Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see the pizza and the bakery places losing everything now. It won't be limited to protesting. Funny how liberals think conservatives are the intolerant ones and can't see their own intolerance. Political correctness running wild.

It would be their own fault. Not too smart for a small business owner turn away money.

But your premise goes against human nature. You want Gay and Gay-friendly people to spend their hard earned money and support a business that is philosophically opposed to them and has publicly said so. They will lose everything because a large segment of their customer base may want to go to the more inclusive pizza parlor down the street - and that is THEIR right.

Yes, if LOCALS choose not to patronize the, that is their right. When the full weight of activism brings hateful shit down on them due to the media machine, that's called intolerance.

What "hateful shit" is the "media machine" bringing down? You mean their poor Yelp rating? Grow a thicker skin, please. What, exactly, will they LOSE besides local business? What do they care if a bunch of "East Coast libtards" talk shit about them on HuffPo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see the pizza and the bakery places losing everything now. It won't be limited to protesting. Funny how liberals think conservatives are the intolerant ones and can't see their own intolerance. Political correctness running wild.

It would be their own fault. Not too smart for a small business owner turn away money.

But your premise goes against human nature. You want Gay and Gay-friendly people to spend their hard earned money and support a business that is philosophically opposed to them and has publicly said so. They will lose everything because a large segment of their customer base may want to go to the more inclusive pizza parlor down the street - and that is THEIR right.

Yes, if LOCALS choose not to patronize the, that is their right. When the full weight of activism brings hateful shit down on them due to the media machine, that's called intolerance.

You mean instead of carpetbaggers from the North interferin' with the peace and tranquility of Mississippi?

[Anonymous]

This is quite appropriate for this thread:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/01/bumper-sticker-of-the-day-1024/#comments

[Anonymous]

I'm confused. Is the eating of a fondant topped cake an integral part of a Biblical marriage? I thought it was part of the party that you had after the wedding?

I didn't realize the eating of the cake was a part of the religious ceremony. Cool! Does that rule apply to the Chicken Dance too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is quite appropriate for this thread:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/01/bumper-sticker-of-the-day-1024/#comments

you are free to have your views, but not to discriminate.

[Anonymous]

If you are liberal and claim to be a Christian you mean to tell me you rank your liberal values higher than your Christian values? Liberalism trumps Christianity. Got it. You can't pick and choose what to believe in the Bible, it doesn't work that way.

Don't go to church anymore, for you are a fraud. How many liberals actually even believe in Christianity anyway. I've heard liberals called godless but I've never checked the stats on that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If you are liberal and claim to be a Christian you mean to tell me you rank your liberal values higher than your Christian values? Liberalism trumps Christianity. Got it. You can't pick and choose what to believe in the Bible, it doesn't work that way.

It is hard to believe that there are really people who believe stuff like this. Are you even aware of what is in the Bible? If so, would you be willing to sell your daughter to me as a slave? The Bible allows that, so I am sure you wouldn't object.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are liberal and claim to be a Christian you mean to tell me you rank your liberal values higher than your Christian values? Liberalism trumps Christianity. Got it. You can't pick and choose what to believe in the Bible, it doesn't work that way.

Don't go to church anymore, for you are a fraud. How many liberals actually even believe in Christianity anyway. I've heard liberals called godless but I've never checked the stats on that.

I am a Christian. You can't take that away. My Christian values are to love one another. Jesus did not reject anyone - except those who did bad things in the guise of their religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure they do. Otherwise they would they would not be essentially crucifying Christians for exercising their religious rights. Again, the Oregon bakery did not turn down the business of the gay couple. They shopped there previously and were never turned down. They were only turned down when asked for a specialty item for their wedding. The gay bakery that turned down the Christian baker wanting an anti-gay cake did the exact same thing. You just feel that their message was more hateful. You know DAMN well that if a gay baker in Oregon turned down a cake for a patron that said "Gay Marriage Is Wrong", the lefties like you would be all over it as a hateful message. And the courts would likely agree with you. That's the double-standard today. The court in Oregon, in my opinion was wrong in their decision.

The big difference is that the Oregon bakery was asked to provide the exact same cake -- a wedding cake -- but it refused only when the couple getting married was a lesbian couple. So it's clear there was a double standard at work. In your "gay baker" hypothetical, the situation is lots murkier because you're talking about an individualized message on the cake ("gay marriage is wrong"). I address this situation on the other thread at page 6 at 6:29 (http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/75/460001.page). If your "gay baker" hypothetical was a true apples-to-apples parallel -- where the gay baker simply refused to serve any cake at all to the Christian buyer -- I'd totally agree with you that the gay baker would be violating the anti-discrimination law.

You are simply picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like The cakes in both cases are the exact same cakes. So either both bakeries follow the rules or neither. Both bakeries were willing to serve both patrons. It was the special orders that were the problem. Directly parallel.

Really? Show me where the Oregon bakery was asked to make a cake with the message "support gap marriage" written on it. I've read several articles now, and haven't seen anything suggesting that.

Isn't baking a cake specifically for a gay wedding, supporting gay marriage? In the eyes of the Christian it is. See, that's the thing about religious freedom. You don't get to tell Christians how to believe. If you want that, then they get to tell you how to believe too. And that means you have to make a cake that says that you don't support gay marriage for a Christian event. That's called true equality.

Is baking a cake for a Muslim wedding supporting Islam? In the eyes of this Christian, it is not.

