Indiana

[WOTR]

Again on a side note... I was upset when my province allowed gay marriage.  It was a conservative government who brought it in and I was one of the people who was upset and felt betrayed.  I just no longer give a damn.  I'm glad it is there and wonder why I cared.  We have screwed up marriage so much that there is nothing that two men can do to make it worse.  If asked today, I would vote to allow it as somebody else's lifestyle really has 0 impact on me.  I have worked with "them" and even been friends with one or two... and yet my world did not end.

Somehow, over the last decade and a half marriage has not fallen apart as I was promised and society continues.  The only difference is if I see two men together I now know that they have said vows and wear rings the same as heterosexual couples... And much like heterosexual couples wearing rings, I pity them.

[WOTR]

Memories Pizza never said they would not serve queers - they said they would not cater a queer wedding because of their religious beliefs; a far cry from the institutional racism that black folks endured.

Back to the argument of genetics.  Supposing that it is strictly a choice, the question of forcing the Jew deli owner to cater to Muslims for Ramadan still stands (providing you believe that religion is a choice and that people are not preordained.)   

I heard an advertisement today on a Christian station that ""Jim" believes that no real estate deals get done without Jesus and follows the teachings of the bible when conducting his real estate transactions.  If jim only wants Christian clients- who cares?  if Jim refuses to sell a gay couple their first house who cares?  If Jim believes that Muslims are of the devil and will not return their call what does it matter?

Let Jim put out a sign stating "no shoes, no shirt, no christian beliefs, no service" in his window and he is good to go.

[136 or 142]

Let us simplify all this for the rationally challenged.

Memories Pizza never said they would not serve queers - they said they would not cater a queer wedding because of their religious beliefs; a far cry from the institutional racism that black folks endured.

I'm not a Christian, but I believe that Christian Rights are just as valid as other people's rights.

I do not believe in a God that has personal relationships with people, but anyone that believes that all of the matter and physics in the known universe, just popped into existence one day, from absolutely nothing, in the middle of an absolute void that did not previously exist, and that ultimately the fantastical complexity of life evolved from this "creation of the Universe from NOTHING", just because it wanted to, believes in magic.

Abracadabra and poof, there is was! Sounds like a Bible story to me...

I don't disagree with any of this, but that isn't the example you gave above.

[WOTR]

Memories Pizza never said they would not serve queers - they said they would not cater a queer wedding because of their religious beliefs; a far cry from the institutional racism that black folks endured.

Out of curiosity- would you care if they outright refused service to queers?  I get that it is fine because it was only catering a wedding... But would it make a difference if it were a full time policy and not just a "one off?"

[Quick Karl]

Out of curiosity- would you care if they outright refused service to queers?  I get that it is fine because it was only catering a wedding... But would it make a difference if it were a full time policy and not just a "one off?"

No, I would not care.

Nevertheless, NONE of these manufactured issued are the result of a refusal to provide service to queers -- it is because Christians do not want to participate in queer weddings.

I could care less who is queer, but when queers start forcing their lifestyle into the faces of people that the queers KNOW do not agree with them, then I care.

[PB the Deplorable]

1.No, nearly every clause in the Constitution is vague.

2.The only Judge who substitutes his agenda that I'm aware of is Scalia.

Ok, it's 1787.  The British have been defeated and the former colonies have been operating under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation for several years.  The leaders of the newly independent Confederation have chosen to create a land of free men and individual liberty in a world of countries held by monarchs.

They are well versed in the concepts and philosophies that have come out of The Enlightenment, and have further honed them and developed additional ideas.

There were issues to resolve between various States, many regarding of trade.  Representatives from the States - some of the most respected, admired, and influential people in the country - gather in Philadelphia for a Convention of the States - which were not infrequent gatherings.

Instead of merely addressing the issues they were sent to resolve, after many sweltering summer months they emerge with a new Constitution - one intended to replace the Articles completely.  One which incorporates the philosophical ideas and concepts they've been studying and discussing for years.  This is the best document they can produce, every word discussed, debated, changed, and changed again.  Now they need to have the States ratify it.


And here comes some person 228 years later to inform us 'nearly every clause' is 'vague'?

