No because their business was all but shut down , they have had death threats all because of a fabricated story . They never denied any gay couples anything .

What happened to " live and let live"??
Now you , because you're the epitomy of tolerance , have now decided they are bigots ... You do that a lot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think what they did may have been even worse. In this case it's not even an incident as much as proactive policy.

They went on the news and said it, I don't see how that's a media fabrication.

They don't and never have catered weddings . That's their" policy"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if someone called and ordered 20 pizzas for a wedding they'd turn it down? That's not their policy, they just haven't done it.

Who caters a wedding with pizza?

How awkward would this entire conversation be?

Regardless, they went out and said it and made the bed.

Snicker…

And a fine bed it will be. Maybe get $1 million from the bed.

So what's the fuss about? A reporter seeking a way to make her chops chooses the hot item of the day, goes in search of a Christian patsy who will give an honest answer, and whoosh, that's supposed to create shock and horror in "most Americans" who must then insist that the "victim" in this case must be threatened and driven out of business? It may well be that "most Americans" are not shocked, nor even care that much. It might be that they are starting to get a bit annoyed at the insistence that they must care. It may be that they don't really see a problem with someone not wanting to cater a gay wedding, and maybe they are beginning to feel more sorry for the bakers who are being driven out of business than they are for the proliferation of manufactured, instigated "cases" of supposed "discrimination." So maybe a bunch of them are deciding to show their support to the victim by donating lots of money to her.

Maybe most of them would just rather that aggrieved victims of actual, non-manufactured, non-instigated cases of "discrimination" take their grievance to court and not make a national fuss about it.

Of course, that would shrink the number of opportunities for aggressive, ambitious, "journalists."

Maybe they could go after Muslim bakers who discriminate against gays. Oh wait, that trick was tried yesterday in Dearborn MI. Muslim baker refused. SHOCKER--no big media fuss. No outcry from the gay community to shut him down. No threats on his life or establishment.

The thought amuses me, once the Christians have been marginalized into political impotence, of the inevitable confrontation between gays and Muslim bakers. Eh . . . probably not inevitable. The gays are probably too scared of the Muslims,

All this bull#^&#^&#^&#^& does is distract people from the serious issues in the economy, like the national deficit, the 1%'s run away profits and the shrinking middle class. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Found this funny...

Quote:
Fort Schritt, Indiana — Dr. Michael Freiheit is a general practitioner in the small town of Fort Schritt, Indiana. He describes himself as both an atheist and gay. Dr. Freiheit estimates that he sees a few hundred people a month for various maladies. In the wake of his state’s governor signing a highly-contentious bill that would allow any business in Indiana to discriminate against Freiheit, who last week volunteered to provide no-cost health care at a homeless shelter, based solely on the business owners’ religiously-based discriminatory feelings toward homosexuals. This has Dr. Freiheit curious about something, and he plans to ask Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the Republicans in the state legislature directly, via email.

“Dear Governor Pence and the Republicans in the state legistlature,” Freiheit’s letter begins, “As a gay atheist doctor in a small town in Indiana, I want to applaud your bravery and standing up for your principles, because it would seem that you have given me a chance to finally stop having to treat #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, bigoted Christians at my practice, based on my own deeply held religious views, and not anything more sinister or petty, of course.” Freiheit then goes on to ask Pence and the Republicans, “Is that not the intent of your letter, to give everyone a chance to discriminate against someone they don’t like? I am assuming that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States applies here, meaning that as a gay atheist I am permitted to not give judgmental bigots the medicine they need to get over the infections in their bodies, right?”

Constitutionally, I would say that he has a right to "discriminate" in that way. Don't know if that would cause a problem with his professional ethics regarding the hippocratic oath, if he swore to it. Might be a problem with legalities of medical practice, Obama care and all. And don't know if there are enough gay and atheistic bigots in his area to support his business at the level he desires. That may not matter. It sure would provide a service to all the gay and atheist bigots who are being turned away by Christian doctors.

Oh, wait . . . when the doctors give medical attention to gay and atheist bigots, they are not participating in or practicing their life style. No matter. Small potatoes.

Anyway, if the good doctor was able to discriminate in the matter he proposes, then it would actually make the Indiana bill even more acceptable and even more discriminatory (it's not) than it is. I don't think he wants to open up that can of worms.

Anyway, if Pence answers his letter, and if the doctor is capable of understanding and willing to listen, the Governor will explain that the bill is not discriminatory. It does not take away gay's or atheists'"rights." It does not take away their right to legal action if called for.

I'm glad you see how silly this "story" is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, why doesn't the Bill Of Rights give these people the right to decide what weddings they will cater or not, depending on their religious beliefs. Hint...MSNBC won't tell you how to answer that question, they'll just give you plenty of synonyms for "hatemonger".

Why do you consider my statement Catholic bashing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Live and let live". You mean if they're gay?😬


I think I have a heck of a lot more tolerance than you. They certainly are bigots whether they want to claim it is their religious right or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sucks for the black baker but yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul , you've mentioned Ben Carson a couple of times referring to his statements comparing the US to Germany during the Nazi movement....it's not clear that you ever read what he actually said or his later comments but here's a bit of it....seems relevant


" You know, you had a government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe."

He went on to list the "PC police" politicians and news that, together, "stifle people's conversation."

"The reason that is so horrible is because the only way that you have harmony and reach consensus is by talking. But if, in fact, people are afraid to talk, you never reach consensus," Carson said. "And instead you grow further and further apart. And that's exactly what's happening, creating a horrible schism that will destroy our nation if we don't fix it."

I looked up the definition of bigot. This is the most succinct one I found:

"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion"

Spence and PaulS are bigots. :rotf3:

these words don't have real meaning any more, they are thrown around so frequently and used as weapons to stifle opposition or disagreement as a replacement for thought...makes them meaningless .....hate, racism, bigot, and on........someone spoke of certain truths being "self evident" once upon a time......if you use these words often enough though, you start to exude their 'real meaning' yourself

Yes. And the meaningless words are the codes that distinguish the "superior" or "smart" group from those presumably too stupid to understand or tolerate, ergo too bigoted. There is a progressive lexicon of such words, bigot being one, but others such as fair, or equal, discrimination, and hate or racism as you mentioned. Words which have specific, concrete, or discernible meaning when spoken in appropriate contexts. But when hurled as weapons against opponents of progressive group-think, especially in political accusation, they indeed are meant to stifle thought by the nature of their imprecise but significant sounding emanations--"penumbras and emanations" as an activist progressive Supreme Court Justice once coined in order to transfigure constitutional law into something it wasn't--some shadowy middle which could mean whatever you want it to mean.

The shadowy remnant of the original meanings become the "moral" shibboleths by which the flock are persuaded in the righteousness of the cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
"I didn't know being gay was a religion."

Reply by Sea Dangles:
"The church has demonstrated otherwise."


Jim, you have to understand that Dangles is a sort of Zen contrarian. If he thinks you are in need of elevation into a higher form of consciousness, he will respond to what he considers your unenlightened statements with his peculiar type of koan. You know . . . his version of what is the sound of one hand clapping thingy. When you rationally respond to it, he again gives you back nonsense. And the more you try to rationalize his nonsense, the more you repeat, and the more nonsense is thrown back at you. Eventually rationalization and nonsense meld into comedic senselessness, the hope being that since there is no rational answer to the koan, you will achieve the deeper understanding--the gray area that Dangles refers to. Not unlike the Zen wisdom of Rumi in this quote by him:

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

I know this personally, as I learned when he Zen beat my weary brain not long ago in another thread so that I now wander with bliss in the gray area. I now see what was once invisible. I now understand what was once unknowable. Once, having learned all this, you will know how to respond to his koans. Speak back to him in the fullness of the unknown--with even more nonsense. Try it. It's fun. It's enlightenment. And will probably end the string of Zen provocation. :buds:

Once again I'm not sure I would want him practicing medicine on me! I would rather him be open about his bias then be forced to give medical care to people he does not like.
People only believe in what they believe. You cannot force them into believing something with laws. It actually works to further the divide not heal it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, I respect the fact that you are consistent.

But what about the Bill Of Rights? Why doesn't the Bill Of Rights, absolutely, irrefutably, prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs?

When we have had military drafts, for example, people with religious objections, were not forced to go to war. People who didn't want to go to war for other reasons (let's say they didn't want to go because they didn't believe in the cause), were forced to go.

If these pizzeria owners tell you that the Bill Of Rights guarantees them the right to make this decision, what's your response?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That doesn't seem very ambiguous to me. Like it or not, the Constitution gives them this right.

Do you deny the Bill Of Rights gives them this right? Based on what? How can you read that text, and draw any other conclusion?

I'm scared to try it...

I don't know Paul's understanding of the Constitution. From what he has said before, it sounds like he doesn't have one. That it's too complicated and better left to "experts." But he usually does agree with the progressive interpretations of it. So his answer, if he ventures one other than "the Court has decided" type of stuff, might be in line with the Progressive Living Constitution theory. That is, the Bill of Rights means whatever the current Court says it means.

So, then, by that interpretation, if the Court says you must violate your beliefs or face a penalty, then that is the choice you are left with.

You, apparently, hold to the original understanding that the Constitution is, as progressives like to say, a charter of negative liberties. You understand that it is irrefutable that it will "prevent the government from forcing these people into violating their beliefs". But progressive belief, that the Constitution is a living, evolving (on its own, without necessity of amendment) thing, holds that it has evolved into a charter of positive rights. That is, rather than being a document which limits government, it has become one which more fully empowers government.

The conflict lies between originalist and progressive definition of rights pertaining to the Constitution. In the main, originalists view rights as belonging to the people and as such, as you say, are not to be violated by government. And whatever "rights" the government has, are those granted to it by the people as expressed by constitutional enumerations. On the other hand, progressives view rights, in the main, as belonging to the government which, in turn, can dole out rights to the people, and so can, therefor, make defunct original, "outdated," so-called unalienable rights.

How does this apply to the question at hand--what are the "rights" of the bakers, et. al., and of the gays, et. al.?

The originalist view only partially holds at this time since full rights have already been re-interpreted by anti-discrimination laws to apply to various select groups rather than being universal. But, even so, a quasi-originialist view would hold that the bakers, et. al., must sell whatever they have in stock if requested by any buyer who belongs to a select group. And would certainly allow a successful suit against a proprietor who refused to sell his stock to any buyer, espescially to a protected group. But it would not consider it a right of any buyer to demand what the proprietor does not have in stock, or would never have, due to personal belief or prerogative.

The Progressive view, on the other hand, would hold that the proprietor, must fill the demand of a buyer, especially of a protected group, for the generic type of the proprietor's product, even if that version of his product violates his personal or religious beliefs and he has never made such a version.

One might say, other than the blatant transfer of power from the people to the government, that a major distinction between the originalist and progressive Constitutions is that the former allows those with conflicting bigotries to live together with equal "rights," but that the latter allows one bigotry to trump another.

I fail to see how making pizza or a cake violates someone's religious beliefs. I don't think the bible says anything about making a pizza is essential to the practice of religion.

We have allowed Conscientious objectors to not go to war but you can be one w/o saying it violates your religion. I guess the thought is that if you don't want to fight, we are better off not having you on the front lines regardless of why you don't want to fight.n

I don't know if genital mutilation is illegal here but along with social reasons, people use religion as a reason for forcing it on their girls. Are you in favor of allowing people to do that here?

The baker can now sue the state and claim it violates their constitutional right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we could solve all of this by nationalizing pastry and pizza

"I fail to see how making pizza or a cake violates someone's religious beliefs"

hen you haven't given this much thought. These people believe gay marriage is a sin. They believe that their religion dictates that they not participate in, or endorse, sinful activity. Now you know. So now that you know, why isn't their belief protected?

"I guess the thought is that if you don't want to fight, we are better off not having you on the front lines "

Using that logic, and there is logic to it, why the hell does the engaged couple want a baker at their wedding, who does not want to be there?

"Are you in favor of allowing people to do that here?"

The girl ha the right to not get mutilated. The gay couple does not have the right to force anyone to surrender their right to exercise their religion freely.

"The baker can now sue the state and claim it violates their constitutional right."

Not in this case, because the state didn't do anything to the pizzeria owner. It is your fellow world travelers, those who preach tolerance, who forced these people into hiding. How very tolerant...

Paul, you don't agree with their religious objections, neither do I. That doesn't matter. All that matters, is that our constitution guarantees them that right.

I cannot force the Klan to not hold rallies. Similarly, I can't force these people to abandon their religious beliefs. It's not rocket science.

Amazing, American Christians and Christians around the world are having
their heads cut off because of their believes while the Libs are concerned
about whether a couple can get a pizza pie for their wedding.
Just goes ta show ya.

Goes to show you what? That the evangelicals wanted the ability to discriminate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stupid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device