Connecticut Becomes First State To Boycott Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Law

Someone else may be celebrating a wedding. The baker is working, engaged in his licensed business that serves the public, baking a cake, not "celebrating" anything.

The bible says nothing about "celebrating a lifestyle" nor, again, is a baker "celebrating" anything.

If he is Jewish, or gay, a member of some other group persecuted by Nazis, or just someone who finds the images repugnant, the baker who finds your symbology repulsive might refuse to decorate your cake accordingly, and it is your right to claim discrimination in his not accommodating your wishes.

You would also be free to appeal to decent, mainstream Americans, the mayor of your capital city, institutions, and corporate interests to boycott your baker and his state that sanctions his discriminating against you in that manner.

Go for it.

 

They are being FORCED BY THE TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT to participate in something they disagree with.


NOW FIND ME A MUSLIM BAKER SO I CAN FORCE HIM TO MAKE ME A BACON CAKE.

 

It seems only Christians are the targets of these progressives.
There are so many cases of muslims refusing to handle pork or seek them a bible or alcohol etc.
let no progressive outrage.
Religious people refusing severs to others

 

The reality is that we, as a society, are not going to pander to cake bakers who start sniveling that they won't serve the public if they eat pork, lend money, or transgress against whatever biblical injunction props up their particular prejudices.

Baking a cake is not sinful, not even for an atheistic mortgage broker munching on a ham sandwich while he places his order for an especially festive gateau .

Stop whining and serve the public as you are licensed to do.

 

Under RFRA and those that have used it, private parties like the baker, lose and those suing government force win. That is what RFRA is for.

 

Yes, that is what criminals do constantly.

No one is making the baker cavort and cut a dazzling fandango at the soiree.

Meanwhile, it's fun to see the GOP pols back-peddling. It's like watching speeded-up reversed footage of Lance Armstrong :

Two days after he unequivocally backed Indiana's controversial "religious freedom" law as not "discriminatory at all," former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Wednesday at a private Silicon Valley fundraiser that Indiana could have taken a "better...more consensus-oriented approach."

"By the end of the week, Indiana will be in the right place," Bush said."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/02/politics/jeb-bush-religious-freedom-law/index.html​

Hard to disagree with that kind of "leadership"!

​

 

You are doing something WORSE...you are FORCING THEM to violate their 1st Amendment GUARANTEED freedom of religion.

I agree...its also PATHETIC and everything that Conservatives around this country are sick of when it comes to the LACK of leadership from our supposed leaders. They have the backbone of an earthworm.


They should have stood up and said, "We support the FREEDOM of choice this bill guarantees and it STRENGTHENS the 1st Amendment rights of ALL Americans. Why do you not support FREEDOM?????", as the detractors (*)(*)(*)(*) their pajamas, fall over, and suck their thumbs in the fetal position.

Im pretty sick and tired of seeing these guys crumble in the face of adversity. Standing up for religious freedom is nothing to apologize about, so stop (*)(*)(*)(*)ing doing it.

 

Cake baking, per se, is not the issue. Perhaps someone has misinformed you.

 

Wrong. No religion proscribes baking a cake, and no one can play the religion card by making up such taboos.

Your problem is, properly, with Indiana's governor:

​

.

"“This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples."​

 

In Indiana, Hysteria as a Bludgeon

Indiana will be the only State in the union with special protection in its RFRA for the LGBT community.

 

NCAA, if you don't like Indiana law, go to Cuba

 

Love the one where someone ask a muslim cake shop to bake a cake of Mohammad. I wonder how that would go? And if the progressives will call in death threats to the muslims.

 

Indiana is not correcting a legal problem but a perception problem created by the gay mafia.

 

​

.

“This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples."​

If Pence is being honest in correcting the impression of anyone who thought that that they could discriminate under the law, then everyone, including the American public and the nation's business interests (but not including the would-be discriminators, of course) should be happy!

 

So you believe that a baker who refuses to decorate a cake with swaztikas or the face of the prophet Muhammad should be subject to lawsuit for illegal discrimination?

Then what is your take on Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the case before the Supreme Court in which a group of private citizens wants the state of Texas to make a specialized license plate decorated with the Confederate Battle Flag? I assume your position is that the state has no grounds for refusing to make the license plate as petitioned since it is a government entity and is even more limited in what services it can refuse.

I am not sure U.S. law is meant to force public or private entities to render services for people or organizations with controversial ideologies.

 

No.

What I accept is what Governor Pence explained: “This law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples."

If the current wording of the law does not make that point clear, the wording of the bill he signs into law will.

I have not opined on the matters that concern you.

 

It seems that you did:

Unless you were being sarcastic, which is why I asked because it wasn't clear.

My understanding is that a straight woman could walk into the baker's shop and ask for a cake to be made for her brother's gay wedding, and this non-gay patron would find her order refused on grounds definsible under this law. Likewise, a gay man could walk in and ask for a cake for his friend's straight wedding, and there would be no grounds for refusing him service.

 

Are Christians against gay marriage or nah? (this is the 2nd time Ive asked you this question, since you were too much of a coward to answer the first time)


See you are so afraid of being honest that you have to change the argument to "baking a cake" rather than the proper argument "contributing to gay marriage". We dont want to ban guns, no no no....we just want to ban assault weapons and cop killer bullets and that thing that goes up! We dont want to ban guns at all!

The left is always ASHAMED of their positions...that is why they are forced to change their arguments......no we dont want to FORCE you to participate in gay weddings that violate your 1st Amendment rights...you are just baking a cake...its not that bad! Just look the other way!

Could there be anything more UNAMERICAN than FORCING people to do something they dont want to do. Liberal bullying strikes again!

 

I agree with you that it is an expression of tolerance, but that's not the question. The question is if God would look at it differently, or if good would look at it as supporting the same sex couple.

Do you suppose that all people share this idea of tolerance, or do you think there is a fair number of people who would evaluate that situation and feel that selling the ring to the gay couple, knowing what it would be used for, is pretty much the same thing as also inscribing it. It seems to me the only difference is the amount of time and effort involved in making it happen... if you don't have to think about it very long, then it's not supporting the sin.

 

"This seems to mitigate many of the risks posed by RFRA, making clear that the law is not meant to provide exemptions from antidiscrimination law," said Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. "This is important language."

Text of the Conference Committee Report

Sec. 0.7. This chapter does not:
(1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation,k gender identity, or United States military service;
(2) establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution for refusal by a provider to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation,k gender identity, or United States military service;
(3)negate any rights available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
Sec 7.5. As used in this chapter, "provider" means one (1) or more individuals, partnerships, associations, organizations, limited liability companies, corporations, and other organized groups of persons. The term does not include:
(1) A church or other nonprofit religious organization or society, including an affiliated school, that is exempt from federal income taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a), as amended (excluding any activity that generates unrelated business taxable income (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 512, as amended)).
(2) A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of a church or other nonprofit religious organization or society when the individual is engaged in a religious or affiliated educational function of the church or other nonprofit religious organization or society.

 

And the Constitution only applies if it suits your side of the argument. "AS USUAL"!

 

I'm sure Indiana will sorely miss that $50 bucks.

 

Heck, ours is the only one in the nation that specifically protects LGBT and they are still protesting it. Intolerance of religion in general is the new hallmark of the gay jihadists.

 

Um. Perhaps you don't know that violent crime rates are the lowest they've ever been since the country was founded. Thought you should know.