By everyone’s arguments here, they should take guns away from everyone since that’ll stop all crime. Obviously nobody would kill anyone with a gun again if they aren’t allowed to have them!
Oh wait…the conservative argument is that it’s already illegal to shoot and murder people so another bull**** law wouldn’t fix anything.
Over 200 cities have these protections for transgender people and there has not been a SINGLE instance of any pervert men dressed as women doing anything. You are all idiots.
 June 25, 2014 at 10:42am
It never ceases to amaze me at how ridiculously some of you switch positions based on how the story is written.
This man is innocent until proven guilty(say like…George Zimmerman). Yet, with George, everyone hammered on the media for public shaming. We knew 100% without question that he did kill Trayvon Martin, but not that he was guilty of murder. He was publicly shamed to massive amounts and we all screamed about him being innocent until otherwise proven guilty.
Yet in this case where we know nothing about the facts other than what some store owner claimed to a third party…and you all want this guy to be publicly shamed relentlessly?
This is why the law exists. To prevent these sort of unfair lynch mobs based on knee-jerk reactions. Anyone that is placed in this store’s window SHOULD sue and SHOULD win. Whether they are innocent of the crime or not. That’s for the court to decide, not this random store owner.
Bull. Video is solid evidence. Especially if it's obviously the same person. I have 5 cameras at my home, all high def, I can read a license plate at 50' facial recognition at 25'. So if I saw a car, and they broke into my neighbors house, I have the plate number, DO you think for a nano second that the cops wouldn't find that car and arrest them? Same thing. Your argument is one of the main things ALLOWING people to get away with this cr ap. If we were toughER on crime in this country, IT WOULD STOP BEING AN ISSUE.
Assuming the "perp" sues the owner over the posting of the photo/video, here are the 3 ways I see it playing out.
1. The Perp says he was harmed because that's not him in the photo. Case dismissed because if that's not him, then he is not the one potentially harmed.
2. That's me and you ruined my reputation. Case dismissed because the truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel. Oh, and please see the officer outside the courtroom as you're going to be arrested for shoplifting.
3. The video does not actually show the person shoplifting, in which case the owner would be liable for making a false accusation, not to mention being an idiot.
May 28, 2014 at 7:24pm
Yeah, I don’t buy it. I’ve been close to a lightning strike before. It literally blinded me for a moment and made me see an array of colors in a quick strobe. It lit up everything in the area extremely brightly.
You mean to tell me he got struck directly and we don’t even see anything at all?
And he was holding the camera. Have you ever seen someone video tape someone ELSE getting hurt? They can’t keep the camera focused. It goes all over the place when they get surprised. Now picture this man getting STRUCK by lightning. How is it the camera barely moves? He didn’t drop it? He didn’t even lower it? I just don’t see it.
[-8] May 24, 2014 at 2:12pm
usfreeman – I agree. It’s also so sad to see that racial and gender equality have gained such a foothold that the government overrulled states rights and shoved it down our throats! I guess we all just had to learn to accept the wisdom of the federal government in accepting other RACES and…ugh…WOMEN as completely normal and VERY acceptable naturally occurring people!
There's nothing so special as to have a deviant lifestyle which cannot self replicate compared to blacks, women et al get a life.
If homosexuality can have an equal position beside racial equality and women's rights (NOT), then the next thing we know, pedophilia will have an equal place beside racial equality and women's rights. Pedophiles will just need to cry loud enough, and judges will listen to the poor things and rule in their favour. Then pedophiles can get their very own flag! What flag will they choose! After this victory, people who want to marry their pets can get in on the action. Maybe their flag could have a rainbow collage of (un-consenting) farm animals. And when PETA gets through with them we will see how liberals will eventually destroy themselves. Unfortunately, it may be after they have destroyed our entire civilization. More correctly, after morally-bankrupt and weak JUDGES have destroyed our entire civilization.
