Indiana backlash grows ahead of Final Four

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly Another aspect of our system or laws is that it is secular. Religious beliefs do not take precedence when they are in conflict with the civil rights of an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is clear precedent for this in the racially-based civil rights movement. There is no reason I can see for not applying it to sexuality-based discrimination.

That isn't the language of the Constitution though. It doesn't say that religious rights are subordinate to all others.

Are you proposing that religious rights should trump civil law?

I don't know how many "Sharia Muslims" we have in this country, but I am sure they would support that.

No, actually this entire time I've been trying to say that a compromise is in order here. Something that preserves the most important and critical aspects of what each side wants, but may not give them everything they want. Allowing people to be left alone does that.

On one end of the spectrum you have "Gay marriage is legal, no business owner can refuse to be involved in it." On the other end you have "Gay marriage is illegal, business involvement is moot." The compromise in the middle is "Gay people can marry, those who have religious conscience objections aren't forced to be involved with it."

[homersapien 11,386]

So it's fine to be homosexual but it's a sin to actually live as one. So it's a sin for homosexuals to actually be who they are. They don't have the right to love another person, or at least express that love sexually. (Is mere kissing or hugging OK or is that also a sin?

No more than it's fine to be heterosexual but it's a sin to live as one in the manner that many post-modern non-Christians believe is permissible. Jews and Christians believe certain things about sexuality and the proper context for sexual activity. Someone stop the presses on this breaking news from the Year Zero.

As far as kissing and hugging...I don't see why such things in the context of a deep friendship bond would be problematic. I think the kids are calling it "affection" these days.

I sounds to me like you think sex is more of a religious activity than a biological one.

While I find that strange, I am OK with it. It's your business. But you should not be able to apply that particular belief in a way that unlawfully discriminates against a class of people.

If you find yourself in that position and don't like it, you need to look for another line of work.

[aubfaninga 16]

So it's fine to be homosexual but it's a sin to actually live as one. So it's a sin for homosexuals to actually be who they are. They don't have the right to love another person, or at least express that love sexually. (Is mere kissing or hugging OK or is that also a sin?

No more than it's fine to be heterosexual but it's a sin to live as one in the manner that many post-modern non-Christians believe is permissible. Jews and Christians believe certain things about sexuality and the proper context for sexual activity. Someone stop the presses on this breaking news from the Year Zero.

As far as kissing and hugging...I don't see why such things in the context of a deep friendship bond would be problematic. I think the kids are calling it "affection" these days.

I sounds to me like you think sex is more of a religious activity than a biological one.

While I find that strange, I am OK with it. It's your business. But you should not be able to apply that particular belief in a way that unlawfully discriminates against a class of people.

If you find yourself in that position and don't like it, you need to look for another line of work.

homer I know this is extreme but I want to see if you have any threshold when it comes to your conscience.

If you were an event photographer and a party came in wanting you to take photos at their orgy party, would you do it? Should everyone have to do it? If your wife did not feel comfortable with you at such an event, do you still have to do it?

If my profession was being a DJ, I can't for the life of me imagine being sued for discrimination because I refused to DJ a gay strip club.

I am starting to side with cooltigger on this one. This is going to get worse.

[homersapien 11,386]

False equivalency. No one is suggesting carte blanche ability to refuse to do business with gays. If I turn down a black musician's album shoot because of the content of his lyrics, I'm not discriminating against him because of his race. Now if I was refusing to serve other blacks with no objectionable content (even if it's perfectly legal for him to sing whatever he wants), then you'd have a point. Likewise, unless I'm refusing to serve gays in general, the charge doesn't stick just because I wish to pass on gay wedding business.

Red herring. And no one has suggested that is the case. Everyone understands the refusal is more specifically defined than that.

And the rest of your post is also a red herring - or a "false equivalency". There is nothing about a marriage that is objectionable.

What you are objecting to is the sexuality of the participates. The equivalency here is discrimination based on race - who the person is, not what they do.

Again, the fact you are willing to serve gays for one thing but not another is irrelevant. I remember cafes that would serve black people take-out but not let them sit at the counter. You can't plead that as non-discrimination.

The fact that people are equating gay marriage to civil rights and voting rights of blacks is a false equivalence. They're not even remotely close to being similar.

