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


1 posted on 02/24/2014 6:44:40 AM PST by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: GIdget2004

It is not discriminatory, it is designed to prevent forced participation.

A baker will sell a generic cake no problem. Demandint the baker create a “two groom” wedding cake, that is forced participation.

What if the baker does not believe in marriage?

What if the baker does not want to make a “Congrats on your Divorce” cake?

What if the baker does not want to make an xrated cake?

What if the baker does not want to make a satanist themed cake?

Objection is nonsense.


30 posted on 02/24/2014 9:15:19 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

It’s one thing if all it did was protect people from having to violate their conscience by catering to a gay wedding, but the law is so broadly written that just about any sect could use it to deny service to anyone they want. Muslims could refuse to serve blind people with dogs, Scientologists could use it to refuse to serve whatever the heck it is that violates their religion, where does it end?


33 posted on 02/24/2014 12:47:38 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

It’s one thing if all it did was protect people from having to violate their conscience by catering to a gay wedding, but the law is so broadly written that just about any sect could use it to deny service to anyone they want. Muslims could refuse to serve blind people with dogs, Scientologists could use it to refuse to serve whatever the heck it is that violates their religion, where does it end?


34 posted on 02/24/2014 12:47:43 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

It’s one thing if all it did was protect people from having to violate their conscience by catering to a gay wedding, but the law is so broadly written that just about any sect could use it to deny service to anyone they want. Muslims could refuse to serve blind people with dogs, Scientologists could use it to refuse to serve whatever the heck it is that violates their religion, where does it end?


35 posted on 02/24/2014 12:48:02 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

McCain has joined Flake in calling for Brewer to veto the bill.
Three state senators (Worsley, Driggs and Pierce), all of whom voted for the bill, signed a letter asking the Governor to veto it.
Does anyone now think Brewer will sign the bill?


41 posted on 02/24/2014 1:30:41 PM PST by Enderby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Another primary out opprutunity.


42 posted on 02/24/2014 2:46:12 PM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Lord, I confess I HATE Jeff McFlake! He didn’t even wait to get into office before he took a hard left turn!

He wanted military retiree pay cut, and was one of 3 Senators to vote to keep those cuts. He voted to go to war in Syria. And he wants Christians to submit to extortion by homosexual activists.

Lord, we have him for 5 more years...unless you call him to that Great Primary in the Sky before then...Please?


49 posted on 02/24/2014 5:35:35 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

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