Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Baker Who Refused To Make Wedding Cake For Lesbian Couple Under Investigation (Gresham, Oregon)
Daily Mail UK ^ | 12:47 EST, 2 February 2013

Posted on 02/02/2013 12:43:35 PM PST by drewh

Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon, is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint.

An Oregon baker has refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, allegedly calling them 'abominations unto the Lord.'

Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint.

The woman claims Klein refused to take an order from her partner when he learned the cake was for a gay marriage.

Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement office is now looking into the case to determine whether the baker broke the law by discriminating against the couple.

The Oregon Equality Act 2007 outlaws discrimination by an individual or a business against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Klein denied calling the women 'abominations' but admitted to rejecting their custom.

'I apologized for wasting their time and said we don't do same-sex marriages,' he told KATU.

'I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, (it's) just something I believe in very strongly.'

He told the news station his religious beliefs were more important than making money and the state law. Religious: The bakery has clear symbols of Klein's faith on its walls, pictured

'If I have to be, I guess, be penalized for my beliefs, then I guess, well, that'll be what it is,' he said, adding that, in his view, his constitutional rights should override Oregon law.

'My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it,' Klein said.

The case will likely fall to a judge to decide. The women said they didn't want to talk about the complaint until they received further legal advice.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: gaystapo; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

1 posted on 02/02/2013 12:43:40 PM PST by drewh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drewh

Faggots want to normalize homosexuality and make it socially AND morally acceptable. Some of us still have Christian morals.

Yet, if we decide to go shopping or out for dinner with a pistol strapped to our waist, we’re considered potential killers when just 50 years ago kids as young as 12 could bring their .22 to school with them to go shooting with their friends after classes were over.

This nation is upside down.


2 posted on 02/02/2013 12:46:05 PM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh
It's his business if he doesn't want to make a cake for some lesbian then that is his right dont like it lesbo go somewhere else or make your own damn cake.Why dont you start your own bakery and specialize in cake's for gays.
3 posted on 02/02/2013 12:49:35 PM PST by bikerman (Gun control does nothing to stop gun violence. But then, Washington specializes in the art of doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

It won’t be too much longer before Christians face heavy civil penalities for practicing their beliefs. Soon thereafter criminal penalities will follow.

There will come a time when Christians will have to meet for services in private...but the government will note who they are.

I’m not kidding.


4 posted on 02/02/2013 12:49:52 PM PST by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh

I thought a business had the right to refuse service to anyone.


5 posted on 02/02/2013 12:51:19 PM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Sadly this is just the beginning.


6 posted on 02/02/2013 12:54:27 PM PST by drewh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh

When liberals discriminate, it’s called “freedom of choice”. When conservatives do it, it’s “discrimination”.


7 posted on 02/02/2013 12:56:13 PM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Government sponsored HeteroPhobia. This is sick


8 posted on 02/02/2013 1:00:23 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo

No, you are correct. The intention is to extinguish the Christian faith, in all forms.


9 posted on 02/02/2013 1:00:31 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: drewh

This crap is fast coming to a head fast. We need to take a stand.


10 posted on 02/02/2013 1:01:17 PM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

My God, my God, where are our freedoms going? We have signed away our most intimate personal freedoms with the slow strangulation of socialized medicine, and the freedoms of our businesses are shrinking away, too.


11 posted on 02/02/2013 1:01:29 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

I think they’re gone. We’re only permitted now.


12 posted on 02/02/2013 1:03:14 PM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: drewh

I see no problem with the guy’s words nor his actions.

Those lesbians didn’t want a cake as much as they wanted to try and stir up crap. The fact that he has evidence of his religious faith on his wall made them even more determined to do so.


13 posted on 02/02/2013 1:03:35 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo
There will come a time when Christians will have to meet for services in private...but the government will note who they are.

You are correct sir, and people wonder why I am leaving the country. There is far too much communism in America for my taste.

14 posted on 02/02/2013 1:04:18 PM PST by Mark17 (California, where English is a foreign language)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

“Faggots want to normalize homosexuality and make it socially AND morally acceptable. Some of us still have Christian morals.”

I would suspect that Mr Klein is expressing his Jewish moral values which, believe it or not,sometimes coincide with Christian values.


15 posted on 02/02/2013 1:06:29 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh

For generations, we have given the State the power to create artificial persons, in the form of corporations, foundations, trusts and the like. Nobody is confused by this government-defined fiction. We know that a corporation is not a real human person.

Another government-defined fiction that we have allowed for generations is that the State can also define “marriage” and who is “married” and who is not. But marriage predates any State because it is God who defines not any State. Indeed, any “marriage” a State defines is just as much a legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person” that has freedom of speech.

The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates. To administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, as silly as this would be to God, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married”, totally apart from how God would define them. Sadly, even ministers allow the State’s definition of marriage to be the controlling definiton.

Jesus, who was recognized as a prophet by all three monotheistic religions, is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that His morality simply do not qualify for His freely given gift of eternal life. (for example, see Ephesians chapter 5). Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but that does not change what God clearly said to us.

If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage (like at HRC.ORG), you will find that many of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues, all issues controlled by the State. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.

I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a secular Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination to Him.

If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.

However, once gays and their supporters have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, they don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.

If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as God’s definition of marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your children from such indoctrination. As long as they are enrolled in government- controlled schools, they will be graded on how well they accept the State’s idea of normal, or refuse to reject God’s idea of normal.

If you run a business that could provide services to the public, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat gays as non-gays. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding. This has already happened in California and New Mexico [1].

You may lose control of your own property. [2]

You might have to go out of business to stay true to your principles, so as to avoid being fined or sued into bankruptcy. [3,4]

From the article:

“Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost. Legal experts said Discover Annapolis Tours sidesteps legal trouble by avoiding all weddings.

“If they’re providing services to the public, they can’t discriminate who they provide their services to,” said Glendora Hughes, general counsel for the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The commission enforces public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other characteristics.”

In short, gays will demand that non-gays accept them as moral equals, which they are not and cannot be. When the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.

Curiously, when advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when, for example, Utah public schools officials require that teachers instruct the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.

[1] Refusing To Shoot Gay Marriage Is Discrimination, Says New Mexico Appeals Court
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/06/refusing-to-shoot-gay-marriage-discrimination-says-new-mexico- appeals-court

[2] Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union- ceremony-on

[3] Opposed to same-sex marriage, company ends wedding business
Trolley owner says move made to avoid potential lawsuit
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-ar-annapolis-trolley-suspends-wedding-servic- 20121225,0,7100399,full.story

[4] Aaron Klein, owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon is the subject of a state investigation after one of the brides-to-be filed a complaint

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272429/Aaron-Klein-complaint-Baker-refuses-make-wedding- cake-lesbian-couple-calls-abominations-unto-Lord.html


16 posted on 02/02/2013 1:07:23 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bikerman
"cakes for gays..."


17 posted on 02/02/2013 1:07:48 PM PST by carriage_hill (AR-10s & AR-15s are the 21st Century's Muskets. The 2nd Amendment is the First Human Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

Those lesbians didn’t want a cake as much as they wanted to try and stir up crap.

I thought it was only gay men who stir up crap...


18 posted on 02/02/2013 1:07:54 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: drewh
They literally don't have a valid case:
Oregon State Constitution
Article 1, Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion.

No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

19 posted on 02/02/2013 1:08:29 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh
Did the baker forget to put this sign up?


20 posted on 02/02/2013 1:09:45 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

So - let’s get contact info for this guy and see if he’ll take phone orders, email ‘we’re behind you.’ They think they can pick us off, one by one, and no one will do anything.


21 posted on 02/02/2013 1:10:50 PM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: drewh

So all those shops in the past that had “No shoes, No Shirt, No Service” signs were illegal too?


22 posted on 02/02/2013 1:11:39 PM PST by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Free enterprise? Faggots are a tiny segment of the populace, yet expect to be treated like they are the norm. Hell no! We have the right to conduct business, or not, with whomever we like.


23 posted on 02/02/2013 1:12:19 PM PST by ronnyquest (I spent 20 years in the Army fighting the enemies of freedom only to see marxism elected at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

THIS CAN GET TOUCHY. If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims “his religion” forbids him from serving blacks, I don’t think he’ll have much of a case.


24 posted on 02/02/2013 1:13:54 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: drewh

I know both gay and militant gay people. The gay people are normal and keep it in the bedroom. The militant gay people will let you know they are gay no matter what the situation. The former are pleasant and personable to be around, the latter are not.


25 posted on 02/02/2013 1:16:14 PM PST by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

They want desperately to belive they are normal while these perverts are certainly not. Of course, the spousal abuse or simply partner abuse by lesbians is simply not reported on much.


26 posted on 02/02/2013 1:16:14 PM PST by Stepan12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh

FROM THEIR WEBSITE (www.sweetcakesweb.com/8.html)

Its not just cake, its dessert!

We are a small family business, please be patient with us due to high volume of calls and emails each day it may take up to 48 hours to return your call or email. thank you so much for your buisness.

Phone number 503-674-5400

Email melissa@sweetcakesweb.com

Call and make an appointment for a free cake tasting!

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight” Proverbs 3:5-6


27 posted on 02/02/2013 1:16:27 PM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Every time you see a law written with the words that you cannot discriminate based upon “sexual orientation” know with certainty that this is what they are after! The homosexual lobby is interested in one thing. ALL religions bowing to their homogod! They portray it as “equal rights” with their stupid equal sign on their cars but there is no “equal” about it! They want you to SUBMIT to there god!!


28 posted on 02/02/2013 1:20:25 PM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh
'My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it,' Klein said.

Good luck with that in today's so-called America.

29 posted on 02/02/2013 1:21:29 PM PST by Flick Lives (We're going to be just like the old Soviet Union, but with free cell phones!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh; All

The 14th Amendment applied all rights expressly protected by the Constitution to the states. So 1st Amendment protections trump Oregon’s law protecting sexual orientation in this case, imo, because sexual orientation and gender identity are not constitutionally protected rights.

There was a similar case in New Mexico, I believe, where activist judge(s) wrongly decided that rights protected by state law trump constitutionally protected rights.


30 posted on 02/02/2013 1:24:34 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

“Faggots want to normalize homosexuality and make it socially AND morally acceptable”

It’s a prelude to making pedophilia accepted as normal. They’ve been working at it a long time and almost there.


31 posted on 02/02/2013 1:25:02 PM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh

Goldwater was right.


32 posted on 02/02/2013 1:26:45 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

LOL, maybe I should have chosen my words differently...ugh.


33 posted on 02/02/2013 1:29:34 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: matt04
IMO, you have pointed out the difference between a homosexual man and a faggot.

One goes about his life normally, but prefers men, sexually, the other is a narcissistic, infantile, tantrum thrower who lets everyone know his sexual preference with attention getting exhibitionist devices.

34 posted on 02/02/2013 1:30:10 PM PST by Banjoguy (The Mayor of San Antonio is the smoothest liar I have ever seen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bikerman
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
35 posted on 02/02/2013 1:30:35 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: drewh

I'm Aaron Klein, and I support the family, just like FR does.

And I hope you'll order my stuff, if you come my way, OK...?

And here is a link to our store:

CLICK HERE FOR THE FAMILY

36 posted on 02/02/2013 1:30:54 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

I’d make them a “ special” cake...


37 posted on 02/02/2013 1:31:32 PM PST by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
"THIS CAN GET TOUCHY. If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims “his religion” forbids him from serving blacks, I don’t think he’ll have much of a case."

When last I checked, homosexuality was a choice, not a race!

38 posted on 02/02/2013 1:39:44 PM PST by Edward Teach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kjo
It won’t be too much longer before Christians face heavy civil penalities for practicing their beliefs. Soon thereafter criminal penalities will follow. There will come a time when Christians will have to meet for services in private...but the government will note who they are.

Today, tomorrow, when? Before 0bama is out? What is the point of this observation? Before criminal penalties result, gov't will have alot more to do than screw with Christians.

39 posted on 02/02/2013 1:40:38 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims “his religion” forbids him from serving blacks, I don’t think he’ll have much of a case.

A business should be free to serve whomever they wish. Consumers should be free to patronize whomever they wish. If a bakery refuses to sell for a “same sex union,” I'll choose to do business with them. If a restaurant refuses to serve a black person, I'll do business elsewhere.

Why should anyone fear freedom?

40 posted on 02/02/2013 1:40:56 PM PST by Rides_A_Red_Horse (Fair is a place you go to eat cotton candy and step in monkey poop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: drewh

I’ve emailed him contact information for the ACLJ and the Liberty Counsel. Either one will defend him for free. Paul demanded his rights as a Roman citizen, so a Christian can demand his rights as a US citizen!


41 posted on 02/02/2013 1:40:56 PM PST by Former Fetus (Saved by grace through faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
THIS CAN GET TOUCHY. If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims “his religion” forbids him from serving blacks, I don’t think he’ll have much of a case.

In court then he would have to produce the evidence that his religion did indeed specify such -- but such is not the case we are talking about on this thread: what we have here is very obviously some people trying to control another's freedom of conscience.

42 posted on 02/02/2013 1:42:14 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: matt04

I know both gay and militant gay people. The gay people are normal and keep it in the bedroom. The militant gay people will let you know they are gay no matter what the situation. The former are pleasant and personable to be around, the latter are not.


I know both fun and mean alcoholics. The former are pleasant and personable to be around, the latter are not.

Aren’t both homosexuality and alcoholism considered disorders?


43 posted on 02/02/2013 1:44:13 PM PST by Rides_A_Red_Horse (Fair is a place you go to eat cotton candy and step in monkey poop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
THIS CAN GET TOUCHY. If a restaurant owner denies a black person service and claims “his religion” forbids him from serving blacks, I don’t think he’ll have much of a case.

Why? The old Son of Cain argument could still hold sway with some. What compelling reason of the state is there to trample over someone's rights? Because that was what was supposed to be required in these inane laws - it must have a compelling reason: a compelling reason isn't having to frequent another business, or even frequenting a business which is a bit of a drive. In the context of this thread, EVERY cake business would have to start refusing to make cakes for the ceremony that gays like to pretend is marriage, and no business pops up to take advantage of the huge (HAHAHAH) hole in the marketplace.

This isn't the case here, or the case in many laws now imposed by states and the federal government. None can handle the slightest bit of examination when it comes to examining the reason behind the law.

44 posted on 02/02/2013 1:44:20 PM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
I thought a business had the right to refuse service to anyone.

Yes, but Homosexuals destroy the Society, so they are not "just anyone" to the traitors in office.

Equality for all humans, except those who do not make the Presidents list of favorites. Those are sub-humans. Ain't liberal Utopia grand?

45 posted on 02/02/2013 1:50:16 PM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

Forced by government to go against your religious faith?

Christian bakery - Who says the cake has to be attractive or tasty? Maybe you forgot the sugar.

Christian photographer - Who says the pictures have to turn out any good? Maybe your equipment had issues.

Excrement happens!


46 posted on 02/02/2013 1:53:32 PM PST by ThE_RiPpEr.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: drewh

We now have two choices:

1) Refuse service when we would find that service immoral and face the consequences of exercising our God-given and constitutionally protected human rights in a post-freedom America, or

2) Point out that we object to celebrating perversion and that the quality of products or services may suffer because we cannot put our enthusiasm into a revolting mockery of a solemn ceremony, then quote an outrageous price for the services that entitled gay activists demand, hoping the perverts will go away peacefully.

If phrased right, the perverts will know we don’t wish to accommodate them but will be unable to sue. Then we just make sure the contract specifies no penalty beyond a full refund for failing to deliver as scheduled. If they demand service against our will, they are demanding slavery, and they deserve to have their “celebration” ruined by having no cake when we cancel at the last minute due to a baking failure.


47 posted on 02/02/2013 1:56:25 PM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drewh

My imagination is simply beggared. Investigated for what? Charged with what? When did a deviant and self-destructive behavior get “civil rights?”


48 posted on 02/02/2013 2:02:07 PM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Ok...then let’s all file suit against any muslim food establishment that refuses to stock and sell pork


49 posted on 02/02/2013 2:02:20 PM PST by Josa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drewh
Common Sense

By Thomas Paine
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.


50 posted on 02/02/2013 2:09:04 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson