I actually don't hate anybody. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. Why don't the people who use religion to defend their homophobia stand as strongly against all the rest of the no-nos?
Hey withnail, I have a terrible case of homophobia and I could spread it. I don’t even need religion to defend my homophobia! I must own it. As to your question, many people, millions of people, are strongly against tattoos, pork adorning yourself with excessive gold and second wives.
Really? Are there, say, LAWS against those things?
Do evangelicals go to bat to CHANGE POLICY about those things?
Would you serve a cake to a person WEARING GOLD?
Nice try. What a total hypocrite you are.
By all means come back with a response. I'd LOVE to hear it.
What are you talking about. Your people are the braintrusts who "go to bat" to "change policies". To me, gay marriage is as ludicrous as (in your example) refusing to serve cake to someone wearing gold.
Watchingtail, if you don't know what religious exemptions are, then I can't help you.
Read up and we'll talk.
Time to shut bigots like you down...... too much hate from people like you. LET CHAOS REIGN!!! COLLAPSE THE SYSTEM!! Take it back from haters and bigots such as withnail and LS!!!!
 July 1, 2015 at 3:03pm
…the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
So yes, it does.
 June 25, 2015 at 11:33pm
Who raised that generation?
 June 25, 2015 at 11:11pm
That’s not enough. States need to ARREST federal agents attempting to enforce the laws, and put them in prison, then not let them out.
 June 16, 2015 at 11:27pm
Since the british invasion was repelled, toronto was burned to the ground, and an entire english army was exterminated at New Orleans, tell me, who won?
 May 7, 2015 at 12:15am
You disgust me. I can’t believe you think crabs would want to be there.
I pray a Christian lawyer will take on this case pro bono as the legal defense will run her bankrupt as sure as the fines imposed. Sounds like the defense has a solid case. How can the police provide evidence food was transported using other vehicles?
 April 11, 2015 at 8:53pm
YES THEY DO. It is a folder called deleted videos/pictures. Mine has it, and they stay there for a while.
April 2, 2015 at 2:13am
What is untrue?
You are a tyranny lover if you believe what you write.
 April 2, 2015 at 2:12am
Liberty means people get to discriminate and choose who to serve in their businesses. You want tyranny. So yeah, your statement is correct. People have a right to discriminate, without being sued or destroyed by the gov’t. Free market is a different story, but it is that : FREE.
 April 2, 2015 at 2:10am
Liberty means people can discriminate and choose to provide services too. Maybe it’ll hurt their business, maybe not, but they have the right. Either you want liberty, or you want tyranny.
You can’t have both.
 April 2, 2015 at 2:03am
What about the liberty of business owners to serve who they choose? Did they lose their liberty because you don’t like how they use it?
 April 2, 2015 at 2:01am
Your law violates my liberty to choose who I serve. You don’t like it, be served by someone else. That is freedom. Instead of finding someone else, you seek to use gov’t to force me to serve you. That would be involuntary servitude. A clear violation of the 13th amendment.
 April 2, 2015 at 1:56am
Excuse you JRook, I damn sure DO have the right to discriminate on providing MY service to anyone I damn well please. Your “right” at the tip of your nose to ends where my labor and service begin. You speak of liberty, what about MY liberty? You don’t like that I want to be free to serve who I choose, YOU MOVE.
Using the might of gov’t to force me to serve anyone I don’t wish to, regardless of compensation, is servitude that is INVOLUNTARY. Involuntary servitude. SLAVERY. My business, my labor, MY CHOICE. Not yours.
 February 6, 2015 at 6:19pm
In Arkansas, if he comes on their property, they can probably kill him.
 February 6, 2015 at 11:30am
That 39% is the biggest danger to liberty in the world.
Please, blow this out of proportion just a little bit more...
"Please, blow this out of proportion just a little bit more…"
How is it being
'bl;own out of proportion' ?
Violating even one of our Constitutional rights means, that eventually they can all be violated by using the same or similar excuses for the violation of the first one.
Please point to the Constitutional right. I hear a lot of talk about the Constitution, but very little actual citing of it.
1. Property rights: The owners are being asked to make a custom cake with a theme which they do not stock. They don’t provide the service of making a custom wedding cake with a same sex theme. It is a product / service they do not have in their inventory or offering.
Some of the property rights parts of the constitution: I-8-8, I-8-10, I-9-3, I-10, III-2-1, III-2-2, IV-2-1, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment.
They also inserted a number of other checks and balances, designed partly to protect minorities [Christian bakers] from unfair property confiscations [forcing them to convert inventory into a product they do not offer].
2. Freedom of religion. No one should have to become a Hedonist Humanist to own a business. Someone (especially sole proprietors) who owns a business can have religious and moral convictions which affect the products and services they offer.
3. Establishment Clause: When the government uses its guns and police power to force an owner to participate in an hedonist ceremony, then the government is sanctioning Hedonist Humanism and therefore making it the country’s official religion.
Both First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an ***establishment of religion***, or ****prohibiting the free exercise thereof***; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Some of the property rights parts of the constitution: I-8-8, I-8-10, I-9-3, I-10, III-2-1, III-2-2, IV-2-1, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment."
And which of these parts of the Constitution refer to denying service to people in your business? Perhaps the amendment about quartering soldiers?
You see, you are just cutting and pasting any reference to property rights you can find in the Constitution, but that's not actually making an argument at all. Point to the specific law in the Constitution that effectively trumps Oregon's anti-discrimination law, and then you'll actually have an argument.
Right now, your weak position relies on the idea that somehow no one realized that state-level anti-discrimination laws, some of which are in the state Constitutions themselves, contradict the federal Constitution. If you want to make a claim like that, then you will have to do a bit more than simply pointing our everywhere in the Constitution where property is mentioned.
"Please point to the Constitutional right. I hear a lot of talk about the Constitution, but very little actual citing of it."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
They can express themselves as they choose and practice their religion however they like, so the 1st Amendment doesn't seem to make a difference in this case.
"They can express themselves as they choose and practice their religion however they like"
Then the government can't force them against their religion to bake the cake for the gay couple.
I don't know exactly what part or tenets of their religion forbid them from doing it, but if it were a baker who was an Orthodox Jew, it would be violating the part of Judaism that says "Do not tolerate evil in your midst", since those who PRACTICE (not just those who 'are' without DOING anything) gay sex, are doing what G-d calls in the Torah an 'abomination' (which obviously is evil, then) to bake the cake for them would be a direct violation of that commandment, for a Torah following Jew.
", so the 1st Amendment doesn’t seem to make a difference in this case."
I don't know specifically for this case, since I do not know all the details of that religion.
But for my religion I have shown above how it would make a very big difference for a Torah following, Jew.