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.
Really? I'd be interested to see that. Do tell.Yes, the gun part does change things rather quickly.
not according to the justice department
Involuntary Servitude
Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will
Civil Rights Division Home Page
Really? I'd be interested to see that. Do tell.not according to the justice department
He did tell in this ironically hilarious post that you totally ignored:
Involuntary Servitude
Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will
Civil Rights Division Home Page
That fits this current situation to a fucking tee. You are FORCED through COERCION of legal threat to provide a service that you do not want to provide aka involuntary servitude.
This woman was raised by two lesbians. One of them happened to be her previously heterosexual mother (whom she loves dearly) who suffered from a nasty divorce. Here's another twist: She's a pro-choice Christian. In the blog below, she discusses the merits of what was SB1062, despite being raised by gay parents. She also discusses why the bill was not rooted in any type of hatred for homosexuals but in respect for religions and First Amendment rights. Not to mention this Christian woman, raised by gay parents will invariably make some liberal gay rights activists heads explode in the process.
Pro-choice, eh? Except for those pesky times that someone wants to exercise their freedoms in a way that offends you. Right. Because pro-choice only applies to abortion. So then.
During my long morning bath, luxuriating with the New York Times (no Bon Bons, mommas jeans are T I G H T) I happened across the news about Arizonas Religious Freedom Act which would enforce a businesss right to refuse service to gay patrons.
I will generously provide Cliff Notes for you if you are unaware of the reasons this bill has been proposed in the first place. Some Christian businesses have refused to provide services for a gay event and because of it they have been bullied, sued, shut down, and some are lucky enough to have received death threats. There was the printer who declined to produce the gay pride shirt. A baker who had a policy of gay-rights-arizonamaking every cake you could possibly desire, just not cakes for same-sex weddings. A photographer who said that she would gladly serve gays and lesbiansby, for example, providing them with portrait photographywhenever doing so would not require [her] to create expression conveying messages that conflict with [her] religious beliefs. A florist who served her numerous gay clients for a decade but was sued when she declined to provide flowers for a long time clients gay wedding. I promise I will not point and laugh if you have not heard of these cases. Mainstream media doesnt want to be proved wrong about the conflict between gay marriage laws and religious liberty, which was predicted by many a natural marriage supporter. If you have not, do avail yourself to a big, gigantic, way more intelligent brain on the Matt Walshs blog and inform yourself. Ifyouwouldplease.
So, dear readers, here is my attempt to engage your critical thinking capabilities thinly veiled in a question so please set down your agendas and hop off your sacred cows and tell me true. In the cases above, the business owners offered other services to their gay customers, sometimes for years, before they refused service for the gay event. Why?
I will give you a second to discuss.
It is because the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker do not know who is gay and who is not unless the service revolves around an activity. A BEHAVIOR. I have said it before but I will gladly repeat myself because I am very service oriented. This fact (the one up there in the fancy italics) obliterates the comparisons between racial segregation and the gay-rights movement. Sexual orientation is not like race. Race does not depend on feelings, behaviors, and with whom you chose to identify. Race is an immutable factor that cannot, will not, does not change no matter your feelings or actions. You do not have to come out as black. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is much more nebulous. There are plenty of folks who have varying degrees of same-sex attraction. Some choose to be in relationships with the opposite sex only. Some have been in gay relationships for a season of their life. Some feel that this attraction is the defining characteristic of their identity and they exclusively couple with the same gender. But it is the manifestation of that attraction expressed in behavior- specifically who you choose to have sex with- that distinguishes this class of citizens.
It is an activity alone that distinguishes people as gay. It is not the lisp, the effeminate gait nor the incredible fashion sense. Neither is it because of the butch haircut, the Subaru or the piercings that the above referenced businesses were choosing to deny service. It was an activity. Without the activity, gay people are indistinguishable from everyone else walking the planet. Under this bill, the only way that a queer customer would be refused lunch at the diner would be for her to stand up and declare I have sex with women! or make out with her girlfriend right then and there. Otherwise, youre just the average diner, sister. Dontcha think that a restaurateur should be able to remove any lunatic shouting about their sex life or exhibiting gratuitous PDA in a diner? Well hold on there missy. Not with this bill. Only the straight-identifying lunatics could be removed. Thats fair, right? If you have not remounted your sacred cow then you know the answer is a resounding NO.
Cake or No Cake ? Arizona?s Religious Freedom Bill | asktheBigot
Link to the author's bio:
Who is this Christian ?bigot?? | asktheBigot
It's a Limit, a Speed Limit, meaning how fast can you drive, and driving, wait for it ------------------------------- is a behavior. So, I can't drive too fast, and I can't drive too slow, which means By Law, I have to adjust my Behavior in order to be Legal. Which means the government just told me what I can and cannot do. I could of course not drive but if I do I have to follow their rules that dictate my behavior. See how that works?Really? Speed limits are Boundaries huh? I'll remember to use that the next time I'm doing 90 in school zone. But officer, the government can only tell me to drive safely, and I'm a good driver so 90 is safest for me. I guess the 30 when flashing sign was just a suggestion by the a government watching out for me eh? I don't actually have to adjust my "behavior" to such a thing? They aren't allowed to make me right?
Are you on drugs ?
A speed limit is a boundary.
The last three words I very much agree with.It's a Limit, a Speed Limit, meaning how fast can you drive, and driving, wait for it ------------------------------- is a behavior. So, I can't drive too fast, and I can't drive too slow, which means By Law, I have to adjust my Behavior in order to be Legal. Which means the government just told me what I can and cannot do. I could of course not drive but if I do I have to follow their rules that dictate my behavior. See how that works?Are you on drugs ?
A speed limit is a boundary.
It's a boundary.
As are the lines on the road. They don't care if you drive with your radio on, if you stare at the sun, or if your ragtop is down in a snowstorm. Stay between the lines, below the limit and don't have a blood alcohol concentration above a certain boundary.
End of discussion.
Oh thank goodness. Jan Brewer has decided to let them eat cake.
Really? I'd be interested to see that. Do tell.not according to the justice department
He did tell in this ironically hilarious post that you totally ignored:
Involuntary Servitude
Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will
Civil Rights Division Home Page
That fits this current situation to a fucking tee. You are FORCED through COERCION of legal threat to provide a service that you do not want to provide aka involuntary servitude.
Really? I'd be interested to see that. Do tell.
He did tell in this ironically hilarious post that you totally ignored:
Involuntary Servitude
Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will
Civil Rights Division Home Page
That fits this current situation to a fucking tee. You are FORCED through COERCION of legal threat to provide a service that you do not want to provide aka involuntary servitude.
"It's different when we do it!"
I called her one. And I have a country full of judges and people who disagree with you. Now what?Hey Jesus-freak, bake the stupid fucking cake. It's a cake, not a vow for all eternity before Jesus and God Almighty.
Did you just call me a "Jesus freak?"
Your argument is invalid.
[
Now what? Windsor/DOMA and Harvey Milk vs Utah this year at the US Supreme Court.
You may want to take a look at Windsor to see what SCOTUS most likely won't be overturning within a year's time. Once they decide [again] about a state's "unquestioned authority" since the founding of the country to weigh in via broad consensus on the matter of gay marriage's legality within their boundaries, your owned/bribed/threatened/blackmailed judicial activists' words will be worth less than the paper they're written on.
The US Supreme Court will re-explain to you and all your fascist buddies forcing the dogma of the church of LGBT down everyone's throats without their consent what they meant in Windsor.
Noted. Mark down one for Likes Cake, Very Much.Cake is a very special dish for any function to happen..I like creamy cakes a lot they seems very very tasty..I always prefer eating cakes a lot...
You don't have to bake the cake, just make sure you put a note on your window stating that you refuse to bake cakes for gay couples. Its not that hard.
You don't have to bake the cake, just make sure you put a note on your window stating that you refuse to bake cakes for gay couples. Its not that hard.
But hey, you folks just got through telling us how hateful that would be? Why the change of heart?
You don't have to bake the cake, just make sure you put a note on your window stating that you refuse to bake cakes for gay couples. Its not that hard.
