First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

What religious freedom is being stopped ? You have all the same freedoms .

Trying to change the laws so business can actively discriminate against gays has nothing to do with religion . Shame on you fake Christians trying to sheild your bigotry by using the bible as a front .

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

More like, one's personal belief system does not give an individual license to be a complete asshole to certain members of society without due consequence. If you think everyone around you is an asshole, chances are it's *you* who are the asshole. If you have a deep down urge to discriminate against others, do everyone else a favor and suppress it. It's really simple. No one really likes assholes. Even children understand this concept, why can't you?

...Oh, right.

 

[bendog]

What religious freedom is being stopped ? You have all the same freedoms .

Trying to change the laws so business can actively discriminate against gays has nothing to do with religion . Shame on you fake Christians trying to sheild your bigotry by using the bible as a front .

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

More like, one's personal belief system does not give an individual license to be a complete asshole to certain members of society without due consequence. If you think everyone around you is an asshole, chances are it's *you* who are the asshole. If you have a deep down urge to discriminate against others, do everyone else a favor and suppress it. It's really simple. No one really likes assholes. Even children understand this concept, why can't you?

...Oh, right.

Well, everyone's got an azzhole. But at heart (-: this was about discrimination because someone's gay. They tried to change the debate, but since the bill started out that way, it was there for all to see.

 

[rdean]

You don't see gays having "kill the Christian" rallies.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

What religious freedom is being stopped ? You have all the same freedoms .

Trying to change the laws so business can actively discriminate against gays has nothing to do with religion . Shame on you fake Christians trying to sheild your bigotry by using the bible as a front .

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

More like, one's personal belief system does not give an individual license to be a complete asshole to certain members of society without due consequence. If you think everyone around you is an asshole, chances are it's *you* who are the asshole. If you have a deep down urge to discriminate against others, do everyone else a favor and suppress it. It's really simple. No one really likes assholes. Even children understand this concept, why can't you?

...Oh, right.

Well, everyone's got an azzhole. But at heart (-: this was about discrimination because someone's gay. They tried to change the debate, but since the bill started out that way, it was there for all to see.

I understand the issue. Majority religion feels persecuted (majorities with persecution complexes make no logical sense to me) because they can't legally discriminate based solely upon said religious personal belief (hence, the asshole part). So they try to mix church and state by trying to pass legislation that pretty much flies in the face of the 1st amendment, particularly the 'no established religion' part. They spin it as a 'religious freedom' issue, but can't coherently explain what part of their 'right to religion' is being infringed upon. It's political football. They're trying to stack the deck in their favor to legally be assholes to a part of society that doesn't meet their moral criteria. It's bullshit, plain and simple.

 

[Preacher]

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.

Indeed! I can't wait to see some of their problem solving of the homosexual problem. WEEEEEEE off the building they splatter!

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

Deal is a pansy nutless wonder. His Lt Governor disagrees with him just as he did when Deal WHINED about a gun rights bill so college students could protect themselves on campus. I can't wait for Cagle to become governor in 2 years.

You don't see gays having "kill the Christian" rallies.

Nah they just force their disgusting sexual deviancy on school kids,at parades,shut down bakeries,floral shops and t shirt makers etc.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What religious freedom is being stopped ? You have all the same freedoms .

Trying to change the laws so business can actively discriminate against gays has nothing to do with religion . Shame on you fake Christians trying to sheild your bigotry by using the bible as a front .

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Commerce clause .

No, the Commerce Clause does not do that. It deals with interstate commerce.

 

[Seawytch]

What religious freedom is being stopped ? You have all the same freedoms .

Trying to change the laws so business can actively discriminate against gays has nothing to do with religion . Shame on you fake Christians trying to sheild your bigotry by using the bible as a front .

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Commerce clause .

No, the Commerce Clause does not do that. It deals with interstate commerce.

Does the Supreme Court know that?

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Otherwise known as "Bake the fucking cake, peasant".

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Commerce clause .

No, the Commerce Clause does not do that. It deals with interstate commerce.

Does the Supreme Court know that?

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depends on whose court it is

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation

Historically, the commerce clause has been understood to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate. It's also understood that the courts have historically done what ever they want regardless of the written law and have acted in a legislative fashion. (Roe v Wade)

 

[Katzndogz]

Protesters are now hired right out of Craigslist. Just hire protesters to protest the bakery, florist, photographer. When gays have to fight their way through a few protest groups, forcing that Christian to provide the service might be too much trouble. It's legal. Gays aren't being victims of protest. Just those that are being strongarmed nto doing business with them.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Like when black lies matter storm a political rally, or block traffic on a public thoroughfare?

