There is no such thing as “separation of church and state”. There IS, however, a constitutional amendment that states the government can make no law regarding establishing a religion, or preventing free practice thereof.
Thus, ANY law that violates the free practice of religion is unconstitutional, and yes, that includes civil rights laws.
 July 23, 2015 at 11:28am
Patriot, that was not LibSocs point. The point was that Religious freedom is an individuals choice. Whether to be religious or not, and if so, which sect. That IS a choice made by every American in the world.
That said, homosexual marriage or the lack thereof, is NOT in the Constitution, so the federal government should have NO input into it whatsoever. It should be left to the states and the people, as required per the 10th amendment.
Also, if the whole gay marriage issue was simply about equal rights and legal issues. people do not need to be married to have the same rights (with the exception of federal mandated marriage crap, like IRS filing, which also should have no basis from marriage). For example, one may obtain a medical power of attorney in order to be allowed to see others in the hospital, sign for care, etc. It is already possible for gay people to have most accommodations that married people have.
As for choice, I do not believe homosexuality is ALWAYS a choice. i.e. I can’t imagine an average guy looking at another guys hairy butt and thinking “gee, I want to get me some of that”, as a choice. For some, it may be a choice, for others it may not be a choice, but something in their genetics, or upbringing, or through social engineering.
July 21, 2015 at 11:32am
Actually, yes. Believe it or not, there are “Squatter Laws”. Basically, if somebody moves into a house for a night, and has personal effects there, they are now “authorized” to live there until evicted.
@ 2A: ALL of the lawyers that instituted those so-called Squatter Laws should be Squatted Upon !
So, if I have a house full of my stuff and go on vacation for a week. Then return to my home with my family to find out Mr. Squatter is now in my house, with my stuff and etc... He is authorized to live there. The man can't produce the deed to the house or even that he pays rent to anybody YET I can.
If I man handled the squatter out the door and threw his crap on the front lawn, HE would have to prove that he personal effects in the house BUT if they are all on the lawn, then he can't prove a damn thing.
I suppose this sqatter non sense only makes since to an empty house that hasn't sold but not for a house with All my stuff in it. It would take a real idiot cop to then conclude, that Mr tornado definitely doesn't live here but some reason he has pictures of him, in the house, with his kids, several months ago, on his phone. No no no, that can't be evidence that he lived here. We'll let the squatter live here.
How does the law go about evicting a squatter from a property he / she can't prove to be entitled to live there in the first place?
Seems like that only works if you are dealing with a rental or someone lets their friend stay the night -- the friend doesn't leave.
 July 20, 2015 at 12:51pm
“We can’t let Walker make restricting women’s reproductive freedom a footnote to his presidential announcement,” the organization said. “If we don’t call Scott Walker out now, he won’t stop trying to control women’s destinies.”
You know, this is a very very simple issue…
1) The feds should have no say in abortion laws. That should be a states rights issue.
2) And this is really the only thing that really matters…. outside of forced unplanned pregnancies (i.e. rape, incest, etc)… it is very simple for a woman to control her own reproductive destinies….
IF YOU DON”T WANT A BABY, STOP HAVING SEX OR USE ENOUGH PROTECTION TO ENSURE YOU WON’T GET PREGNANT!
How hard is that to understand? Stop making the rest of us, and the unborn baby, pay for YOUR STUPIDITY.
The state should have no say in abortion laws. Whether you think that the mother has a right to abort or that the fetus has a right to not be aborted, either way it is an issue involving an individual right that should be universally recognized. Therefore it is the constitutional duty of our national government to prevent individual states from interfering with that universal individual right.
July 13, 2015 at 12:37pm
And the dirt she was supposed to be digging is pretty much representative of your intelligence, eh?
Wow. See how easy that was? Amazing. Now I get why lefties and haters do nothing but insult others without a shred of proof to their claim…
Her response about all the bills having presidents on them pretty much backs up what I said. See how easy that was. All the countries in the Us, there fore I am, yes.
 July 13, 2015 at 12:26pm
“Before giving up the mic, the man told Trump he should “read the Statue of Liberty.””
And if I were Trump, I would have told the chump to read the Constitution and US Laws regarding citizenship and legal immigration.
Of course, before answering any of his questions, I would have asked him if he was a legal citizen or immigrant of this country, and had him arrested if not (or at least refused to answer any of his questions).
 July 13, 2015 at 12:09pm
If that were my gun shop, I would most definitely change the name. To F * * * OFF Ordnance .
 July 10, 2015 at 8:37am
I believe the name Dannelle Larsen-Rife is filled with hate and I’m offended by it. I think SHE needs to change her name…
 July 10, 2015 at 8:30am
“This lesbian couple had bought cakes from the bigot baker before with no trouble.”
So, in your own words, this baker cannot be a bigot, nor were they discriminating against this lesbian couple, since they have provided services to them before “with no trouble”.
The issue became a problem only when they wanted the bakers to participate in celebrating their gay wedding, which goes against the bakers religious faith, which is supposed to be protected by the first amendment.
In addition, if there are laws that are written which go against our constitution, they should be declared unconstitutional and wiped from the books.
Finally, PRIVATEly owned businesses should have the freedom to determine with whom they will and won’t do business. Leave it to the people to decide to support businesses that don’t server a certain race or ethnicity or sexual orientation or gun owners or clothing colors or whatever.
 July 10, 2015 at 8:10am
OR…. The two men in the pickup chose to mind their own business, and the pipsqueak Arroyo decided to continue to harass them and chase them down and then “claim” they attacked him.
No witnesses, no corroborating evidence, etc. Is it just possible this is a person crying wolf? Trying to get his 15 minutes of fame and money for something that never actually happened? There used to be this thing called innocent until PROVEN guilty. More and more, every day that passes, just complain enough and you get your way regardless of the truth.
 July 9, 2015 at 12:15pm
“Davis said the ammunition is being purchased with money paid by utility companies for electricity from the Hoover Dam, rather than with taxpayer dollars.”
Oh, goody. Not using taxpayer dollars. But wait… do they really think the utility companies are going to eat that cost? Of course not. They just increase their rates which results in the people paying for it anyway…
They did NOT deny service to this couple because they are gay. They have, in fact, provided services to them in the past.
What they did do, is say they couldn’t provide this particular service in association with their gay wedding because it is against their religious beliefs. Freedom of association and freedom of religion both play into this.
Now, IF this bakery had provided wedding cakes to homosexuals in the past, but chose not to provide a wedding cake to THIS pair of homosexuals, then THAT would be discrimination. Or if they refused to provide ANY services at all to any homosexuals, that would be discrimination.
Since they have NEVER offered wedding cakes for homosexual weddings, I don’t see where this is actually discrimination, since they have provided services to homosexuals in the past, just not for weddings.
However, private business owners that get no government funding should be allowed to refuse services to whomever they want. That is called liberty.
Then it is for us as individuals, to support or refuse to support businesses such as these by either spending money or refusing to spend money at their business.
July 9, 2015 at 11:50am
Okay, they did NOT discriminate against this homosexual couple. In fact, they have provided services to this couple in the past. The bakers issue was not with discrimination against a homosexual couple, but in providing a specific service that goes against their religious beliefs.
That said, it is unfortunate there are any laws regarding private businesses such as these. Owners of a private business should be able to serve, or refuse service, to whomever they please. It is THEIR business.
Let the paying public determine if they want to spend money, or not, at a private business that refuses services to any particular group or cause.
 July 9, 2015 at 9:10am
Ah, but therein lays the rub. That is a state law, covered under states rights with the 10th Amendment. While I still don’t agree with forcing private businesses to do this or that or serve people you don’t want to serve, or whatever, it is at least a state law, which falls within the constitution.
But yes, I believe private businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they wish. Black, gay, white, trans, asian, purple, male, female, rednecks, yankees, whatever and whomever they wish.
Again, while I would not patron a business that refuses to serve people based on race or whatever, I believe they should have the right to do so, as long as it is a privately owned business and not a public works establishment.
Let the public decide whether to give them their money or refuse to patron that business and bankrupt it.
July 9, 2015 at 9:04am
Of course. I agree entirely. If a Private business owner wants to ban guns from his/her establishment, that is entirely his/her right to do so. Which is why I don’t frequent places that are Anti-gun. The point I was trying to make, is that if the government can force Private businesses to serve everybody no matter what, how is it that they can and will allow private businesses to refuse service to people that carry firearms?
July 9, 2015 at 9:01am
We should all ride bicycles.
 July 9, 2015 at 7:14am
Look, it really should be this simple:
It shouldn’t matter if a business is serving the general public. Unless it is a Public facility (instead of a Privately owned business), the OWNERS should have every right to serve whomever they want, and refuse service to whomever they want.
Besides the fact that homosexuality is NOT covered under the civil rights equality laws, a private business should be able to refuse service to homosexuals, blacks, neomarxists, racists, whites, or WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE. It is their business.
That said, the rest of us have the choice of giving said business our hard earned money or not.
While I would not patron a private business that is “whites only” or “blacks only” or “no gay people allowed”, I would defend their right to do so.
Another thought… Since the 2nd Amendment states we have a right to keep and BEAR arms, how is it legal for any establishment to post No Guns Allowed sign, prevent us from carrying within their establishment, and have us arrested for trespassing if we do not leave when asked? If a christian or muslim baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, why should they not force businesses to allow gun owners to carry within their establishment?
I agree with most of your post however, the same logic applies to guns. If a private business owner doesn't want your guns in his establishment, then he has expressed his 1st amendment right. It must be respected. Not saying I agree with the way he feels but that is something I'd fight to defend as well. Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of the second amendment and an NRA member, I believe in the rights of the individual as well.
Sexual preference absolutely is covered under the civil rights law of the state of Oregon, so tough crap. You have no more right to refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake because you don’t think that gays should be able to marry than you do to refuse a birthday cake to a black family because you’re against black people being born.
You do have the right to refuse service on the basis of behavior in your place of business, so you could throw a couple out for having gay sex in your store, just as you could for carrying a gun.
very well presented…thank you
 July 8, 2015 at 2:22pm
The numbers wouldn’t actually work out to be that bad, overall.
Think of it this way… If we were to manage to get rid of all the illegal aliens, the cost of services, welfare, healthcare, public schools, and a multitude of other things would go DOWN, since we would no longer be supporting all the illegal aliens out there. Thus, taxes could be reduced, putting more money in the pockets of the people. Food prices are also inflated by the governments subsidies and farm bills, causing farmers to produce less than they could otherwise, keeping the costs of food inflated. Let the free market reign and we would see competition drive costs down and production up. Finally, if we finally tapped into our own sovereign oil supply, used and exported our own oil, gas prices would come down, lowering the cost of 90% of everything made or shipped in this country, as well as obtaining huge revenue for the country by sales of oil to other nations.
Everything goes back to government control, regulation and taxes. The very things which caused us to revolt against our British masters.
 July 8, 2015 at 11:59am
And I just realized, I feel more stupider for wasting my time even reading this story. And more stupier yet wondering why theblaze even thought this was a story.
(Yes, I know “more stupider” is not correct grammar. I’m making a point)
 July 8, 2015 at 11:55am
The person that made these changes is a woman. Not male guilt, male hate.