It is exactly the same; this has been litigated as such. That states are slow to come round is irrelevant. They were slow to come around for recognizing blacks as having the right to rent from any landlord too! But they came around.
 April 1, 2015 at 11:06am
Not allowing a person without a shirt and not singing for a klan member is allowed because there is no discrimination as neither are groups/classes of people. A business can refuse to do business with certain individuals the businessman does not want to do business with and can throw out a patron too. This happens all the time ;how many people have been forced to get off planes simply cause management on the plane said they appeared suspicious or they did the bidding of the other passengers?A business decision that does not infringe on a class of people is allowed. Both; Klan membership and attire, are contingent choices on the part of individuals. Only If and when they push back and become recognized “classes” of people.[absurd on its face though no impossible] Then and only then are their right to equal treatment validated and can they claim discrimination against them as a member of said class; klan[class] or shirtless person [class]
 March 31, 2015 at 10:44pm
The law that we are talking about sites religious exemption. You can refuse to sing for the klan just like you can refuse someone without a shirt and tie,[ even] in your place. You can not refuse on religious grounds a class of people. The klan a shirtless and tieless person is not a class that you are allowed to discriminate against on religious grounds.
 March 31, 2015 at 5:58pm
That would turn the US into a nation where people are not living in harmony with each other .We’ll become like those countries that still harbor age old grievances against their neighbor who are of a different group.[shia/sunni, protestants/catholic Irish etc.. So much for a melding pot of tolerance.
March 31, 2015 at 5:51pm
You bring up a good point. A business does not HAVE to have same sex couple toppers for sale in his bakery. But if he makes wedding cakes to order ,he can not refuse to make one for a gay couple. He can however refuse to annotate or place toppers[same gendered AND not same gendered] toppers on all wedding cakes. That would satisfy the prohibition against discriminating against gays, which is un constitutional and will be adjudicated a such.
 March 31, 2015 at 1:39pm
You can preach your religion all you want; but no you cannot discriminate in your business. This has been established since the civil rights movement won. This principle will prevail regarding gays too. This”religious freedom” gamble to deny gays services is a reactionary movement that will be squelched by the courts! Come on Beck, you know this!
"but no you cannot discriminate in YOUR business." I capitalized the word that made that statement entirely contradictory. If someone sets up a privately owned business, they SHOULD be free to choose to discriminate as they please, be it against women, men, christians, atheists, gays, and so on. Unless it is offering something that is necessary to live (such as medical care for example) then they shouldn't be forced to cater to anyone.
Business' discriminate against people who do not have money to pay for the service.
Business' discriminate against people are rude and disturb the peace.
Male clothing stores discriminate against women by not selling ladies clothes.
Victoria's Secret discriminates against men by not selling mens underwear.
on and on we could go ...
We are not talking about companies having the right to discriminate against people but rather do they still have the right to exercise their faith.
We have messed around and raised a generation of cry babies who cry for a lawyer every time someone doesn't cater to their every whim.
I want to see some Nazi member go into a Jewish owned printer and demand the owner print off Nazi propaganda. And if the owner refuses to get sued for violating the Nazi member's 1st amendment right. Who would win that law suite?
I'm sure the Jewish owner would have morals that disagree with the Nazi member. Why should the Jewish owner be forced to do something against is morals?
Lets take religion out of it, and go with an African-American owner of the print shop, and a KKK member wanting to print KKK propaganda.
Or take the reverse argument. Should a gay owner be forced to print Anti-Gay or Anti-Gay Marriage propaganda even if its against his or her morals?
Shouldn't the owner be allowed to refuse service anyone because the customer wants something that is against his or her morals?
Many of these bakeries, printers, etc. who refuses service to a customer because the customer wants something that is against the owners morals are not the only ones around. They can easily go to another business, and if there isn't one around start your own business and say we'll take anyone as a customer. Why sue someone until you force them out of business, why do you try to ruin someone's life because they believe differently then you? I hear that we must be tolerant of other people's beliefs but it seems they can't be tolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
Discriminating against Blacks is not even remotely close to refusing to print "gay pride" t-shirts for a militant lgbtwtf org.
Blacks are born that way and are protected under civil rights laws for that very reason. You don't choose your color, birth date, gender, etc.
So Rose, you think an African American singer for example, can be FORCED to sing at the local Klan rally because he/she opened a business "singer for hire". Discrimination happens EVERYDAY, legally, morally and ethically.