Refusing to endorse gay marriage in any way shape or form is closer to refusing porn themed weddings for straight couples than it is to refusing to serve black people for the color of their skin. Gay marriage is looked at as distasteful the same way porn is. It may not be illegal but it's not something someone should have to condone or endorse.

It's a perfectly appropriate analogy. Biblical arguments were a common excuse for discrimination against blacks.

Your comparison, on the other hand, is subjective and capricious. As far as I am concerned, refusing a "porn themed" wedding doesn't violate anyone's rights. Pornography is a particular activity that determines the nature of the job. It's no different that turning down a wedding photography job that involved sky-diving (for example).

Such conditions or requirements have nothing to do with discriminating against a certain class of people as defined by race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. Presumably, it you want to turn down a pornographic wedding for a gay couple, you would turn it down for a heterosexual couple, or a black couple or whatever. Thus there is no discrimination. You are treating everyone the same.

So try again.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I sounds to me like you think sex is more of a religious activity than a biological one.

It's not an either/or prospect to a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim (as well as many other religions I suspect). Sex has a physical and spiritual dimension to it. Is this news to you?

While I find that strange, I am OK with it. It's your business. But you should not be able to apply that particular belief in a way that unlawfully discriminates against a class of people.

If you find yourself in that position and don't like it, you need to look for another line of work.

I'm not. They can have sex. They can even get married in most states. I'm not barging in making them stop. But when they want me to be involved in their wedding, something that is not merely civil but spiritual and sacramental to me, I have to draw the line. I don't think under our Constitution that should mean I have to get out of the public square.

[homersapien 11,386]

I think it's astounding that those that don't want the government to dictate the issue of marriage as being between a man and a woman, you know, "get the government out of the bedroom", but they do want the government to dictate the practice of traditional religious beliefs of individuals. Those that do so are being dismissive of religious beliefs and believe that the government's endorsement in any social aspect is holier than religious teaching and that it can dictate individuals religious beliefs that are fundamental of religious teaching if the indiviudal own's a busniness or runs a public service.

That's a miss-characterization. The government is not "dictating" the practice of religious beliefs to anyone. The government (reflecting the will of the majority) is dictating that homosexuals have the civil right to marry.

How this is perceived by those with a religious objection is not really a concern of the government unless they possess the political power (majority) and try to exercise that power. It then becomes a constitutional issue. (And it is unconstitutional.)

In other words, the government is not preventing you from assuming another line of work more in keeping with your personal religious beliefs.

[homersapien 11,386]

I've said many times that when people say we shouldn't "legislate morality" it's complete silliness to say such a thing. We legislate morality all the time. The only question is: whose morality will be legislated?

That's a fair statement.

[homersapien 11,386]

I think we should persecute more people because of their religious beliefs, England did that back in the day and it ended up creating a pretty kick ass new country.

I'd be more than willing to cede Texas to all the persecuted Christians.

[homersapien 11,386]

Ok this is a honest question I'm about to toss out. Due to my curiosity and the fact that this argument went biblical.

So we have the individuals that believe ideals involving sexuality are to be naturally understood from the Bible in regards to homosexuality (and I will be the first to admit I am no Bible expert). So if God created all life, yet doesn't approve of homosexuality. Then why do so many animals actually appear to practice homosexuality tendencies? Mean is a lion or a dolphin actually making a lifestyle choice (can they even make lifestyle choices?) in their participation? I mean I just can't view a lion as going.... hey you know what. I will show the Pride...today I'm gay and I'm proud... they will notice me now! It is actually theorized to be a bonding agent among males in the pride actually. Then if they are not making lifestyle choices, and they were created by God, then why would they have homosexual tendencies?

This isn't a argument. I'm curious what some individuals think of that.

I know you stated this was not your argument but I have heard people use it.

I dont think humans need to look to animals for our moral base To justify our actions. For example: My neighbors cat just killed her entire litter a few months back. My small female dog literally sits and appears to be pleasuring herself sometimes in front of my children.

Now I don't normally observe dolphins but my wife is a dog groomer and runs a doggy day care. She will not take a female that is in heat because it causes mass hysteria. All sexual activity increases right along with male on male. The environment resembles nothing that we would call "love". Male on male does happen everyday but she says its 100% all about dominance. The alpha males and more aggressive are the only ones that partake. The more doscile and less aggessive dogs never male on male UNLESS a female goes into heat. Again, that causes a free for all. LOL

I think he was really referring to the "natural vs. choice" question regarding homosexuality, not the morals of it.

