Friday, April 03, 2015

Intolerant, hate filled progressives attack Christian owners of Memories Pizzeria.

Who made the rule that people must conform their views on marriage, race, gender etc according to the standards liberals set?  I sure didn't get that memo. That's a very good question though. From what I know, liberals have chosen themselves, nobody else did.  If you support traditional marriage, then they claim that you are full of "hate" and a "bigot". I'm still trying to figure out that logic on how the two are connected. From what it comes down to is simply the fact that liberals can not tolerate anyone who has a point of view or support something they don't like nor "tolerate". According to them, people who hold religious views on marriage must abandon their faith in order be deemed "acceptable". Yeah, that really sounds tolerant. What the left has been doing to the O'Conner family who are Christians and own Memories Pizzeria in Indiana is deplorable and vile. Then again, what else is new. The definition of tolerance to progressives is simple "conform to our beliefs or be destroyed". 

This is the hit piece done by the local ABC affiliate Channel 57 on the O'Conners that got the "tolerant" left foaming at the mouth a mad dog. 

This is why the ABC 57 story is a hit piece. This is their hypertext link to their story
 " rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service

That is a bald faced lie and smear by ABC 57!!

1. Who were the gays who were "denied service?
 2. How would  ABC 57 even know that Memories was "the first business to publicly deny gays service"?
3. When were gays denied service?

ABC 57 should be sued for by the O'Conners for what they did to them.The owners of Memories Pizzeria have never discriminated against gays. Liberals are attacking them regardless, because of their Christian beliefs on marriage. The mindless enraged zombies should be ashamed of themselves for how they are demonizing the O'Conner family and their business, but shame isn't a word that liberals know very well.


33 Comments:

Blogger p. anthony allen said...

First off, let's be honest about why the law was drafted in the first place. The law's intent was to allow (some say protect) businesses who did not want to offer their services to individuals or others, based solely on their personal religious beliefs. The wording in the law gives far to much leeway for "religion" to be used as a "legal cause" to discriminate (or as the law's supports say, 'go against their religious beliefs) against individuals or groups. Moreover, not only would such a law give legal cause for discrimination, the law can also be interpreted to allow all types of religious practices, such as animal sacrifices, use of illicit or illegal drugs, or demands from religious businesses owners to conform to their beliefs before services can be rendered.

In my opinion the problem here is "freedom." It's a question of; "does your freedom trump my freedom?" When attempting to answer such a question, it seems that the political, social and religious zealots (on the right and left) start acting like damn fools.

4:30 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "First off, let's be honest about why the law was drafted in the first place. The law's intent was to allow (some say protect) businesses who did not want to offer their services to individuals or others, based solely on their personal religious beliefs."

Give me a break! The only example of gays being denied service to my knowledge is the Christian Baker who wouldn't bake a lesbians a wedding cake. So tell me whether you support how your hate filled progressives buds are treating the O'Conner family allen. I notice you didn't offer no condemnation of this.(sarcasm) Should I be surprised? Because this is what the story is all about, the true example of HATE on DISPLAY is coming from the left in all it's disgusting venom.,

p allen "The wording in the law gives far to much leeway for "religion" to be used as a "legal cause" to discriminate (or as the law's supports say, 'go against their religious beliefs) against individuals or groups. Moreover, not only would such a law give legal cause for discrimination, the law can also be interpreted to allow all types of religious practices, such as animal sacrifices, use of illicit or illegal drugs, or demands from religious businesses owners to conform to their beliefs before services can be rendered."

You are making a straw man argument for something that hasn't happened nor has happened. Twenty states already have a religious freedom law on the books yet no examples of any bushinesses in these states using the law to discriminate against people, gee go figure. For you liberals, it is always about "what could happen" rather then "what hasn't and "what isn't happening". Got to beat that drum of paranoia of the great what if right?

5:19 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Give me a break! The only example of gays being denied service to my knowledge is the Christian Baker who wouldn't bake a lesbians a wedding cake".

