Indiana

[yumyumtree]

  Yeah.  I'll bet Indiana is shit scared over that.

Yes, today, a letter writer in the (Everett) Herald suggested that people in government curtail all trips, and just stay home, do their work and save money. How many of these trips are really essential, especially in these days of videoconferencing and other technologies?

[albrecht]

Yes, today, a letter writer in the (Everett) Herald suggested that people in government curtail all trips, and just stay home, do their work and save money. How many of these trips are really essential, especially in these days of videoconferencing and other technologies?

What? And skip out on a junket, some booze, and some later regretable sexual incidents with colleagues? Are you crazy? Come on the best way to fight global warming, carbon footprint, or any government bureaucratic regulatory scheme is to travel there and party! Ideally, as with global warming, you sent people to exotic locales on private jets; because only that way will fight the warming and the footprint. If the footprint isn't big the hoi polloi will ignore the problem!

[yumyumtree]

Heh-heh

[pyewacket]

I guess it depends on the spin put on any of these stories. It's OK for some to threaten people they don't agree with, but not OK for others who don't want to give up their principles on an issue. Mob rule never turns out well for either side.

Here's a story about the Indiana pizzeria that escalated out of control:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/02/time-magazine-leaves-out-important-fact-in-story-of-indiana-pizzeria-closing/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[albrecht]

I guess it depends on the spin put on any of these stories. It's OK for some to threaten people they don't agree with, but not OK for others who don't want to give up their principles on an issue. Mob rule never turns out well for either side.

Here's a story about the Indiana pizzeria that escalated out of control:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/02/time-magazine-leaves-out-important-fact-in-story-of-indiana-pizzeria-closing/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Amazing. Where does the militancy come from? It constantly amazes me that so-called "progressives" always are talking about rights, human rights, and freedoms but if you disagree with them you risk losing your business, getting death threats, or even government sanction. So much for freedom!
On the positive side donations are coming in to help out the poor family being assailed by the media and activists. Though I would imagine it is only a matter of time that the "go fund me" company and site comes under attack now.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/nearly-150000-raised-for-christian-pizzeria-after-threats-force-owners-into-hiding/

[PB the Deplorable]

Amazing. Where does the militancy come from?...

Saul Alinsky and his sick associates and followers.

[Gd5150]

Saul Alinsky and his sick associates and followers.

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." - Saul Alinski, has come to mind with the way the media targeted some totally irrelevant mom & pop and proceeded to attempt to destroy it.

It's always funny to see when the left wakes the sleeping bear. They're so used to running rampant and doing as they like, but once in a while conservatives stand up fight back. As of this moment, $475,000 has been donated to support this family in Indiana that owns the pizza place that was targeted by mainstream media terrorists. Heres the link to watch and donate if you support tolerance.  http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

Conservatives need to take the advice doled out regarding handling police questioning (always take the fifth, lawyer up, and say nothing) and handle the media the same way from now on. The mainstream media is not impartial or objective, its operates with a political motive which is helping the left and Democrats. So, when they come acting innocent and questioning tell them to shove it up their greasy slimy a$$es. If the owner had known better he could've shoved the reporter into the pizza oven head 1st. Bada beep bada boop bada bing.
[attachimg=2]

[PB the Deplorable]

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." - Saul Alinski, has come to mind with the way the media targeted some totally irrelevant mom & pop and proceeded to attempt to destroy it.

It's always funny to see when the left wakes the sleeping bear....

The next President ought to 'test the powers of his office' by declaring 'Progressivism' to be a religion, and thus banned from influencing government or promoting their ideas in the public square. 

Any member of the congregation with a job in academia, Big Media, or the bureaucracy would be carefully monitored to ensure they left their religion at home

[136 or 142]

Amazing. Where does the militancy come from? It constantly amazes me that so-called "progressives" always are talking about rights, human rights, and freedoms but if you disagree with them you risk losing your business, getting death threats, or even government sanction. So much for freedom!
On the positive side donations are coming in to help out the poor family being assailed by the media and activists. Though I would imagine it is only a matter of time that the "go fund me" company and site comes under attack now.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/04/nearly-150000-raised-for-christian-pizzeria-after-threats-force-owners-into-hiding/

The original reporter of the story has also received death threats.

[albrecht]

Sort of funny how the media and "progressives" aren't ever outraged by Muslims.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/
One the day they massacre Christians at yet another school in Obama's land of Kenya, in spirit if not of birth, they keep harping about the fake evil Christians that won't make cakes or pizzas and ignore the Muslims here who won't make cakes even! And won't even mention what the Muslim countries due to homosexuals, In addition to Christians and others, but criticize Russia for benign laws! Bizarre priorities.

[Gd5150]

The next President ought to 'test the powers of his office' by declaring 'Progressivism' to be a religion, and thus banned from influencing government or promoting their ideas in the public square.

Ah yes the separation of church and state that exists no where in the constitution, given to us by another progressive judge. The question is how to define religion. (deserves it's own topic as to not take away from the Indiana story).

http://bellgab.com/index.php/topic,7676.0.html

[Zetaspeak]

I do think people have the right to practice whatever religion they want on their private time. But MY personal opinion, I think when you are in business, you lose some of those personal right.

What I find ironic with Conservatives is that they are the first to tell other non-Christian religions that they can't force their religious standards to other citizens and that we follow the law of the land not religious law. But when dealing with Christian's it's than well "Now that's different". It's NOT IMO. WE have your own personal standards, and we have society laws. If the law says it's okay to be gay or if gay marriage is legal. As a businessperson you have to adapt to it, even if you don't like it.

I am consistent on this, it doesn't matter if you are a Muslim taxi driver who doesn't want a  Guide dog in his car. Or if you are an atheist who can't stand religion and a van of nuns come to your motel. Or Christian bakery for a gay wedding. If society laws say it's legal and okay. Then you shouldn't be able to discriminate.

Business already have to follow rules that private citizens don't. We have health inspectors, we have fire code standards, etc. These things don't happen in you private home but if you have a business you have a greater responsibility to the community as a whole.

[albrecht]

I do think people have the right to practice whatever religion they want on their private time. But MY personal opinion, I think when you are in business, you lose some of those personal right.

What I find ironic with Conservatives is that they are the first to tell other non-Christian religions that they can't force their religious standards to other citizens and that we follow the law of the land not religious law. But when dealing with Christian's it's than well "Now that's different". It's NOT IMO. WE have your own personal standards, and we have society laws. If the law says it's okay to be gay or if gay marriage is legal. As a businessperson you have to adapt to it, even if you don't like it.

I am consistent on this, it doesn't matter if you are a Muslim taxi driver who doesn't want a  Guide dog in his car. Or if you are an atheist who can't stand religion and a van of nuns come to your motel. Or Christian bakery for a gay wedding. If society laws say it's legal and okay. Then you shouldn't be able to discriminate.

Business already have to follow rules that private citizens don't. We have health inspectors, we have fire code standards, etc. These things don't happen in you private home but if you have a business you have a greater responsibility to the community as a whole.

Equating fire hazards or health inspections with a few gay activists not being able to buy a cake or a pizza? But I get your point, personally, I think businesses and landlords should have the "right to refuse service to anyone." If they discriminate too much and people don't like it they will go out of business because revenue will dry up.

But, bringing up health, maybe those establishments should use the government's own figures and claim serving the homosexuals is a health risk*? Worth a shot.

Also, in many of these places the "law" doesn't say that homosexuals can wed. Some judges made the law and did so, not the people by their legislatures or even by proper ballot referendum; hardly "democratic."

But my last point was where are the protests, media attention, and activists in Dearborn or Minneapolis when Muslim shops, cabbies, service clerks etc won't do the homosexual stuff, handle pork, and so forth? Or that we can't wear our flag in our schools because it offends immigrants? Or have to have everything, even our ballots, printed in myriad of foreign languages? Why should citizens, and the vast majority, have to always bend, change our rules or societal values and "accommodate" others?

And where are the protests and recriminations by Obama over the Muslim world's handling of homosexuals (even killing them) but so many statements about Russia's benign laws?
*http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

[Quick Karl]

Memories Pizza on gofundme.com is up to $842,387.00 as of this moment. http://www.gofundme.com/memoriespizza

I proudly contributed $100.00 to support their RIGHT to their religious beliefs.

Anyone that cannot see the blatant hypocrisy of this manufactured issue in which one group of mentally defective people endeavor to impose their will upon a religious business owner that disagrees with their lifestyle choice, has automatically disqualified themselves from a rational debate about it.

