day, the Government is attempting to force many to believe in things that are not part of the foundation of their principles. Everybody fights back but Christians because we know that God has told us the battle is his and that He will repay. I often think of this statement by Martin Niemöller’s : First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Jew.
    (My Addition) Then they came for the Christians, and and if I do not speak out because I am a Christian– there will be no one left to speak out for me.

    • legal eagle

      So the “racial bigots misconstrued the Bible” but the homophobes have not?

  • Gene

    It’s amazing that you want to use BJU as an example, while not presenting local public high schools in the south to the same standard. We have local high schools that did not allow blacks until the late 60′s and early 70′s. While it was not right, I don’t believe you should put forth one school as an example and vilify them, when the vilification needs to shared among many schools in the south.

    • MontanaMade

      that was just an example- you’re right the list is VERY long! It would have taken up way too much space to notate them all.

  • BaldEagle

    So what about muslim employees of a liquor distributor who refuse to deliver liquor because it is a sin? Should “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” be applied here, too? If so, can the employer fire them and not have the NLRB or ACLU sue them for discrimination?

  • Paul Vasek

    You insist on bringing race into this and according to many black pastors, being gay is not a civil rights issue. The Arizona Bill didn’t even mention homosexuals but keep ranting and you are losing respect from some that admired your work.

  • Ross Williams

    Civil Rights for Blacks was not predicated on bigoted business decisions of hundreds of thousands of white shopkeepers all arriving at the same conclusion that they would not serve blacks; it was predicated on the GOVERNMENT passing a series of LAWS that prevented white-owned businesses from selling to blacks … even if they wanted to. In the north, where these Jim Crow laws did not exist, and in the south prior to the passage of Jim Crow laws, white shopkeepers were still interested in color … primarily … green.

    There were a few places that refused to serve blacks, but they weren’t many.
    Let me restate this for the granite-skulled dimwits: the government created the problem in the first place by eliminating The People’s right to freely choose what type of business they wanted to run.

    When the courts [finally] ruled Jim Crow unconstitutional as a GOVERNMENT-mandated denial of Equal Protection, were shopkeepers then allowed to choose green over black/white? Nope. The government – a different government this time – made new laws once again denying the freedom to choose.
    Gays are not prohibited from buying wedding cakes or floral arrangements … and the numbers of such places in the entire country that are refusing to take their business can probably be counted on two, maybe three, hands. It is hardly a comparable situation, and only those desperate to be dishonest are trying to make it so

    • PolkaDot

      Amen

    • legal eagle

      Tell me what law prevented white shop owners selling to blacks? What are you talking about?

      • Ross Williams

        Any of the series of laws collectively termed “Jim Crow”
        And you know it.
        Are you in the business of playing stupid?

        • legal eagle

          The “Jim Crow” laws you refer to were state and local not Federal….Thus the need for Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act….The recent Arizona law is the latest version of a “Jim Crow” law which attempts to legalize discriminatory practices……

          • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

            @disqus_JfP3LhHmYr:disqus

            . . .
            The recent Arizona law is the latest version of a “Jim Crow” law which attempts to legalize discriminatory practices……

            Wrong. In the first place, the recent Arizona “law” which you specifically referenced above is not a law at all. It was a bill, one that was not signed by the Governor of Arizona. After reflection, she vetoed it.

            So it is now a nullity unless the Legislature should choose to try to override the Governor, which they will not likely try to do.

            Of course, I shouldn’t have to explain any of that to you, but either your “intern” who you keep obliquely referencing is on vacation, or you deliberately misrepresented that piece of legislation in order to try to make an illegitimate point here.

            A considerable number of highly respected legal scholars pointed out that the bill was not at all as you tried to mischaracterize it.

            Furthermore, the fact is that virtually all laws are discriminatory in some sense, as they all attempt to regulate and define the rights duties and obligations of particular classes or groups of individuals, or of their economic or other behavioral practices in the context of the larger social order.

            But you knew that too.

          • legal eagle

            You are right…I should have referred to it as the “Arizona bill” not the “Arizona law”. I stand corrected…I have no ‘interns” but if you know someone who wants to work for free, let me know…

          • http://TrochilusTales.blogspot.com Trochilus

            To be precise, perhaps it was your “paralegal” who I noticed you have referenced from time to time.

  • princepsCO

    Seems to me that the baker has the option of creating a cake that doesn’t taste or look top-flight as a way to register displeasure. Nothing says love like a cake that uses salt instead of sugar or uses black frosting. Perhaps the photographer takes photos of the “bride’s” zits up close or slightly fuzzy. Producers of goods or services don’t have to provide their best effort if the effort is on behalf of a situation they can’t condone….

    What I really want to see is the Gay Police/Corporate Media spending their efforts fighting homophobia in Qatar, Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. The USA is already one of the most tolerant places in the world. I want a Gay Pride (there’s that sin thing again–pride) parade through downtown Istanbul or Islamabad. Until then, just shut your noise makers.

  • ksoileau

    The answer, in my view, is that no one should be forced to serve any customer they don’t want to serve, period. This is a variety of slavery, and is no more palatable in the business world than it was on the farms of 1860.

    • NiCuCo

      “This is a variety of slavery”

      And that is a variety of chutzpah.

      • Eric Maher

        No, being forced to labor is a form of slavery. It’s a big part of the definition of slavery.

  • Will Starr

    I reject the notion that this is about religion. What is really at stake here are our rights as property owners. What is more important, our property rights as free Americans or the right to never be offended? We should reinstate the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and let the free market decide whether we stay in business.

    • NiCuCo

      “refuse service to anyone for any reason and let the free market decide whether we stay in business”

      Businesses that refused to serve Blacks stayed in business before 1964. Should we go back to that way of doing things.

      • Will Starr

        Some might stay in business today, but most would not. What it cost us were our property rights.

  • Mark W.

    As a former professional portrait photographer for 20 years, I agree that when you open for business to the public… you serve the public. We had our values that informally included the terms, G-rated and family friendly… so we politely turned down requests for photographs that may have been risqué or offensive, without any problems. And while photographing people with alternate lifestyles may have been uncomfortable for me, I always did my best to hide it, and make them feel as comfortable and welcome as any customer. As a small studio, it was always easy to decline some requests by claiming we were already booked, especially for weddings. As a businessman, I was happy to serve the people who appreciated our quality of work. I never thought that by providing our services that I was approving of people’s lifestyles. We also photographed some people that we knew were alcoholics… I didn’t approve of that lifestyle, either. They were all “customers.”

    • Ross Williams

      So if you run a high-end restaurant with people willing to pay $75 per entree … you are obliged to serve families with ba