Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no 'right to use my service'. There is no constitutional right to force me to sell my services to you.
What freedom do you think you have that I am infringing by not selling to you?
Just reverse the conversation, and see how it falls apart. If conducting trade (trading goods and services to each other), is a fundamental right.... can the seller also demand that buyers be forced to buy?
I'm a white male Christian Fundamentalist, and I sell lawn mowing services, to fund my Christian Evangelism. I demand you buy my service.
You *MUST* buy my service, or you are violating my economic rights.
Of course that's crazy. You are not required to fund anyone, and nor should I be required to service anyone.
I have just as much right to demand you buy or sell to me, as you have a right demand I buy and sell from you. Which of course is zero.... there is no "right" to demand people engage in trade with you, or me.
Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ.
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS.
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?
Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.
I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.
Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.
We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.
Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ.
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS.
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?
Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.
I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.
Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.
Incorrect.
Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples dont constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.
Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.
I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.
Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.
Incorrect.
Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples dont constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.
Prove it by showing that the case he is talking about was decided on public accommodation grounds and not freedom of religion grounds.
Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ.
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS.
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?
Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.
I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.
Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.
Incorrect.
Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples dont constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.
We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.
It's not a question of equal rights. There's no such thing as a 'right' to make someone bake you a cake. What you're really after is to outlaw bigotry, and I guess you think this is one way to get at some bigots. But what about the bigots who are shopping? Should engaged Christians be forced to buy wedding cakes from openly gay bakers? How is their bigotry any different?
Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.
I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.
Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.
Incorrect.
Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples dont constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.
"Incorrect" ?
Heh... listen, if you're going to go all pedantic, at least get it right. Anti-discrimination laws don't purport to protect classes of 'persons'. If they did, they'd be even more obviously in violation of equal protection. (Unless you care to explain how extending special protections to certain classes of people amounts to 'equal').
Instead, they seek to outlaw discrimination of people based on certain classes of traits, traits that everyone has (age, sex, race, etc...). That creates the even more bizarre and intrusive legal precedent of outlawing certain kinds of reasoning, rather than the acts that result from the reasoning. (eg It's perfectly legal to refuse service to people because they aren't dressed how you like, but it's illegal to refuse because they're espousing a religion you believe is immoral.)
We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.
It's not a question of equal rights. There's no such thing as a 'right' to make someone bake you a cake. What you're really after is to outlaw bigotry, and I guess you think this is one way to get at some bigots. But what about the bigots who are shopping? Should engaged Christians be forced to buy wedding cakes from openly gay bakers? How is their bigotry any different?
Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?
We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.
It is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.
It's not a question of equal rights. There's no such thing as a 'right' to make someone bake you a cake. What you're really after is to outlaw bigotry, and I guess you think this is one way to get at some bigots. But what about the bigots who are shopping? Should engaged Christians be forced to buy wedding cakes from openly gay bakers? How is their bigotry any different?
Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?
Nope. Never said that. I happen to agree that it's not a matter of religious freedom. It's a freedom of association issue. The problem with the Arizona law is that it's too narrow.
We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.
It is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.
It's not a question of equal rights. There's no such thing as a 'right' to make someone bake you a cake. What you're really after is to outlaw bigotry, and I guess you think this is one way to get at some bigots. But what about the bigots who are shopping? Should engaged Christians be forced to buy wedding cakes from openly gay bakers? How is their bigotry any different?
Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?
Nope. Never said that. I happen to agree that it's not a matter of religious freedom. It's a freedom of association issue. The problem with the Arizona law is that it's too narrow.
We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.
It is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.
Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ.
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS.
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?
Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.
I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.
Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.
Incorrect.
Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples dont constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.
We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.
It is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.
How many interracial weddings have you been forced to go to?
Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.
I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.
Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.
Incorrect.
Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples dont constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.
Whatever. The reason they refused to allow shacking up couple to do one night stands in their motel, was because of religious views, and that's a constitutional right. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association.
Whatever legalese you come up with, doesn't matter to me. If that's what you want to go with, fine. Knock yourself out. As for me, the group that funded the defense of the motel, was a Christian Rights group. They seem to know what they were fighting for.
On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed. THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.
Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.
How you're going about of it, encouraging judges to legislate from the bench completely destroys our Constitutional rights. The Constitution lays out Federal limits and the roles of the branches of government.
"Encouraging"? Hardly. It is the natural progression of violating the Constitution.
On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed. THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.
But there IS a compelling interest. That of PROTECTING the American people from the lunacy of homosexuality, and the spread of it, especially to children.
Lots of exceptions to the equal protections under the law of the 14th Amendment exist, in addition to queers. There are people locked up in mental institutions, criminals locked up in prisons, people who are denied rights to drive cars, buy guns, etc. What else is new ?
Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?
