Well cousin Mike, I read your post and am a bit confused.
But whatever information you provided why couldn’t maybe the Republican s have provided while the hysteria climaxed?
I got an opinion about that fiasco last week and I might make some of you mad but hear me out.
As America is to understand it, Arizona passed a law that would allow, a florist say.... to refuse to service a same-sex wedding as his religion does not allow it.
Right there I’m thinking....damn. How the hell many florists are going to turn down a nice paying gig due to religious beliefs? Not to mock...no, no...not to mock. But you can get a chicken sandwich at Chick Filet no matter your sexuality.
Religious beliefs do not necessarily include denial of service is what I’m saying here.
All my wonderful common sense tells me that this was a rather silly thing for Arizona to pass a law, to please the errant baker who doesn’t want to bake a wedding cake for Bob and Bill.
I think this law was deliberately passed for this very eventuality.
For back in 1964, when I was a young blossoming maiden, this country enacted a law that disallowed businesses from discriminating against black people by denying them service.
The Civil Rights is a good law and has stood the test of time no mind those abusing its intent.
All of a sudden we’re going to enact another law that would deny service to a homosexual....this from a business with a license to conduct commerce in the public domain?
What the thing was was a political nightmare and typical of the Repubs. It makes no sense and I’m sure cousin Mike has some kind of reason why I’m wrong.
The reason I am usually right and cousin Mike....well he’s usually right too.
But The Wise I, yon ladies and gems, has the common sense of it.
Somebody got fooled by that mess in Arizona. Best thing, never mind the Super Bowl, is for the thing to have been vetoed and let it go down the memory drain.
Republicans....PR is just not that party’s strong suit.
PS-and please don’t give me this “THAT’S NOT WHAT THE LAW MEANT” crap. As I described is how the media hysteria came down and someone should have figured it out.
I agree with you up to the point that in at least a couple of cases—with one that went all the way to the Supreme court of New Mexico—that a business was OBLIGATED and REQUIRED by law to not only conduct business with gays (which should not be objected to, as in the case of the civil rights and blacks at the lunch counters in the 60s), but to PROMOTE the homosexual lifestyle with their labor.
You should have the right, as a business, to not be forced to promote things that are considered by yourself to be sinful and vile, and would jeopardize your soul with your God. I think it is not discrimination. I believe that even the sharpest mind in the legal profession notes that homosexuality has always been a sin in Christianity, along with fornication, murder, lying, cheating at cards, getting wastedly drunk, watching pornography, beating up people, stealing, being cruel to animals beyond reason, and a host of other things, some illegal, some not. But it is not like the idea that Christians would be against promoting any of that would be a new thing.
We have a right to keep our traditions and religious beliefs as long as it doesn’t hurt others. It does not hurt a homosexual wanting to get married to have to shop around a little to find a baker or photographer who will work for them. That is really my argument. It doesn’t HURT them. The law cannot force equality based on what is considered bad BEHAVIOR by some and not by others. In this case, the law can only stay out of the way and let people work it out themselves.
The idea that the law could FORCE someone in this case really is ludicrous. They want to argue it hurts them, but then by extrapolation, having a religion say your sexual habits are sinful hurts them also, and when the law says that religion MUST remove such a tenant because it is discriminatory, makes us all slaves to the law without religious freedom at all.
Arizona may or may not need such a law as they tried, but the wheels of justice have already turned on our religious freedom. That HAS occurred. The Arizona law was a reaction, and not a bolt out of the blue.
The baker should have just charged them 200 times the price..cause it was a ‘unique” order, not the usual guy and gal.HA.
IMO the issue is how far the state can go to force you to violate your religious beliefs. The gay agenda seems to trump everything. Should a minister be forced to marry a gay couple? Should Catholic institutions be forced to provide abortion services as part of its health care plans?
Recently, the CVS chain announced it would no longer sell cigarettes--a legal product--because it felt that the damage to the buyer's health violated what CVS believed its services should provide. Obama and the liberals applauded CVS. Yet, when some pharmacists said they would not dispense birth control pills, they were lambasted,
We will see how the Little Sisters of the Poor fare with SCOTUS.