And btw I sincerely doubt they made the baker write "I am the baker and I support gay marriage" on the cake. Have you ever even seen writing on a wedding cake? It's all fondant and flowers. Hardly a political statement.

I think you have that backwards. A baker who follows Sharia law would probably not bake a cake for a Christian wedding. But that would be OK with you. Just not the other way around. I don't believe there is anything the bible that forbids a marriage between a man and a woman, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever. That said, I would not go to a Christian baker as a Jew and ask him to bake a religious cake, then sue if he refused. I'd go to a Jewish baker, because, well, I'm interested in a cake, not in screwing people over to get activism points.

The point is by baking the wedding cake, by photographing the wedding, by doing the wedding flowers, you are a participant in the wedding. You should have a choice to say 'no thank you', especially since the 1st amendment grants that right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is quite appropriate for this thread:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/01/bumper-sticker-of-the-day-1024/#comments

you are free to have your views, but not to discriminate.

So I guess calling black people racial slurs is fine, because, well, it's simply a view, right? Just like calling white people 'crackers'?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure they do. Otherwise they would they would not be essentially crucifying Christians for exercising their religious rights. Again, the Oregon bakery did not turn down the business of the gay couple. They shopped there previously and were never turned down. They were only turned down when asked for a specialty item for their wedding. The gay bakery that turned down the Christian baker wanting an anti-gay cake did the exact same thing. You just feel that their message was more hateful. You know DAMN well that if a gay baker in Oregon turned down a cake for a patron that said "Gay Marriage Is Wrong", the lefties like you would be all over it as a hateful message. And the courts would likely agree with you. That's the double-standard today. The court in Oregon, in my opinion was wrong in their decision.

The big difference is that the Oregon bakery was asked to provide the exact same cake -- a wedding cake -- but it refused only when the couple getting married was a lesbian couple. So it's clear there was a double standard at work. In your "gay baker" hypothetical, the situation is lots murkier because you're talking about an individualized message on the cake ("gay marriage is wrong"). I address this situation on the other thread at page 6 at 6:29 (http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/75/460001.page). If your "gay baker" hypothetical was a true apples-to-apples parallel -- where the gay baker simply refused to serve any cake at all to the Christian buyer -- I'd totally agree with you that the gay baker would be violating the anti-discrimination law.

You are simply picking and choosing what you like and what you don't like The cakes in both cases are the exact same cakes. So either both bakeries follow the rules or neither. Both bakeries were willing to serve both patrons. It was the special orders that were the problem. Directly parallel.

Really? Show me where the Oregon bakery was asked to make a cake with the message "support gap marriage" written on it. I've read several articles now, and haven't seen anything suggesting that.

Because the gay bakery/Christian cake issue was a set-up , i.e. a man posing as a Christian conservative went to gay bakers and asked them to make such a cake, And video'd the responses. Trust me, those responses got absolutely vicious. And they refused to make the cake. Funny how it works when the tables are turned.

So you are making a distinction because you don't like the idea of a cake saying something like "I don't support gay marriage", saying the gay baker should not be made to create that, because to you, it's some form of discriminatory hate speech. That's a complete red herring. I mean, it's just a cake. In truth, they are both just cakes.. So if the Christian baker must make the gay couple's cake, the gay baker also bakes cakes for a living, so he should made to bake it and write what the Christians want on it, especially if it's a Christian activists' wedding, and that's what they want on their cake. Or maybe even the words "Marriage is between a man and a woman". The gay baker should be forced to make it because he bakes cakes for a living, just like the Christian baker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is quite appropriate for this thread:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/01/bumper-sticker-of-the-day-1024/#comments

you are free to have your views, but not to discriminate.

So I guess calling black people racial slurs is fine, because, well, it's simply a view, right? Just like calling white people 'crackers'?

Free speech is free speech. If you go to court over your right to speak it, my ACLU dollars will support your defense.

But if you utter them in my home, I will show you the door. Say it in my company and I will give you the boot for creating a hostile work environment. You are free to be who you want. But you must take the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is quite appropriate for this thread:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/01/bumper-sticker-of-the-day-1024/#comments

you are free to have your views, but not to discriminate.

So I guess calling black people racial slurs is fine, because, well, it's simply a view, right? Just like calling white people 'crackers'?

Free speech is free speech. If you go to court over your right to speak it, my ACLU dollars will support your defense.

But if you utter them in my home, I will show you the door. Say it in my company and I will give you the boot for creating a hostile work environment. You are free to be who you want. But you must take the consequences.

And I can easily turn around and sue you, if you are my boss. Works both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is quite appropriate for this thread:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/04/01/bumper-sticker-of-the-day-1024/#comments

you are free to have your views, but not to discriminate.

So I guess calling black people racial slurs is fine, because, well, it's simply a view, right? Just like calling white people 'crackers'?

Free speech is free speech. If you go to court over your right to speak it, my ACLU dollars will support your defense.

But if you utter them in my home, I will show you the door. Say it in my company and I will give you the boot for creating a hostile work environment. You are free to be who you want. But you must take the consequences.

Free speech is not free speech. Even ACLU won't be able to do anything for someone who is engaged in libel, slander, making fraudulent claims about goods and services, representing yourself as a police officer or a licensed professional when you are not, making threats to kill or harm someone, et cetera et cetera et cetera. There are many instances of speech which is not legally free.

[Anonymous]

I'm in the midst of it all Indiana...moving to Virginia this summer.