Okay, not only do you get a break....you're broken! If the ONLY example you can come up with is lesbians being denied service because they wanted a cake for their lesbian wedding, is there any other purpose for a LAW??? Does the Indiana law give lesbians the "right" to be served? Or, does the Indiana law give the business owner the "right" not to serve a lesbian wedding?

CB;"So tell me whether you support how your hate filled progressives buds are treating the O'Conner family allen".

First off, there's "hate filled idiots" of every ideology. So, NO! I don't support anyone who spews hate toward someone because they don't agree with them. Now I have to ask you the same... Do you support your "Conservative Christian" buds, like the Westboro Baptist Church?

CB;"Twenty states already have a religious freedom law on the books yet no examples of any bushinesses in these states using the law to discriminate against people, gee go figure".

That's because the Indiana law has wording in it that's not included in the other 20 laws. "Gee, go figure" and read the law for yourself. You'll see that I'm right.

7:30 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Ms. Conner, the pizza business owner, said: "It is not a sin for (homos) to be served in her place (which they were), but it is a sin to cater a (homo) wedding which is like a stamp of approval."

I agree fully with her. I would never cater to a man-man or woman-woman ceremony, because I obey Jesus to seek heaven. No person, no government, no threat, and no hell-bound spineless brainwashed mobs have the right to remove my freedom to be an obedient Christian.

9:35 PM  
Blogger John B. Hefmier said...

http://buzzpo.com/christian-man-denied-service-by-thirteen-gay-bakeries-after-requesting-pro-traditional-marriage-cake/

2:21 AM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

One of the lessons from Genesis 19, when God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, raining down brimstone and fire, is that sodomites who defy God with their “going after strange flesh” (Jude 1:7 & Romans 1:21-32, homosexuality, pedophilia, fornication), will also defy God with other sins, including: terroristic threat, violence, rape, murder, and destruction of property and life. All of these are implicated in Genesis 19, which is why God made Sodom and Gomorrah an eternal monument to His wrath upon their sins. These heterosexuals around the world who support homosexuals with emotionalistic fury, and who march in their “gay pride parades,” and who cave in to give them special benefits in corporate and government arenas, are blind and foolish to the whirlwind they are reaping for their families and cities. Romans 1:32 says that those who “have pleasure in them that do them” (sins inc. homosexuality) are also guilty.

7:52 AM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/3/video-muslim-bakers-points-double-standard-gay-wed/

Several muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan decline to provide wedding cake for “Ben and Steve.” When will the leftist liberal democrats have no choice but to confront jihadists' and muslims' stance on homosexuality (they hang them, kill them, in sharia countries), and on female liberation and attire, etc etc?

Leftist liberals being cowards who dodge the real fight. People can hide from reality, but they cannot hide from the consequences of hiding from reality.

9:43 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Indigo;"Several muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan decline to provide wedding cake for “Ben and Steve.” When will the leftist liberal democrats have no choice but to confront jihadists' and muslims' stance on homosexuality (they hang them, kill them, in sharia countries), and on female liberation and attire, etc etc?".

Muslim use their beliefs to justify a lot of crazy social rules, such as brutally punishing homosexuals. So to compare what Muslims do with concern to homosexuality is hardly a justification for Christian beliefs. What I mean is, why should an American Christian point to Muslim practices as an example? Are there American Christians willing to support "every" religious practice of Muslims, or just this one?

Mind you, I don't believe that the government should force anyone to "bake a cake" for someone else. However, this debate is not about an individual's right to practice his or her religion. The debate is over "homosexuality." If indeed it were about religious beliefs, those taking a religious stance would take the same stance in every aspect of their lives according to their religion.

But there are those who claim religious principles that clearly are laced with hypocrisy. Many are simply using "religion" as an excuse to discriminate. That is what leads to the "freedom and religious rights" dilemma. So what should a business owner who doesn't want to offer his service to a homosexual do? I suggest they do what most are already doing. That is "LIE." Make up another reason other than religion being that you're already lying about your convictions to your religion.