Refusing to serve and individual who doesn't have the money to pay for the product or service is not discrimination and you know it. Not carrying every product or providing every service is not discrimination and you know it. And the constitution does not provide the right to undertake any action that limits or denies the similarly protected rights of other citizens. The majority cannot vote in a referendum to deny the votes for a group of citizens. An individual cannot exercise their right of free speech through slanderous or defamatory statements about another citizen without the risk of a civil action. When the laws in the US prohibited woman or blacks from voting, overturning those laws did not create any harm on the individuals who believed such laws were just. What we are talking about is the ability of all citizens to speak freely and express their own religious beliefs so long as their speech or religious expression does not infringe on the EQUAL rights of free speech or religious expression of others. Or their right to enter public institutions, commercial enterprises and government meetings that are open to the public. When you say you are open to the public you agree to respect the constitutional and civil rights of all citizens as equal to your own.
"If someone sets up a privately owned business, they SHOULD be free to choose to discriminate as they please, be it against women, men, christians, atheists, gays, and so on." This statement couldn't be any farther afoul of the constitution and the law. So you saying a business should be allowed to hang a sign that says blacks not welcome, christians not welcome, women not welcome.... etc. I'll chuckle at the lame attempt to get people riled up, because no one with a grasp on reality and the fundamental tenants of our country, constitution and laws would make such a silly statement.
"You can preach your religion all you want; but no you cannot discriminate in your business."
This is often claimed, but no compelling reason is given, outside of the absurd notion that the business owner becomes the servant of the "public" by his/her decision to earn a living. A person labors and spends their money to establish a business and somehow the "public" now has authority over this individual's property? Nonsense.
"This has been established since the civil rights movement won."
What is legal is not equivalent to what is moral. Legal is merely what the powers that be deem it to be during a given time.
We're not talking about what's referred to as "Public Accommodation" (e.g., restaurants, retail, etc.). We are talking about contracting for the performance of future services.
Under centuries of contract law precedent, all parties involved in a contract are considered equally under the law. No one can be forced into signing a contract, otherwise the contract is not considered a legally binding contract.
If a someone shopping for a wedding cake, photographer, etc., can refuse to consider hiring a provider (for ANY reason -- I may not want to hire Photographer X because I dislike his politics or even his hair color), then why can't Photographer X refuse to take a job for the same reasons?
Are you now willing to say that one party (the vendor) can now be forced to sign a contract, while another (the potential client) can pick and choose which contracts to sign?
This violates the very basis of contract law that has existed, and relegates vendors to a lower legal standing than clients.
March 28, 2015 at 4:46pm
The job of the jury is to decide whether they believe the charges are true. does not matter what makes them believe it, it is their sincere belief after attending the trial ,that matters. Anything that transpires at trial can lead them to believe the charges are true or not. To say as jurors do, that they believes the charges were true but it was not proved as there was not enough evidence, is non sensensical. They are there to decide if they believe the charges are true. Their belief crucial we don not need a jury .if you believed someone stole your bike but could not show evidence no charges can be brought. if charge had been brought a sincere belief the charge is true is reason to convict .it is the reason the jury is there; to decide if they believe the charges
March 27, 2015 at 11:34pm
Could have been some fatal serious illness like a brain tumor. He was a psychopath who decided to take others with him as a nihilistic act of anger at finding out he was terminally ill or seriously impaired. He orchestrated a movie like scenario where the mundane becomes cataclysmic. He heard and calmly listened as the knock on the door increased in intensity and panic and as the panic spread to the other passengers. He like a movie director asserted his last act of power like Adam Lanza. Mental illness is a label that tells us nothing and explains nothing. He was not mentally ill but psychopathically malicious .
[-7] March 27, 2015 at 9:16pm
“Casey Anthony most likely killed her kid”?On what do you base that belief on? Whatever you base it on, that is your reason to to convict! What you said makes no sense yet unfortunately jurors make that statement all the time showing they have been bamboozled by smoke and mirrors coming from the defense and or judge. they lose the ability to reason.
February 26, 2015 at 9:51am
“Jesus, son of a whore ” is a Jewish [anti Christian] meme.
He’s right. We should have helped the Syrians topple Assad when they asked for our help . ISIS would not exist today if we had. We should go there with ground troops and topple Assad and stop isis. Then the Muslims would know we do not oppose all Muslims and we o not support brutal regimes .Allowing Assad to engage in a holocaust of Sunnis created isis as did our installing a brutal Shia government in Baghdad after we cleansed Baghdad of its Sunni populations. We would be hailed as liberators if we went to Syria ;except by isis and by the Assad regime, that is
Yes, lets jump deeper into bed as a mercenary country for other nations delusions of wealth and grandeur.
You realize that Syria was an attempt to bypass Russian petroleum supply for Europe, rather than a nation-building exercise, right?
Let's go back to when al Qeada was being armed in Libya, when Stevens was in charge of arming them, then after Qadaffi was removed from Libya and murdered.
Stevens was then made Ambassador of Libya and was shipping weapons from Libya, through Turkey, to Syria, for al Qadea. Obama's Arab Spring has only brought Islamic terrorists to power, that hate America.
Assad is certainly a better choice to rule Syria, than what would replace him. At least he has protected the Coptic Christians that have been there for centuries, as well as any other peace loving people.
I started writing about the Arab Spring, when they were demanding Murbarik be ousted, using the classical "pincher strategy."
[-4] February 12, 2015 at 1:27pm
Had we helped the Syrians when they asked us to after Assad cracked down on them, isis would not exist today. had we not installed a shia government in baghdad which persecutes the sunnis ,isis would not exist today.Our malice at sunnis [muslims killing muslms let allah sort it out,fox gulls said about syria] has backfired
February 12, 2015 at 1:10pm
The US can’t control the ME. It’s called self determination.
Good; we can’t control the ME; the world AND its people are not our pawns in our game! They’re erasing the western imposed borders .Welcome to the 21st century; the peoples century all peoples. It ain’t so easy to control the world anymore america!
[-2] February 12, 2015 at 12:59pm
These whining vets are always demanding apologies This is America, we’re all free to express ourselves and no one has to cow tow to these whiny demanding vets who think they are a special class of americans! This is part of the militarization of America where the warrior class is privileged and we must all cow tow to their whining thin skinned and arrogant sensibilities! [p.s. I cannot post on the blaze easily, i’ve been hacked apparently for expressing my views on this right wing jingoist propaganda site!
I can't believe how vets demand to be treated with respect by people who make solid money working for the VA. Don't they know they are there to serve the VA? Unbelievable arrogance.
Seriously though, if someone wants to be dismissive of vets, that's their business but then they probably shouldn't be working for the VA. They definitely shouldn't display that attitude when being questioned about their competence of working for the VA.
Whining Vets? Did you actually spend five minutes and read the article? Or was it written at a level too high for you to grasp?
They were not whining..the Secretary of the VA is a *******, and presumed that his CEO experience was far better than any of human’s and proceeded to act like a two year old when asked some tough questions about his management of the VA. His obnoxious and ridiculous answers prompted the VS group to ask him to try to behave like an adult. Doubtful, but they tried.
So stay off it.
February 12, 2015 at 12:47pm
The right believes crimes by a muslim is terrorism and so the left correctly qualifies that this is not necessarily so. But yes the left will demonize white crime against non white’s as racist but not the other way around. But this is not about that ;it is about a hate crime against muslims and you know it. Stop lying .That this person is an atheist is not surprising. atheists can be quite intolerant and Islamophobic. 9-11 brought em out of the closet and they have become quite militant, many of em. [after they go after the muslims ,they'll come after us Christians, gulls. The barbaric [many ,not all] muslims are the canary in the coal mines actually vis a vis atheists militancy on the march!
 February 12, 2015 at 11:08am
Had the 3 victims been Jewish and the perpetrator Muslims, parking space or not, fox would be going nuts and this would be a terrorist act and a hate crime How dishonest can you be gulls! This was a hate crime as vicious as it gets! Who kills 3 people over a parking space altercation, which this was NOT; it was not a spontaneous one on one argument! Stop lying! if you support murdering Muslims, then say so gulls!
Only FOX though,,,,no one else. But I agree, this was some sort of hate crime against these specific persons, but the hate that has traditionally been defined by the Left is one where the person is a Right wing nut job, christian. This case the guy happens to be White and the Left loves this fact so they can atleast attack White people by default for one mans actions. But when Muslims murder outright, its always reported firstly that they do not represent the Muslim faith.....hate crime is never mentioned, so who is distorting now Roseellen?
Had the three victims been White you would not be reading about it at all. Murders of 3+ Whites happens at least every other day and nobody notices.
The killer can stab a White 200 times while screaming how he hates Whitey and “hate crime” statute is not applied. Why all the hype? Run over to New Nation News and you see the pictures of the groups of Whites slaughtered, routinely, quietly, regularly. Just another day. Ho hum.
Chalk me up in the affirmative column
And this was not his first contact with the victims I read.
Why are some describing him as a liberal?
Because he claims to be a atheist?
January 11, 2015 at 1:25pm
The Russians won world war 2[we entered late] and we were so grateful to them we gave them half or Europe to subjugate.[all this ME unraveling is fallout of that cold war].