No, it's not the same thing as denying service to someone based on race. One has a religious reason for doing so, which is protected by the First Amendment, and the other doesn't.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose a Neo-Nazi group wanted to use the services of a Jewish business for something? Or a KKK group wanting to use the services of a black business? Or suppose whacko Fred Phelps and his followers tried to use the services of a business run by a gay owner in order to make some point. Whether you and others here admit it or not, I'd be willing to bet you all would be against any of those business owners being compelled by the state to provide services for the Neo-Nazis, KKK, or Phelps. And that's because your sympathies lie with them but not with Christians who are against providing services to a gay wedding.

And let's be clear here. I don't think most Christians would kick a gay person or couple out of their business simply because they are gay. But in cases where they feel they are contributing to what they feel is wrong - like a gay wedding - that goes against their conscience and they shouldn't be forced under threat of suit to do so.

You post this:


Then you post this:


These statements are somewhat contradictary. Your'e letting Ivy get you all worked up again. And quite frankly, he doesn't ever give it a rest either. But you two should take it off the boards, Joe. Because when you refer to God as "any fairy tale figure in the sky," you insult those of us who quietly practice our faith.

You're right PB. You know I don't think religion is universally bad. I know plenty of good Christians including yourself. When I get angry I get away from myself a bit. My apologies

^^^^
No problem, kid .

Stay!...just a little bit longer.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kent...ognition-n41561

Intelligent and eloquent. Just perfect.

This is an obvious fallacious argument. If a right to discriminate against particular classes in the market place, based on religious belief were guaranteed by the first amendment, there would be no need for the various state legislatures to propose such repugnant legislation.

I didn't say he condoned the sin. Please reread my post. Christ did not turn his back on sinners. One can not possibly draw an inference from the New Testament that Christ would not deal publicly, commercially or personally with sinners.

When he said that the greatest commandment was to love thy neighbor as thy self, there was no qualification. There is no way around it that the proposed Arizona bill emphatically rejects this teaching. apparently, somewhere down the road the greatest commandment became "Persecute the gays!"

Ivy first off there's no way any of those groups would use Jewish, black or gay owned businesses. So I'm pretty sure a situation like that would be pretty rare. Secondly if it did, do those people have the right to refuse service no matter how fucked up the groups might be? Their money is still green.

Ivy, right to religious freedom does not extend to the right of refusing service to those based on sexual orientation. You have the right to believe it's wrong but in terms of business you have to set that aside. This issue is so stupid who the fuck cares? I don't think Jesus condoned whatever he thought was wrong, but did he say "refuse entry to gays, Roman officials, gentiles, and whoever else we think isn't good enough"? He did not.

There is a need for legislation because religious liberty under the First Amendment is diminished more and more in our society, even to the point where the government tries to compel people to go against their religious beliefs under the threat of suit.



Nobody is "persecuting" gays. This legislation came about because of cases in other states where gays (instead of simply going to another business) sued business owners who didn't want to provide services for gay weddings.

Like many other posters here, you're of the spiritually immature type who pits love against obedience. Christ would have us love all people, including gays, for we're all sinners and beggars at the mercy seat. But there's a difference between loving gays having anything to do with an abomination such as gay marriage. Much like 123JoeSchmoe, you're about letting anything fly in the name of "love." And you misinterpret the scriptures in order to do so.

They would if they were trying to make some point, just like the gays in these lawsuits were who simply could have gone to another business. You're just dodging the question because you would support them not providing services for Neo-Nazis, the KKK, or Phelps but then turn right around and say Christians have to provide services for gay weddings.



Says who? Religious freedom is dealt with in the First Amendment for reason. It's more important and fundamental than just about anything else. But the shift away from God in our society has minimized the importance of freedom of religion in favor of secular-driven ideas about "equality" and "rights" for certain groups.

Again, Christ would welcome the gay person and, like all sinners, encourage them to repent and change their ways. But that doesn't mean He would have anything to do with an abomination like gay weddings. Nor would He have his followers do either.

The arguments of both you and klydon are built in the same underlying fallacy - anything goes if it's in the name of "love."

You say I'm spiritually immature, but YOU are the one, who feels the point of the gospel account of Jesus warning, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" is to chastise the suspected adultress not to sin again.

The first amendment is not an absolute right and never was designed to justify discrimination in public commerce.