Really?  Is that what those men would do in that situation?  "Ya know, we'd better make this thing vague in case some scumbag comes along, manages to get himself elected President, and doesn't want to abide by it".  "We'd better make it easy for him to claim it means whatever he wants it to mean".  "And judges, they're very important, they need to be able to substitute their ideas and be able to interpret it to mean anything they want it to mean too."

No, that's not what they did.


I've told you before, and I'll tell you again.  Anyone insisting our Constitution is 'vague' is doing so because they don't like what is in it, it's in the way of their agenda, and they need people to believe it means whatever they say it means. 

And I think we all know who despises our country, our Constitution, our culture and our history.  The same people who smear, lie about, and insult those things and us at every turn, and have finally managed to seize one of the major party's and elect one of their own. 

The America-hating Left.

[PB the Deplorable]

... 2.The only Judge who substitutes his agenda that I'm aware of is Scalia.

On the one hand, I'm thinking what the hell are you talking about?  Scalia is one of the 3 who nearly always get it right. 

On the other hand, not surprised.  Insisting the Constitution is 'vague' - among other silly ideas you've posted - what else would I expect. 

Your really ought to read and listen to more than just the America haters, you might gain some perspective, and maybe even some clues


But humor me, what is it you think Scalia has done to 'substitute his agenda' in place of the meaning of the Constitution?  Secondly, if the Constitution is as 'vague' as you claim, how can we even know Scalia is the one going against it?

[136 or 142]

And here comes some person 228 years later to inform us 'nearly every clause' is 'vague'?

I've told you before, and I'll tell you again.  Anyone insisting our Constitution is 'vague' is doing so because they don't like what is in it, it's in the way of their agenda, and they need people to believe it means whatever they say it means. 

Yes, you've finally stumbled upon the truth, I'm a plant sent here by the Obama Administration. :
Listening to all the conspiracy theories on Coast to Coast has finally paid off for you, congratulations.

[136 or 142]

1.Your really ought to read and listen to more than just the America haters, you might gain some perspective, and maybe even some clues

I've never once watched or listened to  Fake News, Bill O'Lielly, Rush Dimbaugh, Ben Gleck or Sean Hannity.

That's actually not entirely true, I watched Fake News once while in Portland when they were discussing Gary Condit back in 2001 and I listened to Dimbaugh once about 30 years ago for 15 minutes before practically anybody had heard of him and turned away, not because of his abhorent views or personality, but simply because he bored me.

Coming from a person who clearly only listens to right wing morons (again, I apologize for repeating myself) and falls for their constant lies, you are hardly in any position to tell anybody else that they should read and listen to alternative sources.

For what it's worth, I don't go to DailyKos or other left wing sites, but mainly get my international news from The CBC (radio and tv),BBC radio, Deutsche Vela radio, the impartial news aggregator politicalwire.com, and Dave Leip's political forum.

Can you claim to follow any impartial site?

2.But humor me, what is it you think Scalia has done to 'substitute his agenda' in place of the meaning of the Constitution?  Secondly, if the Constitution is as 'vague' as you claim, how can we even know Scalia is the one going against it?

Most liberal court watchers have shown and some conservative ones have conceded that there are many instances of Scalia's writings on his opinions that seem to completely contradict other writings.

I watched a couple episodes of the 1980s PBS program "Ethics in America" when it re aired in the early part of the century and Scalia was a regular panelist on the show.  Although I disagreed with much of what Scalia had to say, there was no question at the time that he had a brilliant legal mind, and practically every court watcher at the time agreed with that.  No however, as I said, his opinions are so contradictory that many legal scholars, including some conservative ones believe he is clearly making decisions on what he personally supports rather than, not only not on what the original framers likely intended, but not even on what his past judgements were.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/01/27/another-scalia-contradiction/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117607/supreme-court-justice-scalia-makes-huge-error-journalist-never-would

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/justice-scalia-contradicts-himself-on-immigration-to-get-the-result-he-wants?news=844680

http://sfist.com/2013/06/26/scalia_contradicts_himself_on_respe.php

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/06/8-of-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-s-wildest-comments.html

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/scalia-obamacare-precedent-reversal

Mother Jones is clearly liberal, TNR is a DLC operation which has traditionally been harder on most liberals than on most conservatives though they may be shifting back to the left to increase their readership, Dailybeast is the old Newsweek and is regarded as liberal leaning but has high reporting standards.  Don't know about the others. Couldn't find any conservative links, but that's not too surprising.