They should be taken down as surely as the Trump thugs who beat their political enemies.

Sane America will not permit militias of the far right or the far left in our country acting out and breaking the law.

Yet, you're silent in your condemnation of left wing violence. I guess you think Rosa Parks should have gotten her ass to the back of the bus?

No, that is you who is selective in that your freek side gets to break heads. I just condone violence above. Rosa Parks was not violent, only those who hated her, like you.

Can't make an argument without getting persinal, huh?

You just said that expression that interrupts the orderly nature of the public isn't free speech. That would include the civil rights movement, by your logic.

You went personal with your lie, I kicked your ass, and now you are crying. Typical of a far righty American fascist.

Name calling and accusations is all you have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WildBill himself deeper

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964),[1][2]was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Argued October 5, 1964
Decided December 14, 1964
Full case name Heart of Atlanta Motel, Incorporated v. United States, et al.
Citations 379 U.S. 241 (more)
85 S. Ct. 348; 13 L. Ed. 2d 258; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2187; 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9712
Prior history Judgment for defendant, 231 F.Supp. 393 (N.D. Ga. 1964). Appeal from the United States Court of the Northern District of Georgia
Subsequent history None
Holding
Congress did not unconstitutionally exceed its powers under the Commerce Clause by enacting Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations. Northern District of Georgia affirmed.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Clark, joined by Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg
Concurrence Black
Concurrence Douglas
Concurrence Goldberg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

 

[Seawytch]

Otherwise aka "a public service cannot discriminate".

Where is that in the constitution again?

Commerce clause .

No, the Commerce Clause does not do that. It deals with interstate commerce.

Does the Supreme Court know that?

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depends on whose court it is

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation

Historically, the commerce clause has been understood to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate. It's also understood that the courts have historically done what ever they want regardless of the written law and have acted in a legislative fashion. (Roe v Wade)

Guess somebody better get to challenging it again.

Oh yeah, someone did...they lost.

Elane Photography v. Willock - Alliance Defending Freedom

 

[WorldWatcher]

Depends on whose court it is

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation

Historically, the commerce clause has been understood to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate. It's also understood that the courts have historically done what ever they want regardless of the written law and have acted in a legislative fashion. (Roe v Wade)

Guess somebody better get to challenging it again.

Oh yeah, someone did...they lost.

Elane Photography v. Willock - Alliance Defending Freedom

I don't believe Elane Photography v. Willock was decided on Federal interstate commerce grounds. I believe the ruling that the SCOTUS allowed to stand was a State law which would be regulation of intrastate commerce even though the was argued on 1st Amendment speech issues.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Maybe that baker should consider another line of work. The thing is, they are usually happy to bake cakes for people who the bible says ought to be stoned or shunned. This is trying to hide their homophobia behind a bible.

In 50 years, all the Churches will be marrying gays and trying to pretend they had no part of this stupidity. kind of like they all try to pretend they didn't support segregation 50 years ago.

 

[JoeB131]

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..

Uh, guy. Trump is totally good with the gays. So is Kasich.

Here's the real problem for the right. For years and years, they've been tricking the Christian Stupids into voting against their own economic interests playing on their sexual fears (along with the racial and religious ones).

But the powers that be decided this wasn't a fight they wanted to fight anymore. Maybe too many of these CEO's have that Lesbian Niece giving them the stink-eye at Thanksgiving, but big corporations told the GOP to knock it off.

And they have.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Your post is 100% pure bullshit. You think the law morphs to what you want simply by convincing enough judges that is the case. It is a perversion of law, and one that will hopefully bite you in the ass one day.

 

[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 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.

My arguments and questions are perfectly valid. you must be one of those just out of college cry-bullies that can't grasp or handle ideas and concepts other than your own.

 

[martybegan]

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

Again, why not?

So "no shirts, no shoes no service" signs are illegal?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Or the gay couple can go to someone that want's their business.

But that isn't good enough, you guys need people who disagree with you either 1) ruined or 2) so scared that they hide their true feelings behind masks.

 

[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.

Maybe that baker should consider another line of work. The thing is, they are usually happy to bake cakes for people who the bible says ought to be stoned or shunned. This is trying to hide their homophobia behind a bible.

In 50 years, all the Churches will be marrying gays and trying to pretend they had no part of this stupidity. kind of like they all try to pretend they didn't support segregation 50 years ago.

It's not up to you to decide, and it isn't up to government without a compelling government interest involving actual harm.

and as for your 2nd statement, nope. Of course there will be some Churches created or changing to go along for the ride, but a majority sure as hell won't.