Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[paperview]

Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643
The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. ...

Just like the old days, eh?

Wow, wish I could neg rep you yet again for that one.
The people getting pummeled are violating the law. Get it? Isn't the Left always telling us the law is the law and you need to obey it?
In any case, it is absurd to think we will magically transform back to 1965, as if the last 50 years never happened. Then again, the left trades in absurdity.

They weren't at the time, and all over the place we are seeing cons tell us they want to remove the Public Accommodation portion of the Civil Right Act.

And your stupid neg rep for this post

Here is a short 10 question quiz to help one determine if their religious freedom is being trampled on...


1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

<snip>
How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | Rev. Emily C. Heath

must have been after you took the quiz and realized how many B's you picked -- and it angered you enough to lash out at me.

Yawn, Numbnutz.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make &#8216;Adolf Hitler&#8217; birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice. For the Christian baker to refuse service to gay Americans where that identical service is afforded to other customers is a violation of public accommodations laws.

A Jewish baker who refuses to sell an &#8216;Adolf Hitler&#8217; birthday cake to neo-Nazis or anti-Semites is not in violation of public accommodations laws because that&#8217;s a service he doesn&#8217;t provide to anyone in any event, including neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.

The issue, therefore, has nothing to do with the item sold &#8211; a cake &#8211; but the refusal of offering a service to one class of persons while providing that same service to everyone else.

The laws that are currently being contested by Christians in New Mexico and elsewhere were recently enacted in defiance of established principles, and they will not hold up before the Supreme Court, certainly not in the case wherein local and state politicians and judges imagine they have the power to compel a Christian photographer to participate in and take images of pagan rituals of any kind.

The proposed Arizona bill, for example, does not permit one to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation alone as most of the leftists on this board stupidly believe. In fact, the bill doesn't even mention sexual orientation at all. How would one know or even care in instances of providing ideologically/behaviorally innocuous or neutral services or products to one's patrons?

One of you leftists asked that very question as if those who rightly despise the left's wretched ideology were stupid.

And even if it were known, certainly no Christian I know at my church, all of whom rightly hold that homosexuality is an abomination, would turn a homosexual away as long as his sexual orientation/behavior did not directly conflict with the inherent concerns of the proprietor&#8217;s establishment.

The bill merely allows persons to refuse service on the basis of their inalienable moral/religious convictions. Homosexuals can invoke it in defense of their moral/religious convictions, such as they are!

Duh.

The Christian baker challenging an infamous tyranny of homofascism had for years known and respectfully served the homosexuals for whom she refused to make a cake. They even parted with a hug. (Behold the treacherous nature of sexual degenerates.) If one of my employees behaved ungraciously toward a homosexual they would be fired, law or no law compelling me to do so.

The Christian&#8217;s argument is not against the principal of public accommodation. Though they be relentlessly muddled and undermined by leftist bootlicks, the Christian&#8217;s concern when legally assault by leftists is inevitably going to be predicated on the established principles of ideological liberty, free expression and free association underscored by the prerogatives of private property and parental authority.

The principal of public accommodation doesn&#8217;t trump the concerns of the First Amendment.

It&#8217;s one thing to refuse service on the grounds of someone's sexual orientation where there are no ideological or behavioral conflicts of interest. (While I support the notion of the right to refuse service to anyone, I wouldn&#8217;t do so myself on the grounds of sexual orientation alone. Christ wouldn&#8216;t, so neither would I.) It&#8217;s quite another to demand that one provide any service or product that would require another to personally participate in any activity or express any thing that he morally abhors.

What kind of person would demand such a thing from another human being in the first place?

Got an answer for that, professor?

In response to Ghook, you write: &#8220;Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.&#8221;

Just how would one know that the cake was for a pagan ritual?

What &#8220;wedding cake&#8221; for homosexuals would not exhibit expressions or symbols denoting a sexual union morally repugnant to a Christian?

Christians like myself are not going to do it. Force is the only means by which the homofascist&#8217;s legal bait-and-switch minutia would prevail. The baker is not challenging the principle of public accommodation, and you know that, don&#8217;t you?

Look. Let&#8217;s get something straight. &#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.&#8221; You know as well as I that these stipulations have been applied to local and state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment in case law. Concerning the prerogatives of religious liberty and expression, if it is not reasonably predicated on the perspective of the individual, then these imperatives would be rendered utterly arbitrary, meaningless by state.

You write: &#8220;The issue, therefore, has nothing to do with the item sold &#8211; a cake &#8211; but the refusal of offering a service to one class of persons while providing that same service to everyone else.&#8221;

You are refuted.
______________________________

Bottom Line: those of us with an IQ above that of a gnat know very well that all this noise from leftists is motivated by the desire to marginalize and disenfranchise orthodox Christians. Leftists are hypocrites, liars and thugs.

 

[paperview]

Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

Also, too:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;

but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

Trying to get C_Clayton_Jones to see the errors in his "logic" is like trying to explain the color red to someone who has been blind from birth.

Use hot and cold rocks. It's in the movie Mask.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. If that person filed a suit against you for discrimination, you would have to answer it, and in doing so you would have to give a reason for refusing service.

That's current law. The whole point of this thread is that current law is wrong.

Yes we get it. You've joined the KKK in still opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What a jackass.

 

[bripat9643]

Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643
The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. ...

Just like the old days, eh?

No, not just like the old days, you witless git.

Discrimination was enforced by law in the old days, moron. No one is suggesting that.

These days libturds can't debate anything without accusing their critics of being racists. It's the only card they have to play. Obviously, logic isn't in their armory.

 

[paperview]

Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643
The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. ...

Just like the old days, eh?

No, not just like the old days, you witless git.

Discrimination was enforced by law in the old days, moron. No one is suggesting that.

These days libturds can't debate anything without accusing their critics of being racists. It's the only card they have to play. Obviously, logic isn't in their armory.

Woolworths was forced by law to have segregated counters?

The answer is no, idiot breath.

There were no laws prohibiting businesses from serving both black and white patrons.

 

[bendog]

Just like the old days, eh?

No, not just like the old days, you witless git.

Discrimination was enforced by law in the old days, moron. No one is suggesting that.

These days libturds can't debate anything without accusing their critics of being racists. It's the only card they have to play. Obviously, logic isn't in their armory.

Woolworths was forced by law to have segregated counters?

The answer is no, idiot breath.

There were no laws prohibiting businesses from serving both black and white patrons.

actually there were such laws

Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Example Segregation Laws

just fyi. Personally, I have no problem with ignorant bigots passing laws denying services for stupid reasons. It helps get the ignorant bigots in the open, where we can mock them.

 

[paperview]

No, not just like the old days, you witless git.

Discrimination was enforced by law in the old days, moron. No one is suggesting that.

These days libturds can't debate anything without accusing their critics of being racists. It's the only card they have to play. Obviously, logic isn't in their armory.

Woolworths was forced by law to have segregated counters?

The answer is no, idiot breath.

There were no laws prohibiting businesses from serving both black and white patrons.

actually there were such laws

Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Example Segregation Laws

just fyi. Personally, I have no problem with ignorant bigots passing laws denying services for stupid reasons. It helps get the ignorant bigots in the open, where we can mock them.

In the area I was speaking of, no, there were no laws.

"The Greensboro NAACP endorsed the sit-in movement on Wednesday of the first week, but students and the NAACP denied that the NAACP had organized the movement. The Greensboro Daily News, Unitarian Fellowship, and the local Young Women&#8217;s Christian Association (YWCA) also voiced support of the sit-ins.16

North Carolina attorney general Malcolm Seawell declared that there were no laws prohibiting businesses from serving both black and white patrons, but also no laws forcing private businesses to serve those they did not want to serve.17 Governor Hodges declared the sit-ins to be counterproductive and a threat to law and order, while U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower suspended any judgment on the &#8220;sit-down disorders."

Civil Rights Greensboro

 

[jillian]

Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.

A Jewish baker does not make ‘Adolf Hitler’ birthday cakes as part of his standard business practice, whereas a Christian who makes wedding cakes indeed makes wedding cakes as part of his standard business practice.

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

Trying to get C_Clayton_Jones to see the errors in his "logic" is like trying to explain the color red to someone who has been blind from birth.

Perhaps you should first say something logical

 

[bripat9643]

Notice how much opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been flushed out around this topic?

I miss the good old days when conservatives tried to label the Democratic Party as RACIST because of southern Democratic opposition to that bill.

Now we find out that in reality, most conservatives around here opposed it all along.

The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to do that. Furthermore, it's just plane wrong. A business is private property, and people have the right to prevent whoever they want from using their property. If someone objected to a law that prevented you from publishing racist literature on First Amendment grounds, you would also call them a racist. In fact, that very thing goes on every day on college campuses where freedom of speech is a joke.

The 'only part'? You mean the part that says a business that is open to the public cannot refuse service to black people?

That is the part you and about 90% of the conservatives around here are objecting to.

That makes you racists. That is what racism is.

So if you allow bigots to publish racist literature, does that make you a racist? IF you defend the right of Nazis to parade in Skokie IL, does that make you a racist?

 

[bripat9643]

Yep. For heterosexuals couples. But how is it that the Jewish baker that makes cakes doesn't bake birthday cakes? No, he doesn't do Hilter cakes but most Christian bakers don't do homosexual cakes. Get it? Your side makes no sense.

Trying to get C_Clayton_Jones to see the errors in his "logic" is like trying to explain the color red to someone who has been blind from birth.

Perhaps you should first say something logical

Been there, done that.

You're in the same class as C_Clayton_Jones.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's current law. The whole point of this thread is that current law is wrong.

Yes we get it. You've joined the KKK in still opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What a jackass.

lol, really? You just said the current law is wrong. The current law is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You oppose that law, you're on the same side of the issue as every other white racist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Jew doesn't have to serve the Nazi, then the Nazi doesn't have to serve the Jew. If the Black man doesn't have to serve the white racist, then the white racist doesn't have to serve the black man.

Carry that to its logical end and where does it leave us? Back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act era, which, of course, is where - we are finding out - most conservatives want to go.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the Jew doesn't have to serve the Nazi, then the Nazi doesn't have to serve the Jew. If the Black man doesn't have to serve the white racist, then the white racist doesn't have to serve the black man.

Carry that to its logical end and where does it leave us? Back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act era, which, of course, is where - we are finding out - most conservatives want to go.

The past is always better than the present, if you were on the winning side of it that is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just like the old days, eh?

Wow, wish I could neg rep you yet again for that one.
The people getting pummeled are violating the law. Get it? Isn't the Left always telling us the law is the law and you need to obey it?
In any case, it is absurd to think we will magically transform back to 1965, as if the last 50 years never happened. Then again, the left trades in absurdity.

They weren't at the time, and all over the place we are seeing cons tell us they want to remove the Public Accommodation portion of the Civil Right Act.

And your stupid neg rep for this post must have been after you took the quiz and realized how many B's you picked -- and it angered you enough to lash out at me.

Yawn, Numbnutz.

Butt hurt much?
Yeah, you can't refute what I write so you default to insults.
The truth is that the Left now wants to do what the old racists wanted in the pre civil rights era: mandate who must do business with whom.
Today's leftists are yesterday's conservatives.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So if you allow bigots to publish racist literature, does that make you a racist? IF you defend the right of Nazis to parade in Skokie IL, does that make you a racist?

No to both questions. What it makes you is Liberal, at least on this issue.

It also means you should send your donation to the ACLU. Those are the kind of things that they defend.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Jew doesn't have to serve the Nazi, then the Nazi doesn't have to serve the Jew. If the Black man doesn't have to serve the white racist, then the white racist doesn't have to serve the black man.

Carry that to its logical end and where does it leave us? Back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act era, which, of course, is where - we are finding out - most conservatives want to go.

The past is always better than the present, if you were on the winning side of it that is.

The old ploy by the Right on this issue was to try to establish a material difference between being gay and being black, or non-white in general, in order to allow them to discriminate against gays on principles that wouldn't apply to people of color.

Now that they are losing that battle, they're generally saying to hell with it, let's just throw the people of color under the bus and stand for the right to discriminate against anyone we please,

lol, all in the name of 'freedom'.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear MDR: I would probably agree with your points, but had as much trouble following your detailed elaboration as people have complained about mine.

1. Can you find and cite the exact language used in the Arizona bill that doesn't target homosexual orientation specifically, but is general enough to cover all cases?

I think this would back your point most clearly, that it can be used equally by all and is not targeting refusal of service to gays, for example.

2. as for the conflict with public accommodation/equal treatment and the First Amendment

NATURAL LAW tells us that you get what you give, if you go in discriminating against the business owner then you get the same in return; that is just natural cause and effect.

it defies logic to expect equal fair and inclusive respectful treatment from others
WITHOUT practicing the same yourself.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the First or Fourteenth Amendment that requires people invoking this to "practice it themselves". That is inherent in natural laws but NOT written into Constitutional laws, which only require govt/public institutions to follow these laws protecting individual rights.

Now, if we are going to start extending these responsibilities to corporations, businesses, etc. then it follows to hold ALL people to the same standards for consistent enforcement.

Clearly, this cannot be legislated, but only chosen by free will. Where people recognize the natural laws: for equal inclusive treatment, it makes sense to respect the same of others.

