to all the gays, and the Leftist loons who support them...

[Mr.Right]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

 

[Interpol]

America was founded on the separation of church and state, so your question is stupid. And no, you don't know. And no, you haven't seen anybody do it.

The gov't can only stand on the side of freedom for all people, not freedom for some people to discriminate against others in the free marketplace because they're gay or lesbian or transgendered.

If your business is to sell little statues of Jesus in the manger, then it's your business to sell little statues of Jesus in the ******* manger and NOT to pass judgment on who your customers are.

Your question is idiotic and baseless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience..."

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with what anyone 'believes.'

The issue has to do with acknowledging the settled and accepted fact that state and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

That laws which are necessary, proper, and Constitutional do not 'violate' religious liberty because their intent is regulatory, not to disadvantage 'religious liberty.'

And that religious beliefs cannot be used as 'justification' to ignore or violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional measures, such as state and local public accommodations laws.

Again, the issue has nothing to do with 'liberals' or 'the left, or what anyone 'thinks' or 'believes' – the conflict is solely between those who understand and accept the Constitution and its case law concerning this matter, and those who do not, likely as a consequence of their ignorance of the law – willful or otherwise – or their contempt for the Constitution and its case law.

The case law in support:

Wickard v. Filburn

US v. Darby

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

Employment Division v. Smith

City of Boerne v. Flores

Gonzales v. Raich

No subjective opinions, no unsupported beliefs – just facts of settled, accepted Constitution law.

 

[Camp]

We don't need Christshiria law in America.

 

[September]

Haters gonna hate!​

 

[candycorn]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

In the first place, that isn't what is being asked by anyone I know.

In the second place, history has shown time and again that if the federal government doesn't enforce the law, the States have a pretty poor record of doing it themselves.

Cakes and photographs are one thing....if a homophobic leasing agent tells gay couples that there are no units available or quotes them a much higher price to drive them away from her/his property, you get into denial of basic human needs.

 

[Mr.Right]

Ok, you leftists loons. How does anything you said apply to forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake, when they don't even have them on the menu? They would have been more than happy to bake a traditional cake, but they lost their business because a couple of perverts wanted a gay cake. Doesn't anyone seen a problem with that?

 

[Geaux4it]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

In the first place, that isn't what is being asked by anyone I know.

In the second place, history has shown time and again that if the federal government doesn't enforce the law, the States have a pretty poor record of doing it themselves.

Cakes and photographs are one thing....if a homophobic leasing agent tells gay couples that there are no units available or quotes them a much higher price to drive them away from her/his property, you get into denial of basic human needs.

You mean like Immigration? Seems the Feds are failing miserably here and the states, like Arizonza, have to enforce the law

Kind of goes against what you stated

-Geaux

 

[LoneLaugher]

In what way are the ingredients and methods used to make a straight wedding cake different from those used to make a gay wedding cake?

Do most bakers have a menu item that reads "Straight Wedding Cake"?

Our nutters really can exhibit remarkable stupidity.

 

[candycorn]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

In the first place, that isn't what is being asked by anyone I know.

In the second place, history has shown time and again that if the federal government doesn't enforce the law, the States have a pretty poor record of doing it themselves.

Cakes and photographs are one thing....if a homophobic leasing agent tells gay couples that there are no units available or quotes them a much higher price to drive them away from her/his property, you get into denial of basic human needs.

You mean like Immigration? Seems the Feds are failing miserably here and the states, like Arizonza, have to enforce the law

Kind of goes against what you stated

-Geaux

Deportations are up. Pointing out a counterfactual is fun but overall the feds are doing a better job than they have been doing for a while.

 

[Geaux4it]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

In the first place, that isn't what is being asked by anyone I know.

In the second place, history has shown time and again that if the federal government doesn't enforce the law, the States have a pretty poor record of doing it themselves.

Cakes and photographs are one thing....if a homophobic leasing agent tells gay couples that there are no units available or quotes them a much higher price to drive them away from her/his property, you get into denial of basic human needs.

You mean like Immigration? Seems the Feds are failing miserably here and the states, like Arizonza, have to enforce the law

Kind of goes against what you stated

-Geaux

Deportations are up. Pointing out a counterfactual is fun but overall the feds are doing a better job than they have been doing for a while.

They're deporting more because MORE ARE COMING in..

-Geaux

 

[CowboyTed]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

In the first place, that isn't what is being asked by anyone I know.

In the second place, history has shown time and again that if the federal government doesn't enforce the law, the States have a pretty poor record of doing it themselves.

Cakes and photographs are one thing....if a homophobic leasing agent tells gay couples that there are no units available or quotes them a much higher price to drive them away from her/his property, you get into denial of basic human needs.

You mean like Immigration? Seems the Feds are failing miserably here and the states, like Arizonza, have to enforce the law

Kind of goes against what you stated

-Geaux

Deportations are up. Pointing out a counterfactual is fun but overall the feds are doing a better job than they have been doing for a while.

They're deporting more because MORE ARE COMING in..

-Geaux

Except you are wrong.

Just in case you want to say they are reducing resources...

So you are arguing from a grossly misinformed point of view... Actually from the figures I have shown you, you should be thanking Obama for increasing the effort on illegal immigration.

Go on now, say it... 'Thanks, Mr. President'

 

[Mr.Right]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

In the first place, that isn't what is being asked by anyone I know.

In the second place, history has shown time and again that if the federal government doesn't enforce the law, the States have a pretty poor record of doing it themselves.

Cakes and photographs are one thing....if a homophobic leasing agent tells gay couples that there are no units available or quotes them a much higher price to drive them away from her/his property, you get into denial of basic human needs.

You mean like Immigration? Seems the Feds are failing miserably here and the states, like Arizonza, have to enforce the law

Kind of goes against what you stated

-Geaux

Deportations are up. Pointing out a counterfactual is fun but overall the feds are doing a better job than they have been doing for a while.

They're deporting more because MORE ARE COMING in..

-Geaux

Except you are wrong.

Just in case you want to say they are reducing resources...

So you are arguing from a grossly misinformed point of view... Actually from the figures I have shown you, you should be thanking Obama for increasing the effort on illegal immigration.

Go on now, say it... 'Thanks, Mr. President'

Where did you get those charts From. Obama?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

The government has been using this policy wisely since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do you want that repealed?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

If you cannot in good conscience let a gay couple come into your restaurant to have lunch,

then your conscience is fucked up. It's not the responsibility of the US government to enable harm to others for the sake of defending your fucked up conscience.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[tinydancer]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

Mr. Right with all due respect the government does have the power. BUT the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is designed to keep the government in check and keep it from over reaching.

The Burwell vs Hobby Lobby case has catapulted that law into a whole new area because with the Hobby Lobby win the Justices ruled in favor of protecting "closely held for profits".

This was a landmark decision.

Now States will be dealing with cases of religious freedoms for "closely held for profits".

The world has changed drastically with this decision. For the better.

 

[tinydancer]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

If you cannot in good conscience let a gay couple come into your restaurant to have lunch,

then your conscience is fucked up. It's not the responsibility of the US government to enable harm to others for the sake of defending your fucked up conscience.

No one is talking about not providing every day services. That would be discrimination.

We are talking about the participation in what a person of faith believes to be a sinful act, same sex marriage.

It's a whole different ball game.

For example, Hobby Lobby had no problem with providing contraception to their employees.

But providing the abortion pill was against their faith because they would become a participant in a sin.

And they won based on RFRA. For profits have been recognized by the Supremes to have religious rights.

 

[Mr.Right]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

Mr. Right with all due respect the government does have the power. BUT the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is designed to keep the government in check and keep it from over reaching.

The Burwell vs Hobby Lobby case has catapulted that law into a whole new area because with the Hobby Lobby win the Justices ruled in favor of protecting "closely held for profits".

This was a landmark decision.

Now States will be dealing with cases of religious freedoms for "closely held for profits".

The world has changed drastically with this decision. For the better.

One can hope. But I have my doubts that things will really get better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a question for you. You people believe that the government has the right to force a Christian business owner to act against their conscience, though many of you would argue against it if the rolls were reversed. I know. I've seen you do it. Anyway, here's the question. If you give the government this power, would you trust them to use it wisely?

If you cannot in good conscience let a gay couple come into your restaurant to have lunch,

then your conscience is fucked up. It's not the responsibility of the US government to enable harm to others for the sake of defending your fucked up conscience.

No one is talking about not providing every day services. That would be discrimination.

We are talking about the participation in what a person of faith believes to be a sinful act, same sex marriage.

It's a whole different ball game.

For example, Hobby Lobby had no problem with providing contraception to their employees.

But providing the abortion pill was against their faith because they would become a participant in a sin.

And they won based on RFRA. For profits have been recognized by the Supremes to have religious rights.

No one? Are you insane?

btw
Hobby Lobby participates in commerce with China where abortions can be mandatory. They're hypocritical cretins.