One has to be a fool to believe that the legislation seeks to protect religious beliefs. It is aimed at trying to appease any bigot who has a personal problem with gays. It was refreshing, but expected, that so many businesses saw through this facade to condemn it.

And if there are photographers, florists, etc., who have such a problem dealing commercially with gays that they refuse service, they better pick another line of work. Those businesses need public mercantile licenses, and if you are to conduct business in public and seek pecuniary awards, you don't make up your own rules.

Excellent Kly. It is near remarkable that so many in the Arizona business community saw the effect the subject legislation could have on them and took action to preclude it.

A common practice in our county court is for judges to tell defendants what they are likely to sentence them to if they go to trial and lose, vs. what they'd get if they copped a plea. Today a judge told a defendant in an underage-sex sting operated by the sheriff's department that she'd sentence him to 60-75 years if he went to trial and lost, but would give him time served (275 days) and 3 years probation if he pleaded out.

That strikes me as coercion, plain and simple.

This would form the basis (if the defendant elected to take a trial and lost) for an appeal to modify the sentence due to an abuse of the discretionary aspects of sentencing. It is improper for a judge to tell a defendant that he would impose a particular sentence, based on the decision to take a trial. Such a judge is prejudging the facts, and actually should be removed from the case.

I remember standing with a client for sentencing, a few months after being found guilty after a jury trial. The assistant DA asked for a sentence in the aggravated range because the defendant put the county, the police, etc through the time and cost of trial. The judge, who was not known for emotion or leniency, exploded and lectured the DA, "We do NOT punish anyone in this court for exercising his constitutional rights!"

If a defendant pleads straight up, the admission and recognition of cupability will usually result in some mitigation of sentence, but the mere fact that a defendant elected to take a trial should not aggravate the sentence.

I don't ignore either point. You, however, do selectively ignore the second point.

You're here pretending to care about what Jesus says. Yet, while He considers homosexual behavior a sin, you obviously don't. So why are you trying to quote someone you fundamentally disagree with on this very issue? Oh, that's right, you're a lawyer.



What a bunch of BS. The gays in these cases could have found any number of other photographers, florists, etc. who would have taken their business. But, no, they chose to make an issue out of it because they are determined to force their way of life down everyone's throat via corrupt and Godless courts, judges, and lawyers who think nothing of chipping away at freedom of religion; which they hold in contempt to begin with.

You take the standard dishonest liberal standpoint that religious people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin are just bigots looking for a way to justify themselves rather than actual believers who take what the scriptures say seriously.

With shepherds like this leading the flock, who needs the Devil?

I suspect most Christians businesses would be fine selling flowers, taking photos, or providing other services for individual gays. But when it's in a context of something that is so contrary to Christian teaches, and really a slap in the face to marriage, that's where many are going to draw the line. They are not going to want any part of an obvious counterfeit to what God intended between men and women.

Should an Orthodox Jew have the right to run a bus service and insist that women sit in the back of the bus and dress as he sees fit?

Should a Muslim have the right to drive a taxi and refuse to serve women customers or anyone that he believes drinks liquor?

We spoke of this before. Sometimes long shots really do pay off. Ladies if you are traveling by public transit in Massachusetts you might wish to wear pants..or be ready to punch someone..



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/massachusetts-court-legal-upskirt-photos-transit

Yes, because it's their freedom of religion and these potential customers can use other companies if they don't like it.

Thanks, Kly. That's what I thought. Where's "let the punishment fit the crime"? Seems as if the "crime" is putting the county through a trial.

No, no, no, no, and no. I don't give a flying fuck about your religion, but if you use it to deny service or discriminate against another person that's wrong plain and simple. No two ways about it. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to do that only the freedom to worship how you want. Why is that so hard to understand?

There were and are people who have firm solid longstanding religious beliefs that women should dress a certain way and should stay in the home or that people of different races are either inferior or should not mix socially or that unmarried cohabitation is sinful or that someone of a different faith or no faith at all is "evil" and going to hell.

This is all fine. They are free to have those beliefs, marry people with similar values and reproduce those ideas in the next generation. What they are less able to do since the 50s and 60s is to use those beliefs as justification to discriminate in housing, employment, public accommodation or business relationships.

There have been a fair number of court cases about this already.
The Federal CRA does not prohibit discrimination based on sexuality but apparently some states do have such laws. If you run a business there's a non-zero chance you will be working with a number of people who do not share your political, religious or social values. And that's ok.