[homersapien 11,386]

Well, maybe you didn't mean to equate them, but that is what you did.

Perhaps Jesus didn't mention them because he didn't have any moral issues with it. After all, homosexuality is not an activity that necessarily victimizes someone such as child molestation or rape.

In fact, I can imagine Jesus would approve of homosexual marriage. Why would He oppose it?

As Weegle might say, His purpose was not to enforce the law.

No, it's not that I didn't "mean to", it's that I didn't. The criteria was implied that if Jesus didn't mention something by name, it must not be something He has any problem with. There is a long list of things that Jesus didn't mention by name. It ranges from the relatively minor (jaywalking, littering) to much more serious things such as those I mentioned. I chose two serious things that also happen to fall under the broader umbrella of sexual matters, that most sane people would universally condemn as wrong. The fact that Jesus didn't mention them by name doesn't therefore mean He doesn't care or has no problem with there. Ergo, the fact that Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexual sex by name is no indicator of whether He has any problems with it.

If you want to use "equating" then to be more precise, I was not equating child molestation or rape with consensual homosexual acts as if they are the same thing. If they are equated at all it is that they both have a place on the long list of "Stuff Jesus never mentioned by name." And it was pointed out just show the ridiculousness of putting forth such a criteria as a measuring rod for things He would be concerned about.

Even though you seem reluctant to just say it, you are clearly defining homosexuality as a sin. (Why else would Jesus "have a problem with it", as you put it?)

But you can always declare that homosexuality is not a sin. If so, I would like to know what your religious objection is.

After reading your and aubfaninga's posts I think this is the ultimate basis for our disagreement. I do not see homosexuality as a sin. I see it as one of the natural states of sexuality that is manifested in a small percentage of people. As long as these people are otherwise moral and empathetic to the rights of others, there is nothing about homosexuality that is evil or immoral. The Old Testament is simply wrong about homosexuality, just as it is factually wrong about many - if not most - things it discusses.

Beyond this basic value, my argument resides in concepts of civil law. Our legal system is based on the concept of equality of rights for everyone. One's inherent sexuality does not constitute a reason for those rights to be compromised.

Another aspect of our system or laws is that it is secular. Religious beliefs do not take precedence when they are in conflict with the civil rights of an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is clear precedent for this in the racially-based civil rights movement. There is no reason I can see for not applying it to sexuality-based discrimination.

I have seen the argument raised that homosexuality is not addressed in the New Covenant. That is factually wrong.

Yeshua was among Jews who had very strong feelings toward homosexuality. His silence in not addressing the understanding of homosexuality is not an endorsement either way but it leans more toward accepting their norm.

Not by me. I wouldn't know.

But it seems like the Old Testament references are the ones typically thrown out to "prove" it's a sin in the eyes of God.

Frankly, I don't really care. But my understanding of what Jesus stood for leads me to believe He "wouldn't have a problem" (as Titan might phrase it ) with the idea of homosexual marriage. Like I said earlier, why would he?

But then, I am not into the "abomination" thing. I am more receptive to the concept of the "Golden Rule".

[homersapien 11,386]

What happened to respect? Why can't the gay couple get their cake elsewhere and simply honor my religious beliefs? Why would they buy from me knowing my convictions? What is the real goal? Is tolerance truly a two way street?

Tolerance for intolerance simply promotes the latter.

Like it or not, religious convictions do not trump civil rights law in this country.

You totally ignored respect. If I were a gay man wanting you to bake me a cake and you cited religious freedom I'd simply walk away respecting your beliefs. Unless of course I had a hate filled agenda, i.e. I don't give a $HI7 about your beliefs, but you'll damn well care about mine, participate in them and like it!

Who doesn't like this new America?

Well I probably would too.

But then, I can understand why someone who has grown up gay and feels the opportunity to finally be accepted as a whole person might feel differently. Call it the 'Rosa Parks reaction'.

Did Rosa have a "hate-filled agenda" do you think?