The laws that are currently being contested by Christians in New Mexico and elsewhere were recently enacted in defiance of established principles, and they will not hold up before the Supreme Court, certainly not in the case wherein local and state politicians and judges imagine they have the power to compel a Christian photographer to participate in and take images of pagan rituals of any kind.

The proposed Arizona bill, for example, does not permit one to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation alone as most of the leftists on this board stupidly believe. In fact, the bill doesn't even mention sexual orientation at all. How would one know or even care in instances of providing ideologically/behaviorally innocuous or neutral services or products to one's patrons?

One of you leftists asked that very question as if those who rightly despise his wretched ideology were stupid.

And even if it were known, certainly no Christian I know at my church, all of whom rightly hold that homosexuality is an abomination, would turn a homosexual away as long as his sexual orientation/behavior did not directly conflict with the inherent concerns of the proprietor’s establishment.

The bill merely allows persons to refuse service on the basis of their inalienable moral/religious convictions. Homosexuals can invoke it in defense of their moral/religious convictions, such as they are!

Duh.

The Christian baker challenging an infamous tyranny of homofascism had for years known and respectfully served the homosexuals for whom she refused to make a cake. They even parted with a hug. (Behold the treacherous nature of sexual degenerates.) If one of my employees behaved ungraciously toward a homosexual they would be fired, law or no law compelling me to do so.

The Christian’s argument is not against the principal of public accommodation. Though they be relentlessly muddled and undermined by leftist bootlicks, the Christian’s concern when legally assault by leftists is inevitably going to be predicated on the established principles of ideological liberty, free expression and free association underscored by the prerogatives of private property and parental authority.

The principal of public accommodation doesn’t trump the concerns of the First Amendment.

It’s one thing to refuse service on the grounds of someone's sexual orientation where there is no ideological or behavioral conflicts of interest. (While I support the notion of the right to refuse service to anyone, I wouldn’t do so myself on the grounds of sexual orientation alone. Christ wouldn‘t, so neither would I.) It’s quite another to demand that one provide any service or product that would require another to personally participate in any activity or express any thing that he morally abhors.

What kind of person would demand such a thing from another human being in the first place?

Got an answer for that, professor?

In response to Ghook, you write: “Again, your premise fails because it is a fallacy, comparing two dissimilar things.”

Just how would one know that the cake was for a pagan ritual?

What “wedding cake” for homosexuals would not exhibit expressions or symbols denoting a sexual union morally repugnant to a Christian?

Christians like myself are not going to do it. Force is the only means by which the homofascist’s legal bait-and-switch minutia would prevail. The baker is not challenging the principle of public accommodation, and you know that, don’t you?

Look. Let’s get something straight. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” You know as well as I that these stipulations have been applied to local and state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment in case law. Concerning the prerogatives of religious liberty and expression, if it is not reasonably predicated on the perspective of the individual, then these imperatives would be rendered utterly arbitrary, meaningless by state.

You write: “The issue, therefore, has nothing to do with the item sold – a cake – but the refusal of offering a service to one class of persons while providing that same service to everyone else.”

You are refuted.
______________________________

Bottom Line: those of us with an IQ above that of a gnat know very well that all this noise from leftists is motivated by the desire to marginalize and disenfranchise orthodox Christians. Leftists are hypocrites, liars and thugs.

 

[paperview]

Wow, wish I could neg rep you yet again for that one.
The people getting pummeled are violating the law. Get it? Isn't the Left always telling us the law is the law and you need to obey it?
In any case, it is absurd to think we will magically transform back to 1965, as if the last 50 years never happened. Then again, the left trades in absurdity.

They weren't at the time, and all over the place we are seeing cons tell us they want to remove the Public Accommodation portion of the Civil Right Act.

And your stupid neg rep for this post must have been after you took the quiz and realized how many B's you picked -- and it angered you enough to lash out at me.

Yawn, Numbnutz.

Butt hurt much?
Yeah, you can't refute what I write so you default to insults.

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who negged me for this:

Here is a short 10 question quiz to help one determine if their religious freedom is being trampled on...


1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

<snip>
How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | Rev. Emily C. Heath

and then called me a name when he did so. Then was mad he couldn't neg me because I produced a picture of the Woolworth Counter back in the day...

The truth is that the Left now wants to do what the old racists wanted in the pre civil rights era: mandate who must do business with whom.
Today's leftists are yesterday's conservatives.

I'm just gonna let that one stand there all by it's silly lonesome.