I call on all people of faith to organize and conduct "Bible-brunches" at gay owned businesses - like the Black-brunches being conducted around the country. Show up and read your Bibles out loud, preferably passages that condemn homosexuality, and disrupt the gay business as much as possible.

Lets see how much liberals will contribute to keep their gay friends in business...

Anal sex is for assholes.

[PB the Deplorable]

... WE have your own personal standards, and we have society laws. If the law says it's okay to be gay or if gay marriage is legal. As a businessperson you have to adapt to it, even if you don't like it...

Part of the problem is these court decisions are not valid.

This is the United States.  Since when do we the people not get to decide something as important as the definition of marriage?  When did the courts seize the power to decide all social issues?

I realize the ACLU's version of the Constitution has eliminated the 9th and 10th Amendments, but they are technically still fundamental law, regardless of what the Left wants.

The 9th:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

So we have additional natural rights not listed in the first 8 Amendments.  Who gets to decide what those are?  Not the courts:

The 10th:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words our ELECTED representatives in the various state legislatures.  Or additionally a referendum voted on directly by the citizens in those states where that is available.  Not he courts.  Not the federal government.  Not a governor 'testing the limits to his office'


The same goes for abortion.  And gun rights.  And marijuana.  And capital punishment.  And many other issues seized by the courts to rule on and the Federal government to decide on over the years.  We wouldn't have these deeply divisive issues at the national level if we simply followed the Constitution regarding who decides them in the first place.

That's one reason the Left likes Big Government.  It's so much easier to force thru their agenda at the national level or in Court (where they only need 5 people to agree with them), than it is to go to 50 state legislatures.  And that is the very reason these issues are to be decided at the state level - so we don't get steamrollered by a massive out of control Federal government

[albrecht]

Part of the problem is these court decisions are not valid.

This is the United States.  Since when do we the people not get to decide something as important as the definition of marriage?  When did the courts seize the power to decide all social issues?

I realize the ACLU's version of the Constitution has eliminated the 9th and 10th Amendments, but they are technically still fundamental law, regardless of what the Left wants.

The 9th:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

So we have additional natural rights not listed in the first 8 Amendments.  Who gets to decide what those are?  Not the courts:

The 10th:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words our ELECTED representatives in the various state legislatures.  Or additionally a referendum voted on directly by the citizens in those states where that is available.  Not he courts.  Not the federal government.  Not a governor 'testing the limits to his office'


The same goes for abortion.  And gun rights.  And marijuana.  And capital punishment.  And many other issues seized by the courts to rule on and the Federal government to decide on over the years.  We wouldn't have these deeply divisive issues at the national level if we simply followed the Constitution regarding who decides them in the first place.

That's one reason the Left likes Big Government.  It's so much easier to force thru their agenda at the national level or in Court (where they only need 5 people to agree with them), than it is to go to 50 state legislatures.  And that is the very reason these issues are to be decided at the state level - so we don't get steamrollered by a massive out of control Federal government

Great point. Though because the "progressives" hate actual diversity; it will be lost.

One of the interesting, and effective, things about our more limited governmental arrangement is, at least in prior times, the ability of ideas to be enacting in states (or even more locally) and be TESTED. And, when they work adopted on a wider scale or, when they didn't, they go away (even by just people moving or voting.) Our, formerly, balanced system of governments (both in terms of state-wise and federal balances) allowed innovation, testing, movement, progress, and, actually, "change that worked" because it was tested and then adopted.

This Obama ideal of "top down" mandates, by Executive fiat, regulation, control, etc is the worst sort of system to inject new ideas into the system. It is the opposite of actual "democracy", "progressivism", etc! Or sanity. Granted there are too many Republicans who have also idealized this type but none have been as bad as this guy Obama; most especially because his actions are intended to wreck the system and he harbors such deep-seeded animosity towards the country, and Western Civilization in general, and most of the people.

But, leaving this character Obama asides, it would seem a logical anathema to "diversity" or "change" to believe in a top-down, mandated system without safe-guards and where even opinion is subjected to retaliation by the government in some form to be good. But, yet, they promote this idea. It is weird. Clearly, a very "progressive", "democratic" system indeed!

[PB the Deplorable]

I do think people have the right to practice whatever religion they want on their private time. But MY personal opinion, I think when you are in business, you lose some of those personal right.