Of course, the standard is not whether a news source is liberal or conservative but whether they tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  For the most part, imo, Dailybeast and TNR meet that standard.

[PB the Deplorable]

... his opinions are so contradictory that many legal scholars, including some conservative ones believe he is clearly making decisions on what he personally supports rather than, not only not on what the original framers likely intended, but not even on what his past judgements were.

Would that not be a sign that he takes each case before him and decides on the merits and the law?  If he were always 'consistent' regardless of the case and applicable law, wouldn't that be a sign of an agenda?

I'm confused, so perhaps a few examples? 

[136 or 142]

Would that not be a sign that he takes each case before him and decides on the merits and the law?  If he were always 'consistent' regardless of the case and applicable law, wouldn't that be a sign of an agenda?

I'm confused, so perhaps a few examples?

I just posted a few examples above.

No, it's one thing to look at each case on its merits, it's quite another to state one thing is what the framer's intended in one case and then state the exact opposite is what the framer's intended in another.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I've never once watched or listened to  Fake News, Bill O'Lielly, Rush Dimbaugh, Ben Gleck or Sean Hannity...

I've never watched Fox News either.  Because I have not watched ANY TV news since before Fox came on the air.  Never heard O'Reilly or Beck either.  Don't particularly like Sean Hannity.  Rush is a national treasure, although I've probably listened to maybe an hour total over the past 10 years - who on earth is listening to the radio 9am-12 noon?

Having said that, how do you know they are all a bunch of liars?  Because all the Left-winger say they are? 

If you only follow Big Media, and the Leftist stuff, then you have no idea how much you are missing - things simply not reported because they don't fit the agenda, half-truths on other issues and events when key items are intentionally left out, other events and issues where almost the opposite of what really happened is reported, and so on. 

At least be aware someone is there to point it out, who knows, maybe it's even important sometimes. 

[PB the Deplorable]

I just posted a few examples above.

No, it's one thing to look at each case on its merits, it's quite another to state one thing is what the framer's intended in one case and then state the exact opposite is what the framer's intended in another.

Thanks, I'll check your links

[136 or 142]

I've never watched Fox News either.  Because I have not watched ANY TV news since before Fox came on the air.  Never heard O'Reilly or Beck either.  Don't particularly like Sean Hannity.  Rush is a national treasure, although I've probably listened to maybe an hour total over the past 10 years - who on earth is listening to the radio 9am-12 noon?

Having said that, how do you know they are all a bunch of liars?  Because all the Left-winger say they are? 

If you only follow Big Media, and the Leftist stuff, then you have no idea how much you are missing - things simply not reported because they don't fit the agenda, half-truths on other issues and events when key items are intentionally left out, other events and issues where almost the opposite of what really happened is reported, and so on. 

At least be aware someone is there to point it out, who knows, maybe it's even important sometimes.

You were mentioning America-haters and I told you that I've (almost) never listened to any of those America haters.

I know they're liars simply because some of the websites I told you above that I get my news from sometimes report what they've claimed, and I know from impartial news sources that what they claim isn't true.

[136 or 142]

Here are more on Scalia from more 'impartial' sources:
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=mulr

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/03/scalia-v-scalia

http://www.science20.com/caution_pondering_scientist_ahead/gene_patents_justice_scalia_dissents_high_school_science-114817

[PB the Deplorable]

You were mentioning America-haters and I told you that I've (almost) never listened to any of those America haters.

I know they're liars simply because some of the websites I told you above that I get my news from sometimes report what they've claimed, and I know from impartial news sources that what they claim isn't true.

There are no impartial news sources, everyone has biases whether they recognize them and admit to them or not. 

I read or heard a quote of Edmund Burke the other day, it was something along the lines of ~if you want to understand a political viewpoint don't ask those who oppose it, ask those who support it~  But a person should really understand both/all sides of whatever issues they are interested in


By the way, how often have these websites pointed out the lies from 'their' side?  If they don't, isn't that a lie of omission?

[VtaGeezer]

I've never watched Fox News either.  Because I have not watched ANY TV news since before Fox came on the air.  Never heard O'Reilly or Beck either.  Don't particularly like Sean Hannity.  Rush is a national treasure, although I've probably listened to maybe an hour total over the past 10 years - who on earth is listening to the radio 9am-12 noon?

Having said that, how do you know they are all a bunch of liars?  Because all the Left-winger say they are? 

What a load of baloney; this could only be true if you were deaf and blind. The above mentioned ranters comprise your pantheon of minor gods; minor only because they're still to the left of you...the lint on the tip of rightmost fringe.

[VtaGeezer]

The arguments from the right about this are ridiculous.  Selling a fucking cake or pizzas is no more participation in or acceptance of a gay wedding than selling the gas to drive to the ceremony, or the tires that might carry them to the "sinful" event.  Sexual orientation is accepted by behaviorists and by rational people as a fact of birth, not a choice or ideology. So, QK, until it's shown that some people are born Nazi, that particularly shabby argument using antisemitism as a shield is just so much sophistry.

[Marc.Knight]

Marginalization of anyone is hurtful, and actually more destructive to the one doing the alienating because they have lost an opportunity to love.  I find it ironic for people, in the name of Jesus Christ, to effectively or hypothetically "turn away" human beings because of 'sin' as judged by the eyes of the beholder.  The life of Christ holds meaning for faithful and non-theists alike inasmuch as he lived a life of love where all people, especially those marginalized by society, were welcomed into his heart.  In so doing he provided an example of how to identify with God and to be more of a member of the human family.  The teaching of Christ 'the man' was about community, inclusion, removing walls, and not about hatred and discrimination. 

[albrecht]

So you agree that the owners of the pizza parlour got what they had coming when they were driven out of business then? Cause they are bigots, and the masses spoke, and forced them to shutter their close minded, hateful little business?  Glad to hear you stand with the gays, progressives, blacks, Jews and Muslems (and all them Hispanics pouring across the border) on this one, brother.  Power to the People! Hope and Change!

Actually, they have come out ahead in terms of $ raised. But to your point. A business (a church, a golf course, an apartment complex, etc) should be able to refuse service to anyone, for whatever reason. (If they aren't receiving any public money, grants, etc.) And people who disagree with whatever discrimination level the owner(s) use can boycott it by not going there. And they go out of business, become more inclusive, etc. And the <2% of the population, according to Obama's government CDC survey, can also start their own bakery or pizza place and compete in the market. If the populace agrees with them they will make money.

Or, if they have no jobs and excess free-time, picket outside the business on public land. But not firebomb, attack patrons, advocate immediate and specific death threats, etc. Just as those against abortion can protest a clinic but I don't think should bomb it or attack people using it or working there. Calling for violence because someone can't buy a cake or pizza is absurd.

[FightTheFuture]

The arguments from the right about this are ridiculous.  Selling a fucking cake or pizzas is no more participation in or acceptance of a gay wedding than selling the gas to drive to the ceremony, or the tires that might carry them to the "sinful" event.  Sexual orientation is accepted by behaviorists and by rational people as a fact of birth, not a choice or ideology. So, QK, until it's shown that some people are born Nazi, that particularly shabby argument using antisemitism as a shield is just so much sophistry.

I wonder how a gay sign maker would feel about being coerced into producing the "God Hates Fags" signs for the Westboro Baptist idiots?

[VtaGeezer]

I wonder how a gay sign maker would feel about being coerced into producing the "God Hates Fags" signs for the Westboro Baptist idiots?

Even if he could put rainbows and unicorns on it? 

We simply need to be mindful of injuring or denying access others who've no choice in their status so we can feel righteous in our chosen ideology. Westboro Church is a choice, and no one is compelled to do business with them.  Supporting equal access for gays isn't supporting the agenda of activists any more than supporting civil rights was support for extremist groups in the 60s.

[FightTheFuture]

Even if he could put rainbows and unicorns on it?

I also wonder how the black baker would react when he is coerced to bake the "Happy 150th Anniversary" cake for the KKK?

[onan]

Marc.Knight made the most prescient point in this thread. So of course, it is ignored.

To equivocate the KKK and nazis to people that expect fair treatment is shameful, especially from Christians.

In Indiana one can be fired for being gay. Indiana is a shit hole.

[FightTheFuture]

Marc.Knight made the most prescient point in this thread. So of course, it is ignored.

To equivocate the KKK and nazis to people that expect fair treatment is shameful, especially from Christians.

In Indiana one can be fired for being gay. Indiana is a shit hole.

If I had to guess, I would say Jesus wouldn`t be too comfy with catering a gay wedding. That`s just my opinion. However, I have no doubt he loves every gay person as he loves ALL people.

Private business owners should not feel compelled to serve anyone -- regardless of how screwed-up we may think the reason is -- that they don`t feel comfortable serving. Period.

[VtaGeezer]

I also wonder how the black baker would react when he is coerced to bake the "Happy 150th Anniversary" cake for the KKK?

Makes a cute argument for the radio ranters but it won't happen...unless some Grand Klaxon from Bloomington gets the idea from listening to Savage or Limbagh, where this silly bunk is spouted as if its a reality.  I could ask why it is that no one in Indiana or Arkansas has felt strongly enough about doing business with the Klan or neo-nazis or whatever racist group to raise a legal fuss on either side.  BTW, the Klan was once huge in Indiana.

[FightTheFuture]

Makes a cute argument for the radio ranters but it won't happen...unless some Grand Klaxon from Bloomington gets the idea from listening to Savage or Limbagh, where this silly bunk is spouted as if its a reality.  I could ask why it is that no one in Indiana or Arkansas has felt strongly enough about doing business with the Klan or neo-nazis or whatever racist group to raise a legal fuss on either side.  BTW, the Klan was once huge in Indiana.

I`ll agree that it probably won`t happen, merely because one would assume the folks down at the KKK clubhouse are far more occupied promulgating the finer points of inbreeding and hate mongering than trying to tally up some street cred with the liberal moonbat media.

[FightTheFuture]

I applaud Courtney, and other members of the gay community, for understanding the real issue here.

http://www.usaheadlinenews.com/members-of-gay-community-apologize-to-memories-pizza-donations-nearing-300k/

[Marc.Knight]

If I had to guess, I would say Jesus wouldn`t be too comfy with catering a gay wedding. That`s just my opinion. However, I have no doubt he loves every gay person as he loves ALL people.

Private business owners should not feel compelled to serve anyone -- regardless of how screwed-up we may think the reason is -- that they don`t feel comfortable serving. Period.

It is difficult to transplant Jesus as a "man" from his time and culture to now, but we can interpolate his broad philosophy and theology within our own cultural parameters today.  I believe that Jesus' philosophy would not only allow him to cater a "gay" wedding, but in all humility he would probably delicately wash their feet and celebrate their testimony of love before God. 

One should be reminded that "casting the first stone" means accounting for your own "sins" before judging others.  Jesus taught humility and a lifelong "praxis" of love, not just in the realm of idealism.  Some religious institutions of today have lost their way and have become insular to the extent that they no longer know the prophet of whom they preach.

[Quick Karl]

It is difficult to transplant Jesus as a "man" from his time and culture to now, but we can interpolate his broad philosophy and theology within our own cultural parameters today.  I believe that Jesus' philosophy would not only allow him to cater a "gay" wedding, but in all humility he would probably delicately wash their feet and celebrate their testimony of love before God. 

One should be reminded that "casting the first stone" means accounting for your own "sins" before judging others.  Jesus taught humility and a lifelong "praxis" of love, not just in the realm of idealism.  Some religious institutions of today have lost their way and have become insular to the extent that they no longer know the prophet of whom they preach.

Unlike you, I cannot speak for Jesus. However, I would guess that Jesus would ask the queers not to force someone that wishes not to participate in their queer weeding, to go somewhere else for their cake, instead of seeking out a victim upon whom to cast stones and to harass out of business because of their spiritual beliefs - which is the real issue here.

"Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

PS. I am not a "Christian," in case you missed that.