[homersapien 11,386]

This isn't just about SSM but a whole host of other things that the left loves. They want to forc e even religious institutions to provide abortions and do even in the latwe terms. These are the same people that wanted to subpoena sermons from preachers in Houston because they spoke out against ssm.. Several on here had no problem with that. This is protection from tyranny. The left will tolerate no dissent. These are the same people that institute speech codes on college campuses. They take down the American flag because it might offend someone. They make up rights out of thin air and ignore and try to destroy rights that are clearly expressed in our founding documents.

yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap :-\

And we're coming after you specifically, tigger.

[homersapien 11,386]

If a "private business" conducts public transactions, is it still considered a "private business?" When did businesses and corporations get religious beliefs? If a business owned by a straight person has a sign staring that he will not do business with gays, so be it. But, if a gay walks into a business to make a transaction, does the owner have the right to ask the person if they are gay, and if so, please leave my store? Right now it appears this issue is because of the marriage issue but could a mattress store refuse to sell a mattress and box springs to a gay couple since the gay couple will be doing more than sleeping in that bed? To me, these type of laws will give business owners the right to hide behi d their religious views from making transactions with gays. This could be a situation of interstate commerce, like the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case in the mid 60's.

OMG! That would be participating in gay sex!

[aubfaninga 16]

But my understanding of what Jesus stood for leads me to believe He "wouldn't have a problem" (as Titan might phrase it ;)/> ) with the idea of homosexual marriage. Like I said earlier, why would he?

But then, I am not into the "abomination" thing. I am more receptive to the concept of the "Golden Rule". ;D/>

LOL... Are you talking about the Golden rule to cut sayings out of context and even out of verses to fit your argument at that time? (Hope my friend does not read this )

Oh... You mean do unto others.

Well in Matthew 7:12 the entire sentence says.... "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." ( He just could not stand the LAW now could he? )

In Luke 6:27-31 in context reads....

But woe to you who are rich,

For you have received your consolation.

Woe to you who are full,

For you shall hunger.

Woe to you who laugh now,

For you shall mourn and weep.

Woe to you when all men speak well of you,

For so did their fathers to the false prophets."

But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. (How many people just broke the golden rule?)

To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. ( Not seeing homer allow this part of the golden rule)

And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. ( Now what have some been saying about welfare?)

And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise."

AND BACK TO MATTHEW 7 TO BRING THIS HOME.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me,

>>>> you who practice lawlessness!"

I know you have no fear of the GOD written in the bible but I could not let that go.

[aubfaninga 16]

If a "private business" conducts public transactions, is it still considered a "private business?" When did businesses and corporations get religious beliefs? If a business owned by a straight person has a sign staring that he will not do business with gays, so be it. But, if a gay walks into a business to make a transaction, does the owner have the right to ask the person if they are gay, and if so, please leave my store? Right now it appears this issue is because of the marriage issue but could a mattress store refuse to sell a mattress and box springs to a gay couple since the gay couple will be doing more than sleeping in that bed? To me, these type of laws will give business owners the right to hide behi d their religious views from making transactions with gays. This could be a situation of interstate commerce, like the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case in the mid 60's.

OMG! That would be participating in gay sex!

Very serious subject but I still have to laugh at this

[aubfaninga 16]

Ok this is a honest question I'm about to toss out. Due to my curiosity and the fact that this argument went biblical.

So we have the individuals that believe ideals involving sexuality are to be naturally understood from the Bible in regards to homosexuality (and I will be the first to admit I am no Bible expert). So if God created all life, yet doesn't approve of homosexuality. Then why do so many animals actually appear to practice homosexuality tendencies? Mean is a lion or a dolphin actually making a lifestyle choice (can they even make lifestyle choices?) in their participation? I mean I just can't view a lion as going.... hey you know what. I will show the Pride...today I'm gay and I'm proud... they will notice me now! It is actually theorized to be a bonding agent among males in the pride actually. Then if they are not making lifestyle choices, and they were created by God, then why would they have homosexual tendencies?

This isn't a argument. I'm curious what some individuals think of that.

I know you stated this was not your argument but I have heard people use it.

I dont think humans need to look to animals for our moral base To justify our actions. For example: My neighbors cat just killed her entire litter a few months back. My small female dog literally sits and appears to be pleasuring herself sometimes in front of my children.