What I find ironic with Conservatives is that they are the first to tell other non-Christian religions that they can't force their religious standards to other citizens and that we follow the law of the land not religious law. But when dealing with Christian's it's than well "Now that's different". It's NOT IMO. WE have your own personal standards, and we have society laws. If the law says it's okay to be gay or if gay marriage is legal. As a businessperson you have to adapt to it, even if you don't like it.

I am consistent on this, it doesn't matter if you are a Muslim taxi driver who doesn't want a  Guide dog in his car. Or if you are an atheist who can't stand religion and a van of nuns come to your motel. Or Christian bakery for a gay wedding. If society laws say it's legal and okay. Then you shouldn't be able to discriminate.

Business already have to follow rules that private citizens don't. We have health inspectors, we have fire code standards, etc. These things don't happen in you private home but if you have a business you have a greater responsibility to the community as a whole.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-conservative-religious-protection-law-20150403-story.html#page=1

[Quick Karl]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-conservative-religious-protection-law-20150403-story.html#page=1

There isn't a liberal anywhere in the known Universe that will comprehend, much less acknowledge, the veracity of that article.

PS. Happy Easter!

[WOTR]

The Gay Mafia is continually escalating demands, and has thrown if with the Left. 

The gay mafia?  Really?  I knew there was something that I was forgetting to be terrified of...

[WOTR]

On a more serious note, I believe that businesses should be allowed to refuse to do business with any group they dislike providing they put the policy in full public view.  I will never know if a flower shop refuses to sell to gay weddings- but I want the option to boycott them for their actions.

The law should read that providing you have posted a sign "proudly refusing to do business with niggers since 1932" you can refuse them service.  If you post that you "proudly refuse the business of queers, deviants, transsexuals, cross dressers and others whose lifestyle is an abomination before the lord" then you should be free to refuse them service.  And I can make in informed decision on supporting your business.

I am all for people being allowed to do whatever they wish with their business- but I am against them doing it on a "one off" basis and secretively.  If you are going to follow your religious beliefs- do so with pride and post the sign...

My favourite gas station to fill at (naturally, they also refuse service to fucking queers...)

[albrecht]

The gay mafia?  Really?  I knew there was something that I was forgetting to be terrified of...

Hahaha. But in a way it seems to operate like organized crime, or "community organizing" ala the race hustlers, SDS types, etc. The Obama administration says <2% of the population is homosexual (or gender-benders etc)** and yet they have a prominence in the news, media, entertainment, and politics. When activists can't get a cake or pizza it is made into a huge national story for some reason. And you have a President, for whatever personal reasons aside, whose number one priority is issues. Above the economy, above wars, even above his pet-issue of open-borders! Trannies in the military is more important than VA hospital reform? Homosexuals in military more important than revising "rules of engagement?" Some activists not being able to eat cake is more important than the economy? Some homosexual football player is picked up, but then, dropped by a team and he must comment on that? Increase tensions with a nuclear power and try to ruin the spirit of the Olympics because ANOTHER country has some very benign laws against homosexuals (but, of course, don't comment on what Muslim countries do to homosexuals?) It is bizarre. Less than 2% of the population but, yet, has total media focus and number one priority of Obama. If not a "mafia" there is something behind this.
**http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html :
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population"

[Nick el Ass]

Indiana is a shit hole on its best day. Always has been.

Indiana is the place I call home, and I just want people to realize that not all of it is a shit hole.

[WOTR]

Hahaha. But in a way it seems to operate like organized crime, or "community organizing" ala the race hustlers, SDS types, etc. The Obama administration says <2% of the population is homosexual (or gender-benders etc)** and yet they have a prominence in the news, media, entertainment, and politics. ...

This is probably because just over 50% of Americans support same sex marriage and somewhere around 75% believe that you should not be able to discriminate against them.  It is not just that he is pandering to 2%- he is pandering and playing to the 50 - 75%.

Yes, there is disproportionate coverage of the issue- but that could be because there is a large portion of the population who want to see it change.  Probably mostly liberals- but they still vote... Or, a less cynical person might say that politicians actually care and want to change it because they feel it is right (and not just that they are playing to their base.)

[Quick Karl]

This is probably because just over 50% of Americans support same sex marriage and somewhere around 75% believe that you should not be able to discriminate against them.  It is not just that he is pandering to 2%- he is pandering and playing to the 50 - 75%.

Yes, there is disproportionate coverage of the issue- but that could be because there is a large portion of the population who want to see it change.  Probably mostly liberals- but they still vote... Or, a less cynical person might say that politicians actually care and want to change it because they feel it is right (and not just that they are playing to their base.)

