First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[hazlnut]

Gov. Deal to speak about Religious Freedom decision, source says

Good thing that piece of shit is term limited. Time to vote out the piece of anti first amendment shit out of office. So glad I am leaving Ga soon. I hated that SOB from the time he was elected nothing but a spineless wimp.

Go suck a dick and swallow Mr. Homophobe.

A mouthful of baby batter will help you get over your fear of homosexuals.

 

[hazlnut]

Misread. He caved to the LGBT pressures. Just like Nazi Germany when otherwise good and decent folks capitulated to fears and economic threats that "they would be next" for the firing squads.

Better vote GOP this time folks. Unless you like rainbow political death camps..

Not getting enough dick in your ass these days?

Makes you real bitter...

 

[martybegan]

I notice you had to make shit up at the end, asshole.

I call it making a reasonable inference. YOu look at this case, it's the husband who went on the homophobic tirade that caused the complaint. It was the husband who published their address on social media. It's the husband running around on all the hate radio shows making a stink.

Poor Mrs. Klein probably just wanted a nice little bakery, and her husband managed to fuck that up on her.

100% projecting. How about you stick to facts, mouth breather.

 

[martybegan]

This coming from the king of repetitive fascist statements....

Don't you have a Mormon puppy to kick somewhere?

Naw, kicking Mormon PUppies was yesterday. Today is making fun of Libertarians who want to live in a civilized society without playing by the rules.

I'm a small "l" libertarian, dipshit.

 

[Dragonlady]

You're right there. A Christian baker can refuse to serve a gay couple but the gay couple does not have an equal right to refuse to serve the Christian couple.

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

 

[martybegan]

If the gay couple says they oppose opposite sex weddings for religious reasons they should. again you idiots confuse contracted service denial for point of service denial, which in most of these the former is the situation, not the latter.

I don't agree that they should, but that's not the way it IS. The way it IS I don't get to refuse to serve a Christian in all 50 states, but the Christian can refuse to serve me in about half. No equal protection "under the baker".

Still mixing up refusing the people in question for the service and event in question. Is mushing the two together the only way you have of making your point?

The event surrounding the discrimination is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Be it baking a cake, serving them at a restaurant or making them a floral arrangement, employment or housing. In 50 states the gay cannot, by law, discriminate against the Christian, but the Christian can discriminate against the gay in half.

Then, as Body states, work to get PA laws to make your butthurt equal to chrisitan butthurt.

As for me, I don't want the government getting involved over Hurt feelings in any case, so you are preaching to the wrong person here.

In any case, show me where is the harm caused by the denial.

Methinks you had an issue with the quote function.

 

[kaz]

The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

 

[bodecea]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

So a business owner can discriminate against anyone they want if they have some so-called religious "belief" that they claim to have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

The Supreme Court gets to decide.

And more than 200 years of Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never condoned or authorized citizens to use religion as ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just, proper, and Constitutional law – such as public accommodations laws.

 

[martybegan]

The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

 

[martybegan]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

So a business owner can discriminate against anyone they want if they have some so-called religious "belief" that they claim to have.

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

 

[martybegan]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

The Supreme Court gets to decide.

And more than 200 years of Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never condoned or authorized citizens to use religion as ‘justification’ to ignore or violate a just, proper, and Constitutional law – such as public accommodations laws.

PA laws were created and used to deal with incidents of actual harm, not just hurt feelings. The previous tests on constitutionality did not deal with the level of absurdity we are seeing now.

 

[kaz]

The freeks have free speech. They just don't understand that in the public forum that free speech does not mean Freedom of Expression that disrupts the orderly nature of the public.

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

 

[kaz]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

So a business owner can discriminate against anyone they want if they have some so-called religious "belief" that they claim to have.

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

 

[JakeStarkey]

Define 'harm', Marty.

Finally we got to your crux, which is your feelings are hurt.

 

[martybegan]

So every person is merely a cog that has to spin as our betters want it to spin, "or else".

A single baker not wanting to bake a cake does not disrupt the orderly nature of the public.

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

 

[martybegan]

Define 'harm', Marty.

Finally we got to your crux, which is your feelings are hurt.

Harm in this case would be some tangible economic impact.

 

[martybegan]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

So a business owner can discriminate against anyone they want if they have some so-called religious "belief" that they claim to have.

As long as they are not causing any actual harm, why not?

Citizens should be free to discriminate against each other for any reason. Only government should be restricted from discriminating against it's citizens

I would accept PA laws for point of sale items, or things like hotels and gas stations. Contracted services, on the other hand should not be covered by PA laws.

 

[kaz]

It's not about a single baker you dumbshit, its about setting a precedent so that EVERY "baker" can't rally around discriminatory policies.

Why would you possibly think that would happen?

It does not matter. The PA prevents that possibility. As far as Marty being a cog, he wants to live his life in society without being accountable to We the People's laws for society: tough, Marty.

"Being Accountable" is not the same as ruining people over someone else's hurt feelings.

The whole concept of government forcing citizens to do business with other citizens is an abomination to liberty

I would add the caveat "if the government cannot find a compelling interest due to an actual harm".

Give me an example. Keep in mind I said government should not discriminate. And that would include all government controlled industries, like post office, power and water companies, that sort of thing. If government removes competition, it should be equally open to all