2:55 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen"
Okay, not only do you get a break....you're broken! If the ONLY example you can come up with is lesbians being denied service because they wanted a cake for their lesbian wedding, is there any other purpose for a LAW???"

You have yet to prove me wrong. All you can do is criticize the examples based that have "actually have happened". Because most religious folks do hold marriage as holy between a man and a woman, it is responsible to understand that they wouldn't like having to betray their religious doctrine based on a law that makes them do it.

p allen "First off, there's "hate filled idiots" of every ideology. So, NO! I don't support anyone who spews hate toward someone because they don't agree with them. Now I have to ask you the same... Do you support your "Conservative Christian" buds, like the Westboro Baptist Church?"

But it's liberals who claim to own the mantel of compassion, tolerance, diversity and all the other feel good BS they spew. Of course hate is all around, but liberals never point the finger at themselves when they "act up" like in Indiana against a family which has done nothing wrong. Those hate filled right wingers that liberals are so quick to try and point out are the ones who have raised over $500,000 for the Conner family to help them deal with the damage "tolerant" liberals have done to the reputation of the O'Conner family and the Memories Pizzeria. The same way you talk about the "what if" possibilities of the Freedom of Religion Act, liberals acted without knowing all the facts in regards to the O'Conners and look what happened, as usual facts be dammed.

6:42 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen " Does the Indiana law give lesbians the "right" to be served? Or, does the Indiana law give the business owner the "right" not to serve a lesbian wedding? "

What law gives anyone the "right" to be served? Night clubs can forbid anyone from entering their clubs who do not adhere to their dress code. Smokers aren't allowed into eating establishments that state they are a non smoking establishment. People under 21 aren't allowed into certain establishments, teenagers under 17 can't go and see an R rated movie by themselves and on and on and on. There are no laws on the books approving nor denying any of what I mentioned. Um, if a lesbian walks into a Pizzeria or any establishment for that matter, how is the establishment owner going to know that woman is a lesbian or the man is gay or whatever? It's way different then the days of Jim Crow and Black Codes in denying service to blacks, it was obvious what a black person looked like. This is why I can't stop laughing when I hear the velvet mafia try to mask the black civil rights era around them. I'm sure gays and lesbians existed during that era and business establishments just served them as anyone else.

Indigo" Ms. Conner, the pizza business owner, said: "It is not a sin for (homos) to be served in her place (which they were), but it is a sin to cater a (homo) wedding which is like a stamp of approval."

That's the core issue Indigo. Businesses selling goods and services to customers is the everyday process of commerce and that goes for Christian or any other religious business, the rub comes when the religious owners are being "forced" to violate their valid religious views. This has nothing to do about Ms Conner having no problem selling pizzas to gay. Liberals are mad, because she and her family won't sacrifice their moral beliefs in order to conform to their liking. If gays or lesbians or whatever weren't allowed into their pizzeria is a completely different story but that's not even the case. I don't know if liberals are too stupid to know that didn't happen or is it as I said "conform or be destroyed".

6:59 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

Indigo said "Several muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan decline to provide wedding cake for “Ben and Steve.” When will the leftist liberal democrats have no choice but to confront jihadists' and muslims' stance on homosexuality (they hang them, kill them, in sharia countries), and on female liberation and attire, etc etc?"

lol, you nailed it. The cricket sounds are deafening. Liberals aren't going to call out these Muslim bakers, because unlike Christians, they actually fear what will happen if they do. Liberals know what groups to pick a fight with and which ones to run for the hills. They claim to stand up for homosexuals and demand that bakers and pizzeria Christians be destroyed, yet the gutless wonders are quiet as a church mouse in speaking out in outrage on behalf of Arab Muslim gays being shot and hung in Muslim countries.

8:21 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

ACM "Liberals are mad, because she and her family won't sacrifice their moral beliefs in order to conform to their liking"

That's it exactly, Ty. In America, talk shows, Europe, the homo defending liberals throw a tasmanian fit when believers in God do not kow-tow to their liking. They don't want equal opportunity; they want to make people with moral and spirtual character (that they don't have) to bow and scrape and bend and kiss booty to their every whim. They are fact-evading LIARS and sensational scandal-mongers who in their weakness are using a form of terror against the strong that they know will not fight back in a dirty way (just like jihadists do).

ACM "Liberals aren't going to call out these Muslim bakers, because unlike Christians, they actually fear what will happen if they do. Liberals know what groups to pick a fight with and which ones to run for the hills."

Bullish on Bullies. By the time I was in first or second grade, I was already studying the tactics of bullies. I learned very early in life that bullies are cowards. In the real fight, against the real enemy, where they may get tore up, bullies run for the hills. Instead they pick fight where they think they can win, or they gang up against those who cannot or will not fight back... It was much later in my twenties that I understood that Jesus taught these principles in His sermon on the Mouintain, Matt. 5,6,7. (... All during 1980 Iran/Muslims held 444 hostages during weak president Jimmy Carter. The moment Ronald Reagan began to take the reigns for 1981, they let the hostages go, because they knew what Reagan would do to them if they didn't.)

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-rights-rally-goes-indianapolis-ncaa-final-four-193426076.html
As the above article shows, it is mind-boggling how foolish and clueless so many Americans are in lock stepping to a false narrative that has been laid out for them. "Anti-Gay Hate" is all over the internet, yet there has been no such thing. A Christian who shuns that sin is actually loving them by giving them an opportunity to see the light. The "pro-Gay" boycotters and protestors are the ones HATING them, by enabling their vice, and hastening their doom.

9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John B. Hefmeir-in reference to your post.

Now watch when the roles are reversed Liberals would response with emphasis by saying, "Well...THAT'S DIFFERENT!"

Take for example of a case back in 2013 when a Klansman who successfully sued a baker in Georgia for discrimination because the baker refused to bake the Klansman a birthday cake because the owner did not approve of his "religious beliefs".

And it makes me wonder this-if this Christian were to decide to sue the gay bakeries, who would the the Left side with, him or the bakers? Would they have sided with the baker in Georgia or the Klansman? Obviously, they're going to side with these bakers, because unlike the Christian establishment, they're going to make up one cockamamie excuse after another?

CB-"Liberals aren't going to call out these Muslim bakers, because unlike Christians, they actually fear what will happen if they do.

I watched that Steven Crowder video and I would love to see what the liberals explanation on this. The Left can give these Muslim bakers free-pass, but ignore the fact that ISIS control areas are murdering Christians, Jews, and modern Muslims. Ask them what their views are about Muslim nations that practices Sharia law and homosexuality is punishable by death.

-BP


10:28 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"You have yet to prove me wrong. All you can do is criticize the examples based that have "actually have happened". Because most religious folks do hold marriage as holy between a man and a woman,".

I'll let you prove it to yourself that you're wrong....

Here in Detroit I know a bar owner (aka, 'titty bar') that doesn't allow openly or known gay men in his establishment. Needless to say, he's as far from a Christian as you can get. If legally challenged by homosexuals should he be able to claim "religious" beliefs? Mind you, I'm not saying that he has been challenged. What I'm asking you, is would you support his choice not to cater to homosexuals based on the assertion of Christian beliefs?

Bear in mind that the initial Indiana law states;

" a person" to include any individual, organization, or "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association" or another entity driven by religious belief that can sue and be sued, "regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes".

Thus, under the law, all a "person or company, corporation, etc..." need do is assert that they refused someone service because of a religious belief.

So I simply ask, would you support a strip club owner's right to refuse service to homosexuals based on his Christian beliefs?

10:41 PM  
Anonymous Phil said...

Tyrone,

Rather than repeat the same points you already addressed,all I will say is that you nailed it. But this issue has led me to make several observations:

Have you notice that this whole thing is very similar to the cries of racism from the black grievance industry (formerly the civil rights movement) when a business or establishment (usually a nightclub , restaurant, or entertainment establishment) institutes some sort of dress code that prohibits certain types of clothing (white tees, baseball hats, pants below the waist, etc.)?