There is that little thing about mutual consent there watchingitall. Adults, of whichever gender, can agree to all manner of legal contracts without resorting to disgusting things like the rape of children. Just because we drive vehicles does not mean there are people demanding that three year olds should be allowed to operate them.Your attempt at the "Slippery Slope" fallacy is quite common though. Your use of it is evidence that no future humans will ever be able to reason with sound logic.
 May 24, 2014 at 9:35am
TexasKnight – How is getting up and going to the bathroom when you need to disturbing anyone?
When I was in college it was called…hey I have to go…I’ll just get up and go while the class continues.
If I’m at work, same thing. I don’t ask for permission or pay to go to the restroom. I go when I need to and there is absolutely zero reason I should have to ask for permission.
[-10] May 24, 2014 at 9:28am
That’s right bigots! Keep screaming about the bible from the rooftops. I mean, sure…it was wrong about interacial coupling, selling your daughter into slavery, stoning your wife, forcing women to marry their rapists, synthetic fibers, meat on fridays, etc etc….
But this time, by God, it’s right! You all keep standing on the wrong side of history with the liberal fiscal agenda. It’s worked out so well for you guys up till now. Just keep doubling down on it.
Forget the whole ‘love they neighbor’ stuff. Forget how God is the only one that can judge someone. Heck, forget all about taking care of yourself and your own family first. No, you need to bother people that effect you in NO way. That’s how you get into heaven!
Bigotted idiots. This is why I stick with being a libertarian and not a conservative.
[-1] May 12, 2014 at 11:37pm
So myr…if people aren’t born gay, they must choose to be that way, yes? If so, when did you choose to be straight?
Okay, now that I shut down that stupid argument, let’s go for the other one religious bigots like to throw out, shall we? Society made them that way! And more specifically, if people are allowed to just BE gay, they’ll corrupt our children!
Scientific studies have shown without exception that children raised in a ‘gay’ family with two fathers or two mothers end up gay/straight in the exact same percentages as those in ‘normal’ families.
So there goes that argument as well. So then, let’s go back to your first argument. People aren’t born that way…right. So, why is it that we find homosexual conduct in a WIDE array of nature? See…there is no survival instinct that simply demands conception. It demands sexual stimulation. If it only demanded conception, nobody would be masturbating(animals included) as it serves NO reproduction purpose.
So…yeah, let’s stop with the complete nonsense that religious conservatives have failed to actually think out. It doesn’t make you look any better than the idiotic enviro-wackjob liberals.
Be a thinker. Be scientific. Above all else, use common sense. You’ll find neither the conservative platform or the liberal platform make a lick of sense…and soon you’ll realize that social issues are not at all what is important today.
[-5] May 12, 2014 at 11:29pm
Really Adolph? I wasn’t aware that by being a lesbian, a woman’s internal reproductive organs just like…fell out or something.
Last I checked, a lesbian can still sleep with a man if they so wish and can still get pregnant. They can also go the route of sperm donors or adoption.
But sure, it’s degenerate, disgusting, and/or mentally ill to be a loving mother who is gay. They should instead be these teens getting pregnant and giving birth through wedlock. Because that’s the natural way.
April 4, 2014 at 4:34pm
Whoa whoa whoa….Wait just a moment here Jeff. So…you’re argument is that the children will be messed up before a gay couple even begins raising them? So a gay couple shouldn’t be allowed to adopt that ‘screwed’ child because….?
You’re argument made no sense at all. Where do those children come from? Well most of them probably come from the adoption of children who were neglected and tossed away by those straight men and women that everyone here is so fond of. Those children need a good home and if two daddies or two mommies can provide that, not a person in this world should argue against it.
Unless YOU personally plan to take in and adopt every single child out there that needs a home, you have NO room to complain when someone else wants to(barring obvious felonies or other such criminal activity that bars them from that right – Or cases where someone is molesting a child or something. Just trying to cut off the strawman arguments before you make them :) )
So either put up, and raise the children in your loving and caring ‘proper’ family…or shut up and let someone with love in their hearts take care of those kids. I promise you, they won’t make them gay any more than someone ‘made’ you straight.
March 11, 2014 at 9:07pm
You all make me sick. You really do.