And yet, as I pointed out before, you'd likely be fine with a Jewish business owner refusing service to Neo-Nazis or a black business owner refusing service to KKK members.

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests religious people should be forced by the government or their fellow citizens to participate in something they consider a sinful abomination.

That you won't even admit that the gays who brought the lawsuits in these cases are the real intolerant ones, as they could have easily gone to another business, shows your lack of honesty about all of this. You want people to respect gay's civil rights but you don't respect other's religious rights. And both could have been served by the gays simply going elsewhere. But that's not what they or you are about, is it?



And most Christians are fine with protections for gays as far as housing, employment, visiting rights, etc. Not sure what you mean by public accommodation. But being forced to take part in something like a gay marriage, whether it's proving flowers or taking photos, crosses the line. It's much like when certain folks, such as the Amish, apply for "conscientious objector" status when it comes to military service.

^I said it was a tough issue, not that it was right. It depends on the intent. Are these Klan members using a Jewish business without malice? Are they publicly outing themselves as Klan members to these people? There are a lot of variables. Fact is you and I both know KKK and Neo-Nazi's are despicable. Would they even use a business owned by blacks or Jews? That's what I want to know before I answer that question.

There is also nothing in the constitution that suggests you can deny someone service based on religious beliefs. Where is that guaranteed? Show me that.

What I don't think you understand Ivy is that gays have been at the bottom of the pool for a long time, ever since Christianity became mainstream throughout the Western world. Put yourself in their shoes, you have two gay brothers for crying out loud. Up until recently people didn't understand them or considered them disgusting and sub-human. All because of a different preference in sexuality. Who can blame them for wanting the same status as heterosexual couples?

I respect people's right to worship however they want. But I don't respect it when it discriminates or hurts other people, hence arrogant Jews, radical Islamists, or Christians who use the name of the Lord to denounce or treat other people as second class citizens. That's what the bill in Arizona propagated. Whether they could have gone to another business is irrelevant, it was a walking disaster that could have extended beyond that of denying service to gays. I mean even John McCain and Mitt Romney were against it

Of course those groups would only seek the services of Jewish or black businesses because of some malicious intent. But that's the very reason the gays in these cases brought about the lawsuits in the first place! Instead of respecting the religious beliefs of the Christian business owners and simply going somewhere else, they were determined to force those owners to bend to their will and stick it to them in the process. There's really no difference here. You simply have sympathy for one scenario but not the other. And that undercuts the objectivity of your entire argument.



Any honest person, who actually respects freedom of religion found in the first amendment, is going to recognize that people shouldn't be forced by the government to do something against their religion. That right is far more fundamental, and deserving of protection, than any gay person's so called "civil rights."



Yes, I do have two gay brothers. But they're not pulling the stunts the gays in question are. You'll also notice that the church I belong to "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

We and most other Christians don't hate gays and are not out to get them fired from their jobs, kicked out of their homes, or keep them from visiting loved ones in the hospital. But it crosses the line when they try to force religious people, via the courts, to recognize their so called "marriages," much less actually take part in them somehow. How can you not see that the push for gay rights has gone completely overboard in this?



I'm not arguing so much for that specific Arizona law as the right of refusal in general. It's not that Christians or other religious people wake up and go looking for people they can "treat as second class citizens." They are living their lives and running their businesses as they always have. It's the gays and their misguided supporters who are intent on forcing others to change the definition of marriage to suit them and forcing them to take part in things they consider sinful; all in the name of their "rights."

By public accommodation I mean that if you are open for business to everyone, it's a relatively difficult bar legally/morally to refuse service to someone based on their race, gender, marital status, national origin, language, and in some states sexuality. Although there are some hard cases, generally I think this is a good thing. If you're a private club the rules are different. I think that's a reasonable balance.

Woman bites off part of boyfriend's ear

A 31-year-old Macomb Township woman was arrested after she bit off the top part of her boyfriend’s ear, the Macomb County Sheriff’s Office said today.

Danielle Nebelung was being held in the county jail on a $10,000 bond after arraignment on an aggravated assault charge in 41A District Court in Shelby Township, the sheriff’s office said...

Kly, during her testimony before the US House's government oversight committee, Lois Lerner claimed her 5th amendment protection. However, other than by a grant of immunity, can 5th amendment protection ever be overcome? Also, does the 5th's protection extend to one's house's, papers, and effects as stated in the 4th amendment?