Have you noticed that this issue further illustrates that liberals are against choice unless it involves weed or abortions?

11:04 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Indigo;" All during 1980 Iran/Muslims held 444 hostages during weak president Jimmy Carter. The moment Ronald Reagan began to take the reigns for 1981, they let the hostages go, because they knew what Reagan would do to them if they didn't".

Oh my...I know you didn't just go there! (even though it's off topic, I just have to knock you down on this one...)

What was Reagan going to do... bomb them? Reagan didn't bomb them, he SOLD them bombs! Iran became a major player in state sponsored terror DURING THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION. And not only was Iran supporting terrorist organizations, the Reagan administration was trading weapons and shipping Iran weapons to secure release of hostages.

And how ignorant can you be not to accept Reagan's own admission that his administration sold arms to Iran. Furthermore, Reagan did nothing after 240 service men were killed in the 1983 Beirut bombing, which almost everyone believes was backed by the Iranians. Frankly, Reagan was more of a friend to the Iranians, and Muslims in general than most presidents before him.

12:48 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB; "Liberals aren't going to call out these Muslim bakers, because unlike Christians, they actually fear what will happen if they do".

Yeah right... liberal's are so scared that if they call out Muslim baker's they'll put "Isis on your cake." Perhaps they're afraid that Muslim bakers will have homosexuals "go down" on their pray rugs and make them "pray to the yeast."

2:19 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

Phil said "Have you notice that this whole thing is very similar to the cries of racism from the black grievance industry (formerly the civil rights movement) when a business or establishment (usually a nightclub , restaurant, or entertainment establishment) institutes some sort of dress code that prohibits certain types of clothing (white tees, baseball hats, pants below the waist, etc.)?"

Great observation, and you are absolutely right Phil. Back during my clubbing days(lol) I went into nightclubs that clearly stated, nobody was allowed entrance if they wore boots t shirts or baggies pants. The club owners clearly knew the demographics of those most likely to cause trouble in their establishment based on how they dressed. Of course liberals do not like this, because they claim it's "stereotyping", but the numbers speak clearly for themselves. The establishment owners are clearly trying to protect their businesses and reputations, that is why they enforce dress codes, liberals are too race strung to see otherwise.

Indigo said...
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-rights-rally-goes-indianapolis-ncaa-final-four-193426076.html. As the above article shows, it is mind-boggling how foolish and clueless so many Americans are in lock stepping to a false narrative that has been laid out for them. "Anti-Gay Hate" is all over the internet, yet there has been no such thing. A Christian who shuns that sin is actually loving them by giving them an opportunity to see the light. The "pro-Gay" boycotters and protestors are the ones HATING them, by enabling their vice, and hastening their doom."

This has become the United States of Absurdity, so it doesn't surprise me how low down the collective I.Q scale Americans have fallen. As you said Indigo about how these morons calling Christians who support traditional marriage being about "hate". I find their stupidity laughable but sad. Christians pray for the souls of sinners. I've never known for people who hate others so much that they are willing to pray for them! lol lol Again, it just goes back to the absurdity of liberal logic.

6:41 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen said "
Here in Detroit I know a bar owner (aka, 'titty bar') that doesn't allow openly or known gay men in his establishment. Needless to say, he's as far from a Christian as you can get. If legally challenged by homosexuals should he be able to claim "religious" beliefs? Mind you, I'm not saying that he has been challenged. What I'm asking you, is would you support his choice not to cater to homosexuals based on the assertion of Christian beliefs?"

No I wouldn't support his choice. Owning a strip club vs owning a bakery or pizzeria are two COMPLETELY different things. The owner of the strip club isn't performing weddings at the strip club correct? If that's not the case, then he has no case to claim religious freedom especially based on the business he is running. In the cases of the two bakeries and the pizzeria in Indiana, the controversy isn't more so about serving gays, it's about not providing a particular service (catering) or product (wedding cake) based on the owner's Christian views on marriage.
Now as to what you stated about the Indiana law. I would be willing to submit in the language that no establishment can refuse service to homosexuals based on religious freedom EXCEPT if the product or service rendered goes against their faith on the grounds of marriage.

6:53 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"No I wouldn't support his choice. Owning a strip club vs owning a bakery or pizzeria are two COMPLETELY different things".

Told ya'! You can't even defend the law based on "religious principles."
The "persons, company, corporation, etc..." can make claim that the gay lifestyle and gay marriage violates Christian principles. THE LAW IMPLIES THAT "ALL" RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES ARE PROTECTED. Not just "bakers and florists." Where in the law does it say that "only bakers and florists" are protected?

Yet, you admit that even "YOU" would choose "WHO AND HOW" you would use this law. If the law's intent is to protect religious beliefs, that clearly means "ALL" religious beliefs are protected, no matter what "PERSON, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC..." who makes that claim. Your refusal to apply the law "equally" shows and PROVES that it's not about religion, and indeed that it's about homosexuality!

CB; "in Indiana, the controversy isn't more so about serving gays, it's about not providing a particular service (catering) or product (wedding cake) based on the owner's Christian views on marriage".

OOOOhhh Boy... Tyrone, the law does not specify any particular business, nor business type or practice. Here is the law. You will NOT find ANY TEXT THAT SAYS CATERING, MARRIAGE OR WEDDING in it. A strip club can and does provide a SERVICE. You may not agree with the type of service it provides, but nevertheless, IT'S A SERVICE.

The fact is that you're lying, just like "MOST" of those who support this type of law. You're using religion as your excuse for not wanting to support gay marriage. Yet, under the same assertion of not supporting gay marriage, you refuse to support THE SAME LAW that protects a strip club owner by implying that "he shouldn't be protected by the SAME LAW" that protects another business. Under this law, you don't get to choose who has "religious conviction" and who does not. Therefore, the only use for such a law is to discriminate against those who you do choose... as you've clearly shown.

10:08 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Phil;"Have you notice that this whole thing is very similar to the cries of racism from the black grievance industry (formerly the civil rights movement) when a business or establishment (usually a nightclub , restaurant, or entertainment, etc...".

OOOOhhh yeah... I remember when the night club owners were persecuted by "libruls" for their "religious convictions" to a dress code. By the way, what ever happened in that court case where the "Disco Dancing Evangelicals" night club was forced to give in to the secular librul dress code ban?

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Phil said...

p. allen OOOOhhh yeah... I remember when the night club owners were persecuted by "libruls" for their "religious convictions" to a dress code. By the way, what ever happened in that court case where the "Disco Dancing Evangelicals" night club was forced to give in to the secular librul dress code ban?

You sound ridiculous. My point to Tyrone was that the homosexual grievance industry through lies and misinformation has characteristic the Indiana law as being discriminatory against gays just like the black grievance has on certain issues like the one I mentioned. My apologies if it is too complicated for you to understand.

10:44 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

p allen "Told ya'! You can't even defend the law based on "religious principles."

Wrong, marriage is a "religious institution" to religious people, thus that can create a conflict with their faith if they are "forced" to provide services to "people who violate their adherence to the definition of marriage". Like I said before. If the religious principal is valid not just "an individual making up a religious rule". All religions believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so it can't be said that a person just "came up with" the concept in order to discriminate. What your problem is allen is that you think that the law has to be perfect to cover ever conceivable scenario in which a person could use the law in order to "discriminate". What you fail to realize is that "NO LAW IS PERFECT"!! Think about how many civil right bills have been passed over the decades to address what prior laws didn't cover. When the founding fathers created the constitution, even they realized that it would have to be changed over time, that is why they created the amendment process for it. When a law fails to do what it was designed to do or certain people find loop holes in the law, the JOB of the legislators or congress is the create a revised bill to ADDRESS THE FLAWS of the previous bill.

p allen "The "persons, company, corporation, etc..." can make claim that the gay lifestyle and gay marriage violates Christian principles. "

The difference is that gays "AREN'T FORCING THEM TO CATER TO THEIR LIFESTYLE" as it is with Christians being forced to provide wedding cakes for gay ceremonies. When a company hires a gay person, their lifestyle doesn't play a role in how they do their assigned job. As long as they don't make their sexuality and issue to become a distraction to others, there shouldn't be a problem or a reason they shouldn't be hired. There are gays who work for Chick-Fil-A. They haven't been discriminated against. They do their job and life goes on. To make a long story short, sure there will be people who try to abuse the freedom act laws, but those people situations will be dealt with as they arise. It's not like a person or company can just claim the religious freedom act and end of story, that's not the case. They have to go to court and make their case in giving a "valid" reason

10:46 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Wrong, marriage is a "religious institution" to religious people, thus that can create a conflict with their faith if they are "forced" to provide services to "people who violate their adherence to the definition of marriage".

No, you're wrong. You can be the most avowed and devoted religious person in the world. But try making the claim that you're in a "marriage" without a licence from the state. In most Western societies, marriage is a "Civil Institution." Yes, there are religious practices and adherence's to marriage. But for practical purposes, marriage is a bond recognized by the state. Ergo, in this country, you don't need a "preacher, priest, pastor or religious figure presiding over a wedding to have a legal marriage.

I think you're completely confused because you've got the "wrong law!" The Indiana law was not written to avoid any conflict of what marriage is, or is not. That angle has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. Thus here again, you're simply using religion as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals.

The Indiana law doesn't address marriage at all. Tyrone, you're constantly make my point for me. You're using marriage as a scapegoat for your argument. THE LAW DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE. The law is written in such a fashion that a "person, company, corporation, etc.." can use "RELIGIOUS BELIEFS" to legally deny service based on that "RELIGIOUS BELIEF." A person or business can now employ the law based on that religious belief. What part of that FACT is it that you don't understand?

CB;" What you fail to realize is that "NO LAW IS PERFECT"!!".

RIGHT! Absolutely correct! Therefore, if no law is perfect, how can you say this law was not meant to discriminate? It's like you're trying to find "a question for the answer!" When doing that it's called "JEOPARDY." You've seen the law. You know what it says. Even the Governor Mike Pence (after it was pointed out to him) understood that the law was fatally flawed. Yet YOU continue to grasp at straws???????

I think you know damn well why they put this law in place. I just wish some conservatives could be honest and just say that you don't approve of homosexuality, and you don't like homosexuals. Just say it and leave it at that.

5:49 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Phil;"My point to Tyrone was that the homosexual grievance industry through lies and misinformation has characteristic the Indiana law as being discriminatory against gays just like the black grievance has on certain issues like the one I mentioned".

LOL... I feel as though I'll need to you inform you that I don't buy into the typical conservative laws of dictation (a.k.a., "talking points")

The reality is that every person's, (or groups) complaints, left-wing, right-wing, religious, secular, or what have you, can be categorized as "grievances." In fact a grievance exists when "ANYONE" complains, be the cause real or imagined. Therefore a "grievance industry" is a creation of the system we live under. It's formally called "freedom of expression and redress."

It's only considered playing by the rules when you and your "industry of grievance" combats their industry of grievance. So suck it up, deal with it and quit complaining....

4:30 PM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

Ben Carson spoke at a gathering of Al Sharpton's group. Although booed when announced by Sharpton that he would speak, he went on to say that blacks must talk about what they are not talking about. Like 73% of black babies in USA being born out of wedlock. And more. I commend Carson for taking the fight into "the mouth of the tiger." I hope Carson is ready for the smear tactics of the democrat machine, and I hope that he cannot, like Cosby, become a discredited spokesman. The life story of Carson's mother, brother and his self is "just what the doctor ordered." Carson just needs poilitical experience, and maybe a term as a mayor or governor. Or maybe for 2016, Cruz / Walker, or, Cruz / Carson.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ben-carson-al-sharpton-event/2015/04/08/id/637338/

9:11 AM  
Anonymous Indigo said...