Now I don't normally observe dolphins but my wife is a dog groomer and runs a doggy day care. She will not take a female that is in heat because it causes mass hysteria. All sexual activity increases right along with male on male. The environment resembles nothing that we would call "love". Male on male does happen everyday but she says its 100% all about dominance. The alpha males and more aggressive are the only ones that partake. The more doscile and less aggessive dogs never male on male UNLESS a female goes into heat. Again, that causes a free for all. LOL

I think he was really referring to the "natural vs. choice" question regarding homosexuality, not the morals of it.

So if a person is "genetically" predisposed to something we should just accept it as natural? DON'T DISCRIMINATE NOW! Aggressive people have rights too

[aubfaninga 16]

For any of the legal buffs out there.

I let my daughter read this thread to get her thoughts. Her wonderful little 15 year old mind thinks she could make a "killing" off this if she catered to the "Bible Thumpers".

This was her idea so I am asking if it would be legal.

Create a wedding catering business with everything provided from napkins to chairs and cakes. Name the business "Christian Memories". Then she suggested that every product provided be marked with this verse... "GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH". (and a few other select verses) Put it on the napkins, plates, bottom layer of the cake, etc...

The business model might not get her rich but could this be seen as illegal? She would be targeting a specific people group with her service correct? If a SSC wanted to pay for her service then so be it. There plates and chairs would still read the same verses.

Then I beat her and sent her to bed with no food for thinking she could use the scriptures for profit. :beatmullet:/>

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

It's a perfectly appropriate analogy. Biblical arguments were a common excuse for discrimination against blacks.

Your comparison, on the other hand, is subjective and capricious. As far as I am concerned, refusing a "porn themed" wedding doesn't violate anyone's rights. Pornography is a particular activity that determines the nature of the job. It's no different that turning down a wedding photography job that involved sky-diving (for example).

Such conditions or requirements have nothing to do with discriminating against a certain class of people as defined by race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. Presumably, it you want to turn down a pornographic wedding for a gay couple, you would turn it down for a heterosexual couple, or a black couple or whatever. Thus there is no discrimination. You are treating everyone the same.

So try again.

Discrimination against blacks was never founded in acutal religious belief. It was used as a false pretense for real discrimination and racism because some didn't want blacks to even be in the same room as them, let alone allow them to vote. There's no where in the Bible that said slavery was acceptable and endorsed. That analogy you used doesn't fit because it's not an accurate representation of actual religious belief and it is used to discredit actual religious beliefs as discrimination.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on the porn theme analogy, so I'll be more specific. What if someone wanted to do a sex-toy themed wedding? What then? Should a religious based business be required to provide their serivce in the way of balloons shaped like genitalia or things like a cake, napkins, plates, or other arrangments?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

“Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down ‪#‎memoriespizza‬ w me?”

April 2, 2015 by Mark Shea

As the Tolerati continue their Girardian Moral Panic in Indiana, an indispensible part of the kabuki of moral purification is to find a villain upon whom the community can lay its sins in purgative fury. Like this:

Yesterday, ABC supplied that villain in the form of a little family-owned pizzeria and, in particular this Designated Face of Pure Evil about whom it was misleadingly declared:

(Source: ABC-57)

…making it sound as though they would serve no gay people. The headline on their website was slightly less garbled:

RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding

…but still misleading since it made it sound as though some gay couple seeking catering for their wedding had been turned away (and who would ask a pizzeria to cater their wedding?). But most of all, the headline left the impression that this belligerent Midwest culture warrior in an apron had thrown down the gauntlet to homosexuals, beaten her breast on camera and shouted “Bring it, you queers!”.

Retribution was swift and terrible. Death threats like the one in the headline above were tweeted. A huge slew of nasty Yelp reviews from people longing to kill her business were unleashed. Their website was hacked. The Tolerance Gestapo rushed like stampeding beasts to crush, ostracize, and publicly humiliate and impoverish her for her supposed aggression against gays. It was full-on Pogrom Mode all day yesterday.

The thing is, the whole controversy was manufactured by ABC in order to gin up a mob (and ratings). Here’s what actually happened:

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

In short, a nice lady minding her own business and doing her job was interrupted in her busy day and artlessly said to the microphone shoved in her face that she’d serve anybody (including gays) but would not cater a gay wedding. In a sane world, people get that this means she recognizes gay people have a right to eat at her place, but not to force her to approve of gay marriage. They would also recognize that she had done nothing wrong and had never refused anybody service since nobody had (or would) ask her to cater a wedding, gay or otherwise.

