First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[Timmy]

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Commerce clause .

Where is the harm that would allow the commerce clause to supersede people's first amendment protections?

Your first amendment rights are not effected .

How so? And its not about my 1st amendment rights, its about other's 1st amendment rights.

Your personal rights do not follow to your business .

if you are in your home , you don't have to wash your hands before handling food . But if you are working as a cook in a restaurant , you have to follow health codes .

 

[martybegan]

Where is that in the constitution again?

Commerce clause .

Where is the harm that would allow the commerce clause to supersede people's first amendment protections?

Your first amendment rights are not effected .

How so? And its not about my 1st amendment rights, its about other's 1st amendment rights.

Your personal rights do not follow to your business .

if you are in your home , you don't have to wash your hands before handling food . But if you are working as a cook in a restaurant , you have to follow health codes .

Why not? Why does commerce trump someones 1st amendment rights just over hurt feelings?

In your example, you are talking about an employee, not the owner usually, and also, I can't find any religion out there that has issues with hand cleaning, and if there was one, I have a feeling the regs would lose.

Its been shown that Kosher and halal standards can override health code violations.

 

[koshergrl]

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..

Don't worry, jihadists will take care of the homo problem.

 

[bendog]

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.

The bill would also have allowed religious based organizations providing state services, like adoption, to discriminate. If a minister doesn't want to minister or a baker doesn't want to bake ... I don't care. But you cannot allow religious beliefs to affect who gets protections and services from the state.

Georgia Bill Tells LGBTQ People They Don’t Deserve Equal Treatment Under the Law

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Is that how you think about this? You are wrong about "cogs". And libertarians recognize clearly that the laws must protect all in the public forum.

Actually, libertarians believe that everybody should be treated equally, but in a free country you also have the right to associate with whom you choose and not associate with those you choose not to, free from government coercion.

 

[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.

The bill would also have allowed religious based organizations providing state services, like adoption, to discriminate. If a minister doesn't want to minister or a baker doesn't want to bake ... I don't care. But you cannot allow religious beliefs to affect who gets protections and services from the state.

Georgia Bill Tells LGBTQ People They Don’t Deserve Equal Treatment Under the Law

I read the bill and I agree it was too broadly written. But how many of the people reacting to it with "boycott" and "ban them", including all those high and mighty CEO's, read it as well? More than likely they just got a call from someone who told them "Condemn this or we will have trouble" and they went and did their 5 second soundbite to appease the mob.

 

[JakeStarkey]

otherwise known as jim crow is dead... get over it.

Jim Crow was government mandated discrimination of defined economic and political harm. What you want is government mandated discrimination as well, but over hurt feelings. Your view is far more in line with Bull Connor's than mine.

Bull Connor was your hero because you are espousing his actions.

Bullshit. Government discrimination is and always will be wrong under the 14th amendment. Personal discrimination is wrong when an actual economic or political harm can be shown.

Hurt feelings are not harm.

You don't believe in the 14th, so run along.

Bullshit again. What i don't believe is that it is carte blanche for courts to force everyone to be the same, think the same and act the same, or be too scared to do anything about it.

Yep, your point is bullshit. SCOTUS does rule, and you do drool.

 

[martybegan]

Jim Crow was government mandated discrimination of defined economic and political harm. What you want is government mandated discrimination as well, but over hurt feelings. Your view is far more in line with Bull Connor's than mine.

Bull Connor was your hero because you are espousing his actions.

Bullshit. Government discrimination is and always will be wrong under the 14th amendment. Personal discrimination is wrong when an actual economic or political harm can be shown.

Hurt feelings are not harm.

You don't believe in the 14th, so run along.

Bullshit again. What i don't believe is that it is carte blanche for courts to force everyone to be the same, think the same and act the same, or be too scared to do anything about it.

Yep, your point is bullshit. SCOTUS does rule, and you do drool.

There goes Jake, running to authority, and as usual, tripping over his untied shoe-laces.

You don't have any actual retort, and are left with pathetic attempts to trivialize the conversation.

 

[bendog]

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.

The bill would also have allowed religious based organizations providing state services, like adoption, to discriminate. If a minister doesn't want to minister or a baker doesn't want to bake ... I don't care. But you cannot allow religious beliefs to affect who gets protections and services from the state.

Georgia Bill Tells LGBTQ People They Don’t Deserve Equal Treatment Under the Law

I read the bill and I agree it was too broadly written. But how many of the people reacting to it with "boycott" and "ban them", including all those high and mighty CEO's, read it as well? More than likely they just got a call from someone who told them "Condemn this or we will have trouble" and they went and did their 5 second soundbite to appease the mob.