Ask any mother if they want their son to grow up and be gay, or their daughter to grow up and be lesbian.

I never believe "polls" because 99% of what is published is intentionally misleading. Did they poll college morons or an actual legitimate sample of the population at large?

These issues are "designed" to divide people, period.

I wonder how the liberal left will hyperventilate when a normal heterosexual Christian couple goes to a fag bakery demanding a wedding cake that says homosexuality is an abomination and should be punishable by death -- the opposite of the hyperbole that the left intentionally purports.

What this all comes down to is that there are too many assholes in this country, and they need to be purged.

[PB the Deplorable]

This is probably because just over 50% of Americans support same sex marriage and somewhere around 75% believe that you should not be able to discriminate against them...

Well, what have been the results when people have voted?  It's been the courts (carefully selected, a tactic known as 'judge shopping') overturning the will of the people that has forced 'gay marriage' on us.  So those poll 'results' have been rigged - it's a common tactic Big Media uses when trying to move public opinion.

Second, someone refusing to participate in a 'gay wedding' by making a cake, performing the 'service', doing the photos, etc, isn't 'discrimination'.  Plenty of service based businesses turn down would be clients for a variety of reasons, and not wanting to be a party to 'gay marriage' is their call, I wouldn't do it either - it's not the same as telling someone they can't come in a store and buy something off the shelf. 

The aggressors here are the gay mafia out making sure everyone knuckles under now that they've found enough Lib judges to help push thru their current agenda

[PB the Deplorable]

On a more serious note, I believe that businesses should be allowed to refuse to do business with any group they dislike providing they put the policy in full public view.  I will never know if a flower shop refuses to sell to gay weddings- but I want the option to boycott them for their actions...

Fair enough.  Then the rest of us can boycott the businesses of the boycotters and refuse to hire them?

Let's all put our signs out.

[Quick Karl]

Fair enough.  Then the rest of us can boycott the businesses of the boycotters and refuse to hire them?

Let's all put our signs out.

I would absolutely not do business with any gay-owned business, on principle.

[Marc.Knight]

I would absolutely not do business with any gay-owned business, on principle.

How do you know you haven't done this many times already?

[Marc.Knight]

Memories Pizza on gofundme.com is up to $842,387.00 as of this moment. http://www.gofundme.com/memoriespizza

I proudly contributed $100.00 to support their RIGHT to their religious beliefs.

Anyone that cannot see the blatant hypocrisy of this manufactured issue in which one group of mentally defective people endeavor to impose their will upon a religious business owner that disagrees with their lifestyle choice, has automatically disqualified themselves from a rational debate about it.

I call on all people of faith to organize and conduct "Bible-brunches" at gay owned businesses - like the Black-brunches being conducted around the country. Show up and read your Bibles out loud, preferably passages that condemn homosexuality, and disrupt the gay business as much as possible.

Lets see how much liberals will contribute to keep their gay friends in business...

Anal sex is for assholes.

So, a logical consequence of this would be to perhaps have hospitals and other private services discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation? 

"Excuse me sir, I understand that you were shot in the face, but you checked 'gay' on your emergency room intake sheet.  We don't serve gays, so you'll have to find another hospital.  Take your cheek bone with you"

Another example:

"ahhh... you warnt gas?  Fill aat this questionnaire furst.  WHAT?  GAY?  Sorry feller, but you'll have ta push yer car another 30 miles to the next gay lov'in, sum-bitch gas station".

[Gd5150]

Fair enough.  Then the rest of us can boycott the businesses of the boycotters and refuse to hire them?

Any business should be focused on making a profit, not offering political opinions, refusing service based on politics is just bad business. The pizza place never did this, they answered a hypothetical question from a media terrorist attempting to set them up. The purpose of course was to create another fake crisis with lots of organized outrage by the same ol folk that show up for all these fake protests. It failed.

Now take Sean Penn, he's a so-called entertainer. He's also the classic example of an ignorant left-wing liberal democrat. He consistently shares his pro-communist ignorance publicly, and because of it his latest movie completely tanked. A movie with lots go guns and action and old geezers acting a lot younger than they actually are. A very popular format these days. In 4 weeks its failed to top the 10 million mark.

Nice to see this Indiana non-issue has already dried up and blown away in the wind like an irrelevant pile of dog feces.