In our world, however, it means ABC-57 torqued her words and offered edited reality in order to give the Ideological Police for Tolerance the sense of moral panic that justifies their belief that they can threaten her life and try to destroy her livelihood to punish her for Ungoodthink. And so: death, arson, and financial ruin threats are visited on a nice lady who was minding her own business and too innocent to realize that a network that was looking for somebody it could officially designate as the Face of Hate for the delectation of a mob of Righteous People.

Things might, of course, redound to O’Connor’s benefit. As the culture war heats up her business shows sign that it will be deluged with Chik Fil A style support. But then, it’s also possible somebody might make good on the death threats and shoot her in the head pour encourager les autres.

If the former, then I will thank God that an innocent took no harm from gotcha journalism of the lowest kind. If the latter, then I think the network who set this kid up should–pour encourager les autres–be sued by her survivors for $100,000,000 for inciting a mob and being an accessory to murder.

This is, in a minor key, the kind of moral panic and mimetic violence that Jesus suffered. Fitting that she should suffer it on Holy Thursday. God protect her, her family, and her business and surround them with holy angels through Christ our Lord.

http://www.patheos.c...za‬-w-me.html

[aubfaninga 16]

Saddening. That's all I got to say about that article.

[Weegle777 78]

C'mon. Now we know that the media would never incite others with a news story...

Like I keep saying, the media is our real enemy.

[cooltigger21 0]

You are not allowed to disagree with the immoral minority here. Not only this but the news media was not happy with Coach K for simply refusing to walk into the middle of this firestorm. He probably supports SSM. I think he's fairly liberal but I wouldn't swear to it. He simply wants to focus on basketball and playing Michigan State on Saturday but the braindead people that populate the news media won't allow it. This whole thing is focused on SSM but there are a whole host of other things that the left has been pushing over the last few years that this would apply to as well. Let's not forget Obama wanted to force even christian businesses and even catholic hospitals to provide abortion coverage. Catholic Charities had to drop adoption services in Massachusetts because they wouldn't place children with homosexuals. This is a charity run by the Catholic Church but because they didn't fall in line with the brown shirts that are pushing this agenda children suffer. This is your modern day "tolerant" left. They tolerate you if you go along with what they want. Refuse to do so and risk having the full weight of government brought to bear upon you. You can have your religious freedom, for now, as long as you keep it inside the walls of the church building and even your home. Trying to apply your convictions to your life outside of those two areas is not allowed. Even old homie admitted it, surprisingly enough. If your religious freedom conflicts with anything else then your religious freedom must lose. It's not often they will actually come out and admit that this is how they view religious freedom.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

People of good will on both sides of this marriage issue need to push their voices to the forefront and drown out the crazies on either end. I don't know why we've bought the lie in this country that we either have to agree on everything or grasp the reins of power and punish all dissenters, but it needs to stop. It's neither a truly liberal, nor a historical conservative value to hold.

[TheBlueVue 177]

People of good will on both sides of this marriage issue need to push their voices to the forefront and drown out the crazies on either end. I don't know why we've bought the lie in this country that we either have to agree on everything or grasp the reins of power and punish all dissenters, but it needs to stop. It's neither a truly liberal, nor a historical conservative value to hold.

The most obvious step toward totalitarianism is when everything that isn't illegal is made mandatory. In this case, the angry mob seeks to establish the govt as THE foremost moral authority(with terrific assistance from the MSM) and dissenters absolutely must be punished. Dissenters are undermning the orthodoxy of the leftist mob and its nothing if not fascism in its workings. I mean, just how ridiculous and utterly absurd is it that the media made it their mission to go around asking businesses in a town of 2200 people if they'd serve a gay wedding? I would ask , how many gay people live in a town of 2200 people? This issue is now not worth the time to further debate

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Sorry. I have to laugh at that business.

If in this day and age you are dumb enough to drag your business into a interview on a topic like that and allow it to be used, and not realized there would be backlash, well you got what you asked for.

Course the other factor is did she know what she was doing, and banked on that by submitting and crying foul and hardship that they could bolster business with a rush of support. Seeing as they already raised $114,546 dollars.

http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza