Does America Need Be Saved From Theocracy?

[IM2]

In Baltimore in 1910, a black Yale law school graduate purchased a home in a previously all-white neighborhood. The Baltimore city government reacted by adopting a residential segregation ordinance, restricting African Americans to designated blocks. Explaining the policy, Baltimore’s mayor proclaimed, “Blacks should be quarantined in isolated slums in order to reduce the incidence of civil disturbance, to prevent the spread of communicable disease into the nearby White neighborhoods, and to protect property values among the White majority.”

Thus began a century of federal, state, and local policies to quarantine Baltimore’s black population in isolated slums—policies that continue to the present day, as federal housing subsidy policies still disproportionately direct low-income black families to segregated neighborhoods and away from middle class suburbs.

From Ferguson to Baltimore: The Fruits of Government-Sponsored Segregation

A century is 100 years. 1910 + 100= 2010.

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.

 

[Norman]

State

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.

Um. I went to Catholic Schools for 12 years.

You Bible thumpers ARE trying to ram your superstitions down our throats.

Knock it off.

If you think Gay marriage or Abortion are bad... don't have one. This isn't that complicated.

You went to Catholic school.

And are complaining it was filled with Christians?

No shit Sherlock. Are they cramming down Islam at a mosque as well?

 

[DustyInfinity]

I've always wondered about the left's attempt to eradicate Christianity. We are a Christian Nation, even thought the left is fighting it. As long as no one is forced to be a Christian, and can believe whatever they want, I don't see the need to remove Christianity from all aspects of American Society. Is it a theocracy when nobody is forcing you to worship, and you can worship anything you want?

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. “…author Catherine Rampell dutifully repeated the trope that Barr's speech was "a tacit endorsement of theocracy."


A bit of constitutional clarity might help here. The opening language of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains two important clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause. It reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." When Barr's detractors (the most charitable term possible) express horror about the attorney general of the United States criticizing what he views as an onslaught of secularism, it would appear that they are focusing on the Establishment Clause, the first 10 words of the First Amendment.

But Barr's primary concern is for the protection of the Free Exercise clause, not the Establishment Clause,…

He is not asserting -- explicitly or implicitly -- that the government should make Christianity (much less Catholicism) the "official religion" of the United States. Claims to the contrary are ignorant, deceitful or both.”
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy


The Constitution provides for both freedom to choose a religion.....and freedom to subscribe to none at all.




11. Those who hate a Constitution.....the predominant view of the FDR administration...

It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution." Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.63


.....had best remember that it is the Constitution that prevents a theocracy.

 

[DustyInfinity]

So if a Christian moves to India, does it make sense that they should demand India remove all religion from their society? Sorry, but Ganesh has got to go?

 

[Seawytch]

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Seems like I taught you a lesson again, huh?


In the future,try to stick to words whose meaning you actually understand.....even if that leaves you mute.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Wm. Barr:

“No one is calling for a theocracy. But a free country comprised of citizens with strong moral values grounded in (for example) Judeo-Christian belief is not a theocracy.

If, as we so often hear, it is not the job of the government to "legislate morality," then morals, values and principles must have some other source. Our government should be protecting citizens whose lives are a reflection of their religious beliefs and practices. The U.S. Constitution requires it. The stability of our country and our culture depend upon it.”
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy



But there is a need for morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior (Google)

How can it possibly be injurious to a society to be moral?

 

[anynameyouwish]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

william barr?

roy moore?

the SWAMP of conservative evangelical republican dominionists?

and, of course, you.....

you have often professed your extreme christian faith and I have no doubt you would be the first to VOTE for a CHRISTIAN DOMINONIST government and to outlaw and ban gays, atheists and liberals.

don't bother lying to deny it.

if you would vote for roy moore (and you would) then you would vote for dominion and theocracy.

 

[Seawytch]

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

 

[RodISHI]

Totally ridiculous argument as it would be up to the employer to determine whether they desire to keep that employee in service or not who has these religious beliefs that may inhibit them properly doing their job. That decision is not for you to make.

A couple of problems with this. Why does the Business Owner get the right to refuse to "violate his conscience" but the employee does not.

Seems pretty clear to me. If you don't want to violate your conscience (which is the case with these pharmacists, as they often work for someone else) then you should not be in that line of work. It should not be up to the customer to try to find a provider or business owner who doesn't use Bronze Age Superstitions to do business by..

People throughout history have always been sheep. The only way to break that cycle is education. The problem is, we don't provide education to provide independent thought. We provide peer-pressured group-think as a form of propaganda.

Or you could try not being an asshole. That works, too.

I did not say an employee should not have the right to "violate his conscience". Here is the deal when you are the 'employee' verses the 'owner'; as an owner you sign the paychecks, assume the liabilities and invested your own money first to have ownership of that business so you get to make those calls. When employees own the businesses they work at they also have those same right as co-owners. My money, my time and efforts built my own business not some employee. Granted good employees help keep the business growing, etc. but those employees did not take the risks first, I did that. My family went without those extras, niceties, we ate a lot of beans, drove junky vehicles in order to get by and I did not have time to always take them swimming or whatever in order for me to build that business. It was not the employees families that did all that to get going. If you desire to work for someone else and save yourself the headaches of ownership you either provide the employer with something that the employer feels that you can provide or have a talent that the employer can utilize in their business. If an employer desires that you need to "violate your conscience" then you will have to decide what is most important to you, that employers paycheck and the job or "your conscience". If the employer feels that you are a valuable employee to have the employer will work around certain things to help you out. Some people don't mind scooping shit, others refuse, some will sell their bodies for money and others won't. Life can be great in this country when you are actually the captain of your own destiny. When you start desiring laws and making laws to force others to "be like you", "be like minded", "like you and embrace you", "not hurt your feelings", regardless of how they feel about your personal issues liberty is finish.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

william barr?

roy moore?

the SWAMP of conservative evangelical republican dominionists?

and, of course, you.....
Syou have often professed your extreme christian faith and I have no doubt you would be the first to VOTE for a CHRISTIAN DOMINONIST government and to outlaw and ban gays, atheists and liberals.

don't bother lying to deny it.

if you would vote for roy moore (and you would) then you would vote for dominion and theocracy.

"...you have often professed your extreme christian faith ..."

Actually, no....I haven't.
I have never stated my religion.
Strike one.




Let's be specific.

I provided a target.....see what you can do with it:


10. A bit of constitutional clarity might help here. The opening language of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains two important clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause. It reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." When Barr's detractors (the most charitable term possible) express horror about the attorney general of the United States criticizing what he views as an onslaught of secularism, it would appear that they are focusing on the Establishment Clause, the first 10 words of the First Amendment.

But Barr's primary concern is for the protection of the Free Exercise clause, not the Establishment Clause,…

He is not asserting -- explicitly or implicitly -- that the government should make Christianity (much less Catholicism) the "official religion" of the United States. Claims to the contrary are ignorant, deceitful or both.”
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy


The Constitution provides for both freedom to choose a religion.....and freedom to subscribe to none at all.




11. Those who hate a Constitution.....the predominant view of the FDR administration...

It is a fact that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution." Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.63


.....had best remember that it is the Constitution that prevents a theocracy.




But....be warned:
....if this is the first time you've tried to think you could wind up with an aneurysm!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The discussion has nothing to do with interracial couples....it was a gay couple..

You simply lied.



You asked I I would repeal any statute that restricts individual freedom.

Yup....I sure would.

And Trump is installing conservative judges who, I believe, would do the same.


Sweatin,' huh?

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

 

[Cellblock2429]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

/——-/ So? You’re OK with a muslime deli refusing to sell pork and alcohol? And a muslime pharmacist can refuse to fill an abortion pill. Another pharmacist in the store can do it. Where is you’d fake outrage over that?

 

[RealDave]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

a. So you object to enforcing the commandment against murder?

b. You view is that forcing conscientious objectors to bake a cake is more important than liberty?

c. One must admit the consistency you folks stick to going back to your revolution in 1905.
I knew you wouldn't understand that, RealDumb....you're a government school grad.

Laws against murder exist outside of your religion/. What part of that don't you get?

Why do you want the freedom to discriminate. Is your bigotry that important to you?

I'm not the one who elected a Russian troll, that be you.

 

[RealDave]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

/——-/ So? You’re OK with a muslime deli refusing to sell pork and alcohol? And a muslime pharmacist can refuse to fill an abortion pill. Another pharmacist in the store can do it. Where is you’d fake outrage over that?

If a Muslim store does not sell pork, it doesn't sell it to everyone.
Every pharmacist should fill any legal prescription as long as there is no medical issues with other drugs.

 

[RealDave]

So if someone believes an inter-racial couple is against God's will, do they have the "right" to refuse them service?

View attachment 285387

If you say, "No", then how can you say they should be able to deny gay couples service.

View attachment 285388

No one says "an inter-racial couple is against God's will" except you.

Moses' wife was black.

You do realize that the racists have just as many bible verses to back them up as you homophobes do, right? Why do homophobic bigots get more rights than racist ones do?

Where is your support of states rights when it comes to Public Accommodation laws?

Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

You sure do like dodging the question a whole lot and come up with long cut and paste non answers. Simple yes or no question...do you support the repeal of Title II of the Civil Rights Act so that racists no longer have to serve black people or bakers won't have to bake cakes for interracial couples? No cut and paste needed, just yes or no.

You brought up 'racism.'

I checked to see if you understood what it is you are objecting to....and you haven't passed the test.

Are you asking for another opportunity???

Sure thing....



Y'know, I'm glad you brought that up.....'cause I have a suspicion that you don't know what you're talking about.

Specifically.....'racism.'


Is 'racism a term for actual documented harm to someone, or is it an opinion, a 'thought crime' akin to what you Nazis/Bolsheviks have always sought to punish?

I'm an American, and consider the Constitution the law of the land.

The first amendment covers any and all thought and just about any speech.

So if 'racism' is an opinion you don't agree with.....what do you believe government should do about it?




So, you consider disciplining the thoughts of others your province, or that of government's?

Look, Little Miss Racist, you can legally be a racist. You can't break the law discriminating as a business or organization.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

/——-/ So? You’re OK with a muslime deli refusing to sell pork and alcohol? And a muslime pharmacist can refuse to fill an abortion pill. Another pharmacist in the store can do it. Where is you’d fake outrage over that?

If a Muslim store does not sell pork, it doesn't sell it to everyone.
Every pharmacist should fill any legal prescription as long as there is no medical issues with other drugs.

/——/ So they can discriminate against pork eaters and beer drinkers.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

/——-/ So? You’re OK with a muslime deli refusing to sell pork and alcohol? And a muslime pharmacist can refuse to fill an abortion pill. Another pharmacist in the store can do it. Where is you’d fake outrage over that?

If a Muslim store does not sell pork, it doesn't sell it to everyone.
Every pharmacist should fill any legal prescription as long as there is no medical issues with other drugs.

/——-/ 13 Gay Bakeries Refuse to Make Traditional Marriage Cake With the Message: 'Gay Marriage Is Wrong'