Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
Bhawk, nice attempt and you have probably realized this by now, but muleman will not engage in any thought-driven discussion of anything. Not sure he can't or just won't, but he has demonstrated time and again that he only comes to call people names and act like a troll and be destructive rather than constructive. I know it is the Whipping Post and blowing off steam comes with the territory, but most people here can engage in debate like civilized adults and muleman is just not one of those people. I wish everyone here would just ignore him and not fuel the fire, but I guess it is just too hard to resist.
Several others here just as bad or worse, but they share your political views so no need to call them out?
Noticed this in the South Carolina thread too. There are like 6 members here that act stupid here but only the 2 conservatives get called out.
Just keeping it real.
The WP is pretty much a hollowed out shell of its former self, and there was a time where it was about a million times worse than it is now. Given the end of the ABB and the fact that site traffic will never be that high again, thank heavens it will never be that bad again, because it got about as bad as it could get.
But, there were also pages and pages of high-level discourse that didn't get nasty. The amount of information that was being shared was pretty damn cool.
As to who calls who out or who doesn't call who out, that was argued ad nauseum years ago. Ain't gonna change. In the end it's only on oneself if one clicks "Post Reply" or not.
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
Bhawk, nice attempt and you have probably realized this by now, but muleman will not engage in any thought-driven discussion of anything. Not sure he can't or just won't, but he has demonstrated time and again that he only comes to call people names and act like a troll and be destructive rather than constructive. I know it is the Whipping Post and blowing off steam comes with the territory, but most people here can engage in debate like civilized adults and muleman is just not one of those people. I wish everyone here would just ignore him and not fuel the fire, but I guess it is just too hard to resist.
I really was just trying to clarify the cite of a source...:P
And I'm sure you noticed that was pointless exercise.
I knew it when I was typing it. Can I plead a moment of temporary boredom? 
In the end it's only on oneself if one clicks "Post Reply" or not.
I agree with the above.
Sadly, I lurk here, read this site daily, sometimes log on and reply, most times not.
Outside of the first post on page 10 here, no one is discussing the actual thread.
This entire page is only people crying about other people throwing fire and getting pissed because it gets thrown back at them.
So I ask the question again:
Should a Christian or anyone else of faith, be forced to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate a homosexual's demands?
You haven't answered how baking a cake, or arranging flowers violates someones religious beliefs. Maybe then we can figure out what you mean.....and how being a customer of a public business means you are making demands?
You haven't answered how baking a cake, or arranging flowers violates someones religious beliefs. Maybe then we can figure out what you mean.....and how being a customer of a public business means you are making demands?
_________________________________________________________________
You make my point exactly.
Instead of answering my question, you pose a dissimilar question twisting the issue into something that it is not.
Yours is a typical liberal response to a question that, for their own political or social reasons, you don’t want to answer.
Also, answering a question with a question is a common tactic for those incapable or unwilling to answer the question.
This is not a denial of service matter, never has been. No homosexual in Indiana has been denied anything.
However, the homosexuals are demanding special protections in the law that could cause someone of faith to have to violate their beliefs.
The actual question remains:
Should a Christian or anyone else of faith, be forced to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate a homosexual's demands?
Muleman, the answer is no.
Now I have a question for you.....has that ever happened anywhere?
Nope. I am just curious to hear his thoughts on when and where that has ever happened. The proof is in The Bible.
Now THAT is something we can agree on.
You haven't answered how baking a cake, or arranging flowers violates someones religious beliefs. Maybe then we can figure out what you mean.....and how being a customer of a public business means you are making demands?
_________________________________________________________________
You make my point exactly.
Instead of answering my question, you pose a dissimilar question twisting the issue into something that it is not.
Yours is a typical liberal response to a question that, for their own political or social reasons, you don’t want to answer.
Also, answering a question with a question is a common tactic for those incapable or unwilling to answer the question.This is not a denial of service matter, never has been. No homosexual in Indiana has been denied anything.
However, the homosexuals are demanding special protections in the law that could cause someone of faith to have to violate their beliefs.
The actual question remains:
Should a Christian or anyone else of faith, be forced to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate a homosexual's demands?
I didn't twist anything. You have to define 'violate their religious beliefs', which you haven't. You are the one making it about something else.
Colorado bakery that refused to bake anti-gay cakes did not discriminate, state agency says
By Peter Holley April 4Owners of a Denver bakery did not discriminate against a customer by refusing to fulfill an order requesting two cakes with ant-gay imagery and wording on them.
That’s the message from the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, which ruled that the Azucar Bakery was within its rights when employees refused to carry out an order from customer William Jack in March 2014, according to the Denver Post.
Jack, a Christian who originally told reporters that he believes Azucar Bakery “discriminated” against him “based on my creed,” had asked the bakery to bake him two Bible-shaped cakes, ABC affiliate 7 News Denver reported.
[Online donations for controversial Indiana pizza joint top $840,000]
The first cake would include disdainful words about gays and a second cake would include two men holding hands and an X on top of them. Jack asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7? and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2,” the decision by the department’s Civil Rights Division said, according to 7 News Denver.
Marjorie Silva, the bakery’s owner, agreed to make the cakes but refused to put the ant-gay imagery on them, according to the AP.
“It’s just horrible. It doesn’t matter if, you know, if you’re Catholic, or Jewish, or Christian, if I’m gay or not gay or whatever,” Silva, 40, told the Associated Press. “We should all be loving each other. I mean there’s no reason to discriminate.”
Not long after her refusal, Silva said she received notice from the state’s Department of Regulatory Agencies that she was the subject of a religious discrimination complaint.
While Jack argued that he had been discriminated against for being Christian, the department’s decision said evidence showed Silva refused to bake the cakes because the customer’s requests included “derogatory language and imagery,” according to 7 News Denver:
The baker said “in the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays,” according to the decision.
“The evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed.”
The decision, according to 7 News Denver, noted that Silva is Catholic and employs multiple Christian and non-Christian employees.
The decision also noted that the bakery Web site includes multiple examples of cakes decorated with Christian symbols and language, including the words “God Bless” and “Mi Bautizo,” which is Spanish for “my baptism.”
________________________________________________________________
[W]hile [the customer] has succeeded in getting publicity for his cause, he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Colorado law bans discrimination by a wide range of businesses, but only when the discrimination is based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry." This means that a store may not specifically refuse to sell cakes to gays, or sell them to (say) Baptists. It may well mean that it may not specifically refuse to sell cakes for use in same-sex marriages, or in Baptist events. It may even mean that it may not specifically refuse to inscribe messages that identify buyers as gay (e.g., "John and Bill's marriage"), or as Baptist (e.g., "Baptist Church Picnic").
But nothing in the law bans discrimination based on ideology more broadly. A store can refuse to sell to someone because he's a Nazi, or a Communist, or pro-life, or pro-choice, or pro-gay-rights, or anti-gay-rights. A store can likewise refuse to inscribe cakes with Nazi, Communist, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, or anti-gay-rights messages, if it's discriminating based on the ideology of the message, rather than the religiosity of the buyer.
cough
Muleman, the answer is no.
Now I have a question for you.....has that ever happened anywhere?
________________________________________________________________
No.
I agree that someone of faith should not have to violate their beliefs on demands from a homosexual.
And to answer your question:
If you are asking about cases nationwide, yes there have been a few civil action suits brought against Christians and Jews by homosexuals for alleged discrimination.
I don’t have enough knowledge about these cases so I walked downstairs today and had a chat with my organizations chief counsel. Mary told me that while few, most of the cases were brought before the court by homosexual advocacy groups on behalf of someone they claim has been discriminated against. Not one case has ever succeeded. Every time the court has cited The Constitution and ruled against the plaintiffs. There are two cases still pending.
Religious freedoms are protected by The Constitution, end of story.
The Democrats are starting to see that their pro-homosexual agenda is blowing up in their faces. Seventy nine percent of The U.S. is Christian and they vote. Morals will trump a narrow special interest group.
Wrong. Again.
Wrong. Again.
EGG ZAKK LEE
At least deano was somewhat entertaining while he was pissing all over the forums.
Then why was the article first published on the A/P News Service and picked up by dozens of newspapers?
Can you prove that? Regardless of anyone's political slant, if you are going to call me a liar, can you back it up?
I provided the link for the AP News Wire, can you find this column there?
Sorry if that bursts for little liberal bubble but this entire matter was a left-wing witch hunt that tried to turn a law to protect citizen’s religious rights into a discrimination against homosexuals.
Why was it amended by Indiana GOP lawmakers?
In your haste to hate on anyone you perceive as liberal, you must have missed earlier in this thread. I, personally, never claimed that the law in question "legalized discrimination." I did state from the get-go that it was a bad law insofar as that the original text was too broad.
Again, I ask, if there was nothing wrong with the original law, why was it changed?
Bhawk, nice attempt and you have probably realized this by now, but muleman will not engage in any thought-driven discussion of anything. Not sure he can't or just won't, but he has demonstrated time and again that he only comes to call people names and act like a troll and be destructive rather than constructive. I know it is the Whipping Post and blowing off steam comes with the territory, but most people here can engage in debate like civilized adults and muleman is just not one of those people. I wish everyone here would just ignore him and not fuel the fire, but I guess it is just too hard to resist.
Several others here just as bad or worse, but they share your political views so no need to call them out?
Noticed this in the South Carolina thread too. There are like 6 members here that act stupid here but only the 2 conservatives get called out.
Just keeping it real.
Oooooh, did I hear my name called???
I'll consider the source, yawn, chuckle, go get a beverage.
I'm sure the response will be EPIC.
Wrong. Again.
________________________________________________________
Do you have an opinion on this thread to share or just another of your empty meaningless shots like say, Ron.
Try answering the question I asked...........without your 'it's the liberals fault' mantra...........
Try answering the question I asked...........without your 'it's the liberals fault' mantra...........
__________________________________________________________________
Because your question: “You haven't answered how baking a cake, or arranging flowers violates someones religious beliefs” isn’t the issue here.
No one has been denied a cake or flower arrangement.
Again you pose a question irrelevant to the actual matter which just proves your ignorance of the matter.
Then try the other question you ignored.....
"You have to define 'violate their religious beliefs', which you haven't. "
You are the one showing ignorance - this is exactly why the law was proposed in the first place......
Then try the other question you ignored.....
"You have to define 'violate their religious beliefs', which you haven't. "
You are the one showing ignorance - this is exactly why the law was proposed in the first place......
______________________________________________________________
I haven't answered yet another of your stupid questions.
You want me to define what 'violate their religious beliefs' means?
If you don’t already know son my explaining it to you won’t help you.
It's discrimination wrapped in religion.
Have said it before that I vote primarily based upon social issues. Any wonder why the GOP drapes itself in being the anti party for social issues? Hope this is one of the issues that comes up in the primaries & debates. I'll enjoy hearing the rationalizations coming out of the mouths of bigots. This is far larger than states' rights. Let them tell us what they really think. Furthest one to the right is a winner in their minds.
The pizza clerk should made this statement. "Muslims do not approve of homosexuality and punish it severely. Out of respect for the teachings of Islam, we would refuse to cater the wedding."
No outcry from the Left, no media firestorm, and would still be free to run the business as they see fit in line with their beliefs. How's that?
It's discrimination wrapped in religion.
Have said it before that I vote primarily based upon social issues. Any wonder why the GOP drapes itself in being the anti party for social issues? Hope this is one of the issues that comes up in the primaries & debates. I'll enjoy hearing the rationalizations coming out of the mouths of bigots. This is far larger than states' rights. Let them tell us what they really think. Furthest one to the right is a winner in their minds.
The pizza clerk should made this statement. "Muslims do not approve of homosexuality and punish it severely. Out of respect for the teachings of Islam, we would refuse to cater the wedding."
No outcry from the Left, no media firestorm, and would still be free to run the business as they see fit in line with their beliefs. How's that?
What's wrong with being a Muslim?