When they asked Rand Paul about abortion, he said before he answers, they should go ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she supports killing a 7 pound baby that has not been born yet (which she, Obama, and most dems have supported). Then Paul will answer... It's about time that republicans / conservatives start standing up, straight up, and bluntly exposing the nutjob hypocrisy, the family-destroying, the America-hating culture of death, of the “gotcha” media. Start telling the public behind the camera, right in the face of the hack job media, what the real truth is.

Yesterday morning on NBC Savannah Guthrie tried to railroad and stonewall Paul into a corner, and instead he gave her a lesson on how to conduct an interview.

Always far left wing hack “obligatory angry black writer” Leonard Pitts says in his recent column that the culture war is over and that conservatives lost and just don't know it. We'll see. Just stay tuned and watch what happens in 2016. American voters have always been interesting. They will give a liberal a term or two with a conservative congress, or they will give a conservative a term or two with a liberal congress. Some people think “the scales tipped” when Obama beat Romney, but the scales can tip back if Independents and Moderates can vote for a real leader.

9:47 PM  
Anonymous Phil said...

Tyrone,I left a couple of comments. Unfortunately, I don't see them posted.

8:40 AM  
Blogger Julius Hannon said...

The "religion thing" works both ways.

For starters, let us say that a member of a religious sect that believes that homosexuality is NOT a sin owns a catering service that has the reputation for offering the "best sweet-potato pie in the world."

Second, let us say that a church that is well known for promoting that homosexuality is a sin goes to the aforementioned caterer and request that it provide the food for one of its social affairs.

Third, the caterer refuses to provide service to the "anti-homosexual church" because he is diametrically opposed to its view -- and believe that he cannot, in good conscience, serve such a group of people.

So, the big question is, should the caterer whose religious beliefs that say homosexuality is NOT a sin have THE RIGHT to refuse service to the church that has the reverse opinion?

5:58 PM  
Blogger Julius Hannon said...

In this case, the "religious thing" can work both ways.

First, for example, let us say that the "best catering service in town" is owned and operated by a person who is a member of a religious sect that strongly believes that homosexuality is NOT a sin.

Second, let us say that the members of a church that is well-known for preaching that homosexuality is a sin asks the aforementioned caterer to provide food and refreshments for one of its social affairs.

Now, the big question is, should the caterer have THE RIGHT to refuse service to the "anti-homosexual" church because he is diametrically opposed to its belief concerning homosexuality?

6:10 PM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

Phil " Anonymous Phil said...
"
Tyrone,I left a couple of comments. Unfortunately, I don't see them posted. "

Everything that was in the cue was posted Phil.

Julius Hannon "In this case, the "religious thing" can work both ways.First, for example, let us say that the "best catering service in town" is owned and operated by a person who is a member of a religious sect that strongly believes that homosexuality is NOT a sin.
Second, let us say that the members of a church that is well-known for preaching that homosexuality is a sin asks the aforementioned caterer to provide food and refreshments for one of its social affairs.Now, the big question is, should the caterer have THE RIGHT to refuse service to the "anti-homosexual" church because he is diametrically opposed to its belief concerning homosexuality?"

Yes, since a religious freedom is not tied to belonging to a certain denomination. Religious freedom was one of the reasons this country was founded in the first place by Protestants who didn't want to have to be forced to practice Catholicism by King George. There are certain denominations within Christianity that actually support sodomy and sodomy marriage. The Episcopal Church and the Unitarian Church for starters. Of course their views on gay marriage will never gel with more conservative Christian denomations. To answer your question, this is about the store owner's religious views personally, and he or she should have the freedom to not have to go against them. We don't know what religion the O'Conner family practices, all we know is that they are Christians, but gay marriage goes against their personal moral beliefs and they simply do not want any part of it.

1:04 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

Memories Pizzeria is back open, and people have raised close to a million dollars for owners. Looks like the progressive hate machine failed again thankfully just as they did in trying to bully Chic-Fil-A. It just goes to show that when people stand up to the rainbow mafia, they can be pushed back.

1:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home