I am truly sympathetic to people that their religious beliefs are compromised, if they have to acknowledge something they consider sinful, when going about their peaceful lives of baking cakes or whatever.

But the fact was the law was going to be unconstitutional Deal didn't have any real choice. Upon what ground could he appeal to Disney's better nature?

The yahoos behind the bill need to go back and get some input from the rational. NO ONE is going to try and force a church to perform a ceremony it doesn't want to perform. THAT would be blatantly unconstitutional as well. If GA wants to let small biz bakers not bake, but require professionals like docs and lawyers to comply with ethical standards of non-discrimination, and not allow what are effectively G-Normous corporations acting under the tax shelter of the Baptists or Old Men in Skirts, to discriminate .....

I think Disney can cut a deal. GA gets 6billion from the film industry. I think the State can locate a food and beverage group for the Walking Dead that will serve everyone ... happily.

 

[Slade3200]

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 the same discriminatory policy.

Actually it usually is about a single baker. If it was systemic discrimination Jake would actually have a point about disruption of the public, but in the cases we have seen, it has been one person or company politely refusing to provide service, in areas where others are available to provide it. Thus is becomes something NOT about disruption or actual economic harm, but about some people's hurt feelings being more equal than other person's hurt feelings, and the weight of the government being thrown behind whichever side is the "favored" side.

And also, go fuck yourself.

Everything about your statement is completely full of shit and doesn't warrant a serious response. Drop the fluff and spin and Start dealing with the facts and then you can join the discussion

 

[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 the same discriminatory policy.

Actually it usually is about a single baker. If it was systemic discrimination Jake would actually have a point about disruption of the public, but in the cases we have seen, it has been one person or company politely refusing to provide service, in areas where others are available to provide it. Thus is becomes something NOT about disruption or actual economic harm, but about some people's hurt feelings being more equal than other person's hurt feelings, and the weight of the government being thrown behind whichever side is the "favored" side.

And also, go fuck yourself.

Everything about your statement is completely full of shit and doesn't warrant a serious response. Drop the fluff and spin and Start dealing with the facts and then you can join the discussion

Figures. You got nothing, so you resort to the standard crybully concept of not wanting to deal with the topic at hand by dismissal.

 

[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.

The bill would also have allowed religious based organizations providing state services, like adoption, to discriminate. If a minister doesn't want to minister or a baker doesn't want to bake ... I don't care. But you cannot allow religious beliefs to affect who gets protections and services from the state.

Georgia Bill Tells LGBTQ People They Don’t Deserve Equal Treatment Under the Law

I read the bill and I agree it was too broadly written. But how many of the people reacting to it with "boycott" and "ban them", including all those high and mighty CEO's, read it as well? More than likely they just got a call from someone who told them "Condemn this or we will have trouble" and they went and did their 5 second soundbite to appease the mob.

I am truly sympathetic to people that their religious beliefs are compromised, if they have to acknowledge something they consider sinful, when going about their peaceful lives of baking cakes or whatever.

But the fact was the law was going to be unconstitutional Deal didn't have any real choice. Upon what ground could he appeal to Disney's better nature?

The yahoos behind the bill need to go back and get some input from the rational. NO ONE is going to try and force a church to perform a ceremony it doesn't want to perform. THAT would be blatantly unconstitutional as well. If GA wants to let small biz bakers not bake, but require professionals like docs and lawyers to comply with ethical standards of non-discrimination, and not allow what are effectively G-Normous corporations acting under the tax shelter of the Baptists or Old Men in Skirts, to discriminate .....

I think Disney can cut a deal. GA gets 6billion from the film industry. I think the State can locate a food and beverage group for the Walking Dead that will serve everyone ... happily.

Yes, the law reached too far. But I don't agree that "no one" will try to force Churches and such to comply. There are already movements to try to remove their tax exempt statuses due to "discrimination".

To me the issue isn't the size of the business but the service being provided. a Public Accommodation is not "everything under the sun" as some progressives want it to be. An agreement to provide a cake for a wedding is not the Woolworth's lunch counter, or denying someone gas during a trip or a hotel room for an overnight stay.

These things are not the same, and cannot be treated as the same for the purposes of PA laws.

And it was never about the Walking Dead crew being able to find a politically acceptable caterer, to the SJW types, just the fact that companies that don't want to knuckle under exist, and may receive some small protection for their beliefs is enough to bring out the boycott babies.

 

[bendog]

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.

The bill would also have allowed religious based organizations providing state services, like adoption, to discriminate. If a minister doesn't want to minister or a baker doesn't want to bake ... I don't care. But you cannot allow religious beliefs to affect who gets protections and services from the state.

Georgia Bill Tells LGBTQ People They Don’t Deserve Equal Treatment Under the Law

I read the bill and I agree it was too broadly written. But how many of the people reacting to it with "boycott" and "ban them", including all those high and mighty CEO's, read it as well? More than likely they just got a call from someone who told them "Condemn this or we will have trouble" and they went and did their 5 second soundbite to appease the mob.

I am truly sympathetic to people that their religious beliefs are compromised, if they have to acknowledge something they consider sinful, when going about their peaceful lives of baking cakes or whatever.

But the fact was the law was going to be unconstitutional Deal didn't have any real choice. Upon what ground could he appeal to Disney's better nature?

The yahoos behind the bill need to go back and get some input from the rational. NO ONE is going to try and force a church to perform a ceremony it doesn't want to perform. THAT would be blatantly unconstitutional as well. If GA wants to let small biz bakers not bake, but require professionals like docs and lawyers to comply with ethical standards of non-discrimination, and not allow what are effectively G-Normous corporations acting under the tax shelter of the Baptists or Old Men in Skirts, to discriminate .....

I think Disney can cut a deal. GA gets 6billion from the film industry. I think the State can locate a food and beverage group for the Walking Dead that will serve everyone ... happily.

Yes, the law reached too far. But I don't agree that "no one" will try to force Churches and such to comply. There are already movements to try to remove their tax exempt statuses due to "discrimination".

To me the issue isn't the size of the business but the service being provided. a Public Accommodation is not "everything under the sun" as some progressives want it to be. An agreement to provide a cake for a wedding is not the Woolworth's lunch counter, or denying someone gas during a trip or a hotel room for an overnight stay.

These things are not the same, and cannot be treated as the same for the purposes of PA laws.

And it was never about the Walking Dead crew being able to find a politically acceptable caterer, to the SJW types, just the fact that companies that don't want to knuckle under exist, and may receive some small protection for their beliefs is enough to bring out the boycott babies.

Well, I was thinking that telling a G-Normous Baptist Heath Complex, that is no more a real arm of the Baptist Convention than I am, they don't have to hire gays would be ... noxious.

But yeah, Public Accomodations for Mom and Pop stores ... that too is noxious.

 

[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.

The bill would also have allowed religious based organizations providing state services, like adoption, to discriminate. If a minister doesn't want to minister or a baker doesn't want to bake ... I don't care. But you cannot allow religious beliefs to affect who gets protections and services from the state.

Georgia Bill Tells LGBTQ People They Don’t Deserve Equal Treatment Under the Law

I read the bill and I agree it was too broadly written. But how many of the people reacting to it with "boycott" and "ban them", including all those high and mighty CEO's, read it as well? More than likely they just got a call from someone who told them "Condemn this or we will have trouble" and they went and did their 5 second soundbite to appease the mob.

I am truly sympathetic to people that their religious beliefs are compromised, if they have to acknowledge something they consider sinful, when going about their peaceful lives of baking cakes or whatever.

But the fact was the law was going to be unconstitutional Deal didn't have any real choice. Upon what ground could he appeal to Disney's better nature?

The yahoos behind the bill need to go back and get some input from the rational. NO ONE is going to try and force a church to perform a ceremony it doesn't want to perform. THAT would be blatantly unconstitutional as well. If GA wants to let small biz bakers not bake, but require professionals like docs and lawyers to comply with ethical standards of non-discrimination, and not allow what are effectively G-Normous corporations acting under the tax shelter of the Baptists or Old Men in Skirts, to discriminate .....

I think Disney can cut a deal. GA gets 6billion from the film industry. I think the State can locate a food and beverage group for the Walking Dead that will serve everyone ... happily.

Yes, the law reached too far. But I don't agree that "no one" will try to force Churches and such to comply. There are already movements to try to remove their tax exempt statuses due to "discrimination".

To me the issue isn't the size of the business but the service being provided. a Public Accommodation is not "everything under the sun" as some progressives want it to be. An agreement to provide a cake for a wedding is not the Woolworth's lunch counter, or denying someone gas during a trip or a hotel room for an overnight stay.

These things are not the same, and cannot be treated as the same for the purposes of PA laws.

And it was never about the Walking Dead crew being able to find a politically acceptable caterer, to the SJW types, just the fact that companies that don't want to knuckle under exist, and may receive some small protection for their beliefs is enough to bring out the boycott babies.

Well, I was thinking that telling a G-Normous Baptist Heath Complex, that is no more a real arm of the Baptist Convention than I am, they don't have to hire gays would be ... noxious.

But yeah, Public Accomodations for Mom and Pop stores ... that too is noxious.

Could they require gays to keep quiet about their lifestyle during working hours?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bull Connor was your hero because you are espousing his actions.

Bullshit. Government discrimination is and always will be wrong under the 14th amendment. Personal discrimination is wrong when an actual economic or political harm can be shown.

Hurt feelings are not harm.

You don't believe in the 14th, so run along.

Bullshit again. What i don't believe is that it is carte blanche for courts to force everyone to be the same, think the same and act the same, or be too scared to do anything about it.

Yep, your point is bullshit. SCOTUS does rule, and you do drool.

There goes Jake, running to authority, and as usual, tripping over his untied shoe-laces. You don't have any actual retort, and are left with pathetic attempts to trivialize the conversation.

When you talk in a silly fashion in faux libertarian craziness, you reveal nothing of worth to add. You do not believe in the Rule of Law, only the Rule of Man, and we have seen where that has led before. We as a country are not going to your la la land, Marty.

 

[Slade3200]

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 the same discriminatory policy.

Actually it usually is about a single baker. If it was systemic discrimination Jake would actually have a point about disruption of the public, but in the cases we have seen, it has been one person or company politely refusing to provide service, in areas where others are available to provide it. Thus is becomes something NOT about disruption or actual economic harm, but about some people's hurt feelings being more equal than other person's hurt feelings, and the weight of the government being thrown behind whichever side is the "favored" side.

And also, go fuck yourself.

Everything about your statement is completely full of shit and doesn't warrant a serious response. Drop the fluff and spin and Start dealing with the facts and then you can join the discussion

Figures. You got nothing, so you resort to the standard crybully concept of not wanting to deal with the topic at hand by dismissal.

No I just can't argue against a bunch of made up claims that you pull out of your ass. Spreak truth and fact and we can have a discussion.

 

[Seawytch]

The Governor acted as a "true conservative" would...he sided with business.

 

[Slade3200]

The bill would also have allowed religious based organizations providing state services, like adoption, to discriminate. If a minister doesn't want to minister or a baker doesn't want to bake ... I don't care. But you cannot allow religious beliefs to affect who gets protections and services from the state.

Georgia Bill Tells LGBTQ People They Don’t Deserve Equal Treatment Under the Law

I read the bill and I agree it was too broadly written. But how many of the people reacting to it with "boycott" and "ban them", including all those high and mighty CEO's, read it as well? More than likely they just got a call from someone who told them "Condemn this or we will have trouble" and they went and did their 5 second soundbite to appease the mob.

I am truly sympathetic to people that their religious beliefs are compromised, if they have to acknowledge something they consider sinful, when going about their peaceful lives of baking cakes or whatever.

But the fact was the law was going to be unconstitutional Deal didn't have any real choice. Upon what ground could he appeal to Disney's better nature?

The yahoos behind the bill need to go back and get some input from the rational. NO ONE is going to try and force a church to perform a ceremony it doesn't want to perform. THAT would be blatantly unconstitutional as well. If GA wants to let small biz bakers not bake, but require professionals like docs and lawyers to comply with ethical standards of non-discrimination, and not allow what are effectively G-Normous corporations acting under the tax shelter of the Baptists or Old Men in Skirts, to discriminate .....

I think Disney can cut a deal. GA gets 6billion from the film industry. I think the State can locate a food and beverage group for the Walking Dead that will serve everyone ... happily.

Yes, the law reached too far. But I don't agree that "no one" will try to force Churches and such to comply. There are already movements to try to remove their tax exempt statuses due to "discrimination".

To me the issue isn't the size of the business but the service being provided. a Public Accommodation is not "everything under the sun" as some progressives want it to be. An agreement to provide a cake for a wedding is not the Woolworth's lunch counter, or denying someone gas during a trip or a hotel room for an overnight stay.

These things are not the same, and cannot be treated as the same for the purposes of PA laws.

And it was never about the Walking Dead crew being able to find a politically acceptable caterer, to the SJW types, just the fact that companies that don't want to knuckle under exist, and may receive some small protection for their beliefs is enough to bring out the boycott babies.

Well, I was thinking that telling a G-Normous Baptist Heath Complex, that is no more a real arm of the Baptist Convention than I am, they don't have to hire gays would be ... noxious.

But yeah, Public Accomodations for Mom and Pop stores ... that too is noxious.

Could they require gays to keep quiet about their lifestyle during working hours?

This isn't even a first amendment issue. Anybody is free to speak their minds and practice their beliefs. But if you run a business you can't discriminate

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bakers can bake and decorate the cake and give it to the customers, saying, "Here you go, perverts. Enjoy hell."

That is perfectly legal.

 

[bendog]

The Governor acted as a "true conservative" would...he sided with business.

Yeah, but the law said it was ok to discriminate against gays when religious groups ran hospitals and adoption agencies. The bill was watered down at the end, but it started out with the blatant intent to say is it OK to discriminate against sinners.