First: It’s none of your business what anyone wants to do with their life.
Second: You all are MASSIVELY reaching on these things like the examples from Frozen.
Third: You used to trust Disney? When was this? When a woman stayed in a house with 7 men in the middle of the forest?
When it was romantic for a man to take liberties with a woman in a coma?
For a man to blackmail an imprisoned woman and try to get her child in a twisted deal?
Disney cartoons have been based off of VERY dark folklore with far worse than ‘Pro-gay’ agendas in them.
February 14, 2014 at 11:45pm
This is nothing new for most of us in the country. Honestly, I was looking at the pie chart and wondering what all these companies I have never heard of were.
Speaking for myself: I’ve lived in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boston, Punxsutawney, and other suburbs around those various areas. In each one of them, my choice was either: Comcast for high-speed internet or DSL/dial-up. Only at one point in Pittsburgh did they finally bring FIOS to my area.
Comcast has always been this monopolyptic entity that controls the television access in areas I’ve lived. In the one case where I was able to get FIOS, I jumped at the chance and loved it as it was far cheaper and WAY better service. But for the most part, Comcast gives garbage service for massively inflated prices and you literally have no choice otherwise unless you are okay with ludicrously slow internet.
January 6, 2014 at 12:54pm
It’s not. However, since the federal government has tax laws that affect marriage, it places the entirety of the system into a dangerous area. Specifically that everyone is supposed to have equal protections under the law.
By saying that you can only have those protections if you get married and ONLY if you marry who they want you to, it is definitely in a very shady area when it comes to the equal protections clause.
In the end, you can call it whatever you want, but gay, straight, bi, transgender, etc should all have the ability to get the same protections and advantages in the law as everyone else. The entire point of the founding of this country was for everyone to be treated equal.
This is exactly why I don't understand why the gay community still believes in our communist tax code. Under the same umbrella, why do people with kids get a break under our tax code? . I personally believe that we need to shrink government to the point that excise taxes, tariffs, and user fees would pay for our very limited federal government.
November 26, 2013 at 7:27pm
You realize that Peanut Butter Jelly Time is like…SUPER old and was a popular meme about 3 years or so before Family Guy put it in an episode right?
November 25, 2013 at 7:53am
Good. As much as I cannot stand Bill Nye these days, he’s dead right here. It would be irresponsible and downright silly to include ‘religious’ details as scientific theories.
Why? Because they AREN’T scientific theories. When you have something that contains no proof or evidence, you cannot simply throw it in a text book and wash your hands of it(that they do it with global warming is another issue altogether).
And for those religious zealots on this site: Theories are not imaginary guesses. Theories are reasoned and educated explanations for how/why something happens that is to be tested until proven incorrect. The ‘Theory of Evolution’ has not been proven incorrect. Much like how the ‘Theory of Gravity’ has not been proven incorrect(yes, gravity is a theory).
If you want to believe in something with no scientific backing or reasoning, go for it. But you cannot push that upon children in a class that is supposed to be all about learning the true facts of the world around them. There is no place for things that someone wrote down in a book and has never proven.
science is religion. Only it is religion without the moral component, which makes it more dangerous. the world will be destroyed by "science".
Theorie are guesses. For it to be truly scientific, it needs to be seen and proven in a repeatable fashion. Evolution has not been proven so it is just a guess. The religious version of creation is no different, it was a n educated guess from earlier people who seem to have had more common sense than is being displayed in modern times. Creationism has not been proven incorrect, and actually many "scientific" theories are actually creationism that has been plagiarized from religious thought. Plagiarism is when you don't give credit to the creator
@ RavenGlenn....you point out that Theories are reasoned and educated explanations for how/why something happens that is to be tested until proven incorrect. Well you sort of left an important part out regarding testing of theories.
You are correct that Theories reasoned and educated explanations or hypothesis (which is nothing more than an educated guess), however, one must be able to duplicate it. So far man has not been able to recreate the earth out of nothing and have it evolve over time.
Plus, a scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.
I know we are no longer allowed to question those "in power", however, when I was in school we were still allowed to question things, matter of fact we were encouraged to, unlike today where kids and even adults are being told to accept whatever those in power (be it government or the school system) say.
What if your beloved scientist falsifies his evidence and then 'pushes' his theory upon children as fact, ie, global warming. Nice try Prog.
Gravity is a Law and there are many theories that attempt to explain the Law of Gravity. The same cannot be said for Evolution, so not the best analogy.
And I love this "logic": "There is no place for things that someone wrote down in a book and has never proven." Since Evolution has never been proven, your logic implies that there is no place for it!
As an Engineer, I have to dispute what you stated. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. We have zero evidence that Evolution is why man is man; however, we do have scientific evidence that links ALL men and women to be the offspring of the SAME WOMAN in Africa (Mitochondrial Eve). A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms. We already have more evidence to prove that Modern Man was created as told in Genesis, then the "Theory of Creationism" which by definition cannot be a Theory yet because there is no evidence to back up the HYPOTHESIS made by Darwin!
Scientific Proof that genetics proves that Evolution is Not Possible:
The "Theory of Evolution" isn't even a Theory! It's a Hypothesis that can't even be scientifically proven in any way to evolve up to a "Theory"! That is a Fact!
RavenGlenn- I agree. Only proven science should be taught not un-testable theories. Those should be saved for creative writing class. The man made scientific method works except for theory of evolution so I suppose it goes to the creative writing class as well.
What I find amazing is all the zeal this man puts into his theory on why American Public Schools suck at producing future generations of scientists. With all the millions of dollars spent on education these days and the removal of God from the schools there should be no good reason why we suck...unless we are funding a system designed to fail.
Maybe if Bill is that concerned he should champion the dissolution of extra curriculum sports and have those funds transferred to the Science Departments. Though I suspect many High Schools and Universities would object to the rigors of educating verses coaching. Besides let us be real…it would not make a difference anyway.
Why do homeschoolers routinely score better in science and most other studies than the product produced by public schools? Perhaps it is this ever growing home school movement that is preventing the scores from hitting rock bottom; concerned parents who have decided that the end product of social engineering is not conducive to the well being of the children and America’s future generations.
October 23, 2013 at 6:51pm
What the parents did in calling the cops was the right thing to do without question. Anyone saying that it wasn’t has no idea just how much trouble the parents could have ended up in. They easily could have been serving MAJOR time for having underage drinking(and who knows what else) in their home.
However, with that said…what the parents did in leaving their teenage, underage girls at home alone for an entire weekend without even having a neighbor keep an eye on them was STUPID. It never should have gotten to the point where they had to legally cover their own behinds.
October 21, 2013 at 9:55pm
So..Detroit falls into ‘Friendly’, but not Pittsburgh? Or heck, anywhere in the south like the Carolinas?
What the heck were they smoking when they did this ‘study’?
October 20, 2013 at 8:34am
Nice satire! It truly does sound just like that with all the ludicrous religious nutjobs that frequent this site. They actually expect us all to believe that they never think about sex, masturbate, use toys, look at porn, etc.
Listen folks: We all know you do. Everyone does. It’s okay. You aren’t going to hell for it.
October 14, 2013 at 8:31pm
Every major retailer has this policy. And there are VERY good reasons for it.
1. They don’t want their employee to risk bodily harm over something that is insured anyway.
2. They don’t want to be sued for you getting hurt over something stupid.
3. They don’t want a customer getting hurt because you have now caused the thief to panic.
We are told at my company that if someone comes in and steals, robs, etc to do as they say, comply fully, and do NOT go out to try and get a license plate or anything else because you may spook them and make them do something stupid(like run someone over in a hurry to flee, shoot someone in a panic, etc).
Just do as your told and let them go. That’s what the police are for.
Amen! These knee jerk posters cannot think this sensibly, however! And the Blaze just feeds these stories to get them up in arms!
September 5, 2013 at 7:58am
I know most everyone on this site are homophobic bigots, but the fact is that homosexuality is a protected status in the country. You cannot discriminate based on the color of someone’s skin, their gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.
They can claim all they want that serving them would violate their religious freedoms, but then what stops someone from saying the same about someone who is black? “Oh, my religion says I can be a racist!”
So once CA defines pedophilia as a sexual orientation you'll be fine with that as well?
It is a private business...they have the right to serve (or mot serve) whomever they please. Hopefully they dont have some liberal judge making the call.
I don't business with gays and refuse them all the time,
I don't rent to them,
I don't sell to them, etc...
How do I do it?
gays want to rent an apartment, I charge a high fee for a background check and refuse them based on info in the check.
Selling something to them, I jack the price up 3 to 5 times what it is worth.
doing business with them, I screw it up whatever it is and make it worse.
I have fun doing that to them.
So, I then suppose the threatening communications directed toward the bakery owners referencing their religious convictions would then be hate crimes? You know, since we are in the 21st century and everything.
"I know most everyone on this site are homophobic bigots,"
What a bigoted statement.
"the fact is that homosexuality is a protected status in the country." So is UN-homosexuality. I don't defend their opinion, but aren't the bakers now being discriminated against too? Why can't liberals see their own hypocrisy?
The very fact that the government that RUNS your life has a list of "protected" people that have MORE rights than the rest of us should scare you to death. State run discrimination is the rule of the day and it's horrific. No different at all from the days of slavery. The colors have just been changed.
You are equating being black to being homosexual?
The jury is still out on one of those as being choice or not.
Should the owners of Hobby Lobby be forced to pay for the abortion pill even though abortion is against their religious beliefs?
"the fact is that homosexuality is a protected status in the country."
Not federally or constitutionally protected. Individual states may enact legislation to stop discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but there is no blanket "protected status" for gays.
You are an idiot, this about a religious belief. I personally would have slammed the door in their face. Look what they have done to the Boy Scouts.
That's why how one likes sex should not be a protected status.
First off, the comment you made makes you the bigot. That being said...The bakery could have handled it better. People here say...raise the price...do a lousy job on the decorations...etc. I don't think these are the right responses either. Myself, I think I would be willing to compromise. I would be willing to bake the cake, decorate it in a tasteful fashion...but I would refuse to put a topper on it. That would be the part that I would say goes against my belief. Like someone else said, refusing to serve a gay would be like refusing to serve a black. As much as you would like to do it, as a business person, it wouldn't be the brightest thing to do. My problem is that we all have rights...until it infringes on the rights of others. So the question ultimately lies, which is more important...sexual preference rights or religious rights. Personally I'd say religious.
They did not refuse to serve them, they refused to provide a service they do not offer. I can’t go into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich. They refused to make a product they found offensive. If the lesbian couple had asked for a birthday cake or a couple of pies I’m sure they would have gladly served them. And as far as the people on this site being bigots, I’m not the one making hateful generalizations about others. You might want to look in the mirror before you make statements like that. Disapproving of someone behavior hardly makes one a bigot.
Your logic is wrong. If a jewish deli has ham, then they can't say its against their belief to make you a ham sandwich. Same with this cake. This IS their business. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. If there was an ingredient that they didn't use, lets say they didn't use peanuts because of allergies...then they could have an excuse. This is why I say that they could have made a cake. Frosted it, put flowers on it...but refuse to include anything they found offensive...like the gay topper.
But like I mentioned before, legally...religious rights trump sexual preference rights in my opinion.
Stick your buzz word "homophobic" where the sun don't shine. Gay rights has gone too far in forcing the christian right to cater to them. If I do not chose to cater to your gayness, that is my right. You have the same right to be gay in your own little world. Force me to do business with you will get shit from me.
August 15, 2013 at 8:12am
They really don’t. Women’s MMA is pretty darn good. Heck, back in the last Ultimate Fighter Finale, they had a women’s MMA fight that was honestly the best fight on the entire card. It was brutal as can be and both women gave their hearts out.
I know most of the folks on this site are misogynists…but really man, if you don’t know what you are talking about, don’t open your mouth.