DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

Yea, but if a restaurant serves the absolute best food ever do they have the right in this country to decide it should only be served to customers they prefer?

How about the absolute best should only be served to gay Muslim Mexican immigrants who support gun restrictions?

Step by step by step...

No opportunity missed. Year after year, the laws get overturned and new ones passed. Three steps forward and two steps back, We take it back.

First of all, it's not the birthday cake that presented a problem, it's the wedding cake. A wedding cake tends to be a very personal representation of the bride and groom (bride/bride, groom/groom, whatever), and some people have a religious objection to participating in those ceremonies. The 1st Amendment protects that right. I could understand there being a problem if there was only one wedding cake bakery in 100 miles, but that isn't the case. To me, it's as bad as someone forcing a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple. Once again, who's rights are more important?

The next thing you have to ask is what is offensive? Is there a basis in the religion for them to determine offense? I've read biblical passages that state men should not lie with other men, but no mention of women. Even though I can see where they get the idea. I don't recall any recognized religion that is against people of color, old people, Browns fans, dog owners, or politicians, but there are those against women, whites, and catholics.

A religious business that is going to refuse anyone other than young, white/latino, cat owning, protestant, anarchic, steeler fans probably won't last long, anyway.

Think about it. Should a muslim caterer be forced to prepare and Easter dinner with ham, or bake a gay wedding cake?

Well, if they choose not to serve me because I'm not within their preferred customer base, then it's not the best food I ever tasted, being as I would never have tasted it to be able to compare.

Legal or not, do you really want to support a business that does not want you there? To me, if they put out a sign that says "No long hair freaky people", it saves me the time and aggravation of doing business with a company where I probably will not being getting the best service they could provide.

Most of them already do that by pricing their food out of most peoples reach, and by allowing only reservations for seating. I guess we need to have the feds set prices and seating arrangements in all restaurants now.

Here's the thing.

We are debating about a principle on the use of violence by the government to enforce social rules.

The debate is something along the lines of you must allow gays vs you must not allow gays. Jim Crow would be you must not allow black people.

For all the hubbub about Jim Crow (immoral as it was) it does no good to continue the exact same principle. You are using the exact same logic bigots used in enforcing bigotry instead to enforce anti-bigotry.

Freedom from societal opinions on business and belief is the principle we should be operating on. It does zero good to try and force people to accept everyone. Because logically you are operating on the same principle of Sharia law or Jim Crow trying to force people to not accept minorities. You are relying on mob rule which sways with the social opinion of the era.

When you see something distasteful in society like bigotry. Don't reach for a gun. Use your words. Condemn the business, destroy its reputation. Don't go crying to the police to arrest people for non-violent actions. That is the exact same principle in action people used to support Jim Crow, drug laws, and open homosexuality.

When we are talking about laws we are talking about the use of violence always and irreducibly that is what we are talking about. You violate a law you get fined, you don't pay the fine you get arrested, you resist arrest you are murdered.

Call me a dummy if you must, but I thought we had a separation between Church and State?

Why is there a need for legislation of ANY kind?

I don't think Jim Crow is a proper example.

I mean think about it: Nevermind a store, i would've got beaten and lynched if i even said hello to a white woman.

There are plenty of examples of violence towards gays.

Let's not call it Jim Crow, but it's a religion based law to discriminate.

Jim Crow is far more accurate in this instance than lynching.

Lynching is simply murder. Once black people had the same basic rights (not being murdered or enslaved) as whites, lynching became murder. Whether or not it was enforced by the police is a separate matter entirely.

It is not legal to lynch gay people or blacks. It is not legal to steal from them. It is not legal to enslave them. These are fundamental human rights.

Jim Crow was a legally mandated segregation of the races. It was illegal to not segregate. Many people opposed this law...it isn't a mystery why it was repealed.

Legally permitting segregation, discrimination, outright bigotry, is not the same as legally enforcing it. Not even close. It is funny that the difference seems to be only in business. Those westboro bapitist people are within their legal rights to be extremely venemous and openly bigoted. But if they ran a lemonade stand all of a sudden we can't allow that?

The question is pretty moot. I think getting rid of discrimination laws would end up with a few no-gays no-blacks businesses in the deep south and not much else. It would probably have some no trans gyms since people were up in arms about it. But it would give people (whether we want to say bigots or religious) a place to conduct business as they wished.

Murdering people is not at all the same as shunning people. If they aren't harming anyone there is no reason to harm them. You can openly discuss and denounce their bigotry, but waving jail threats at people because they are bigots isn't right. It is a form of payback without adhering to principles.

I have a question. (well, a series of questions, actually)

Do we, as private citizens, have the right to associate with those we choose to, or do we simply have to associate with everyone, regardless of who they are, whether or not we have anything in common with them, or if we agree with their positions and/or lifestyles?

How about private citizens who own and run businesses?

Where does the 1st amendment, protecting religion, and the free expression thereof, begin and end when it comes to interpersonal interactions and/or relationships?

If a person's religious beliefs state that they should do nothing to promote certain lifestyles and/or behaviors, should they be forced to do so in order to avoid upsetting another person? If so, why?

Does a person who disagrees with a religious person's morals, standards, and/or beliefs have the right to force their beliefs, morals and standards on the religious person? If so, why?

There has to be a point where each person's rights are respected. If a business does not want to do business with me, then that's fine. I'll find someone else who will. If there are people who do not with to associate with me based on my religious beliefs, then that's fine too.

Where is the line drawn? What if a person is gay, and is also a jerk? What if the business owner says "I am not going to do business with you", and it is because that person is a jerk, not because they are gay? Whose word wins out in that case if legal action ensues, for some reason?

I think that a lot of people need to grow thicker skins. Not everyone is going to like everyone else, nor are they going to want to associate with everyone else. Move on and find someone who will. Stop being so concerned about what others think about your lifestyle. If a person is so committed to the idea that theirs is a normal relationship, then it should not matter at all what another thinks, and they should not want to do business with someone who thinks otherwise, instead of somehow trying to legally "punish" them for having a different opinion, and belief. Just move on to someone who wants to know, and do business with you.

These people bastardizing the message of their faith are merely speeding up the process of their irrelevancy.

The youth of America do and will continue to look at things like this and say ''what the hell is wrong with these people?"

If you don't find this law appalling, ask yourself one simple question - would Jesus refuse service to someone because they are gay?

And this is the question I've asked myself. The answer I keep coming up with is no.

jc…

So, if I go to Indiana (which I don't, and won't) do I have to show ID to prove that I'm gay/not gay? How will this work exactly?

If two friends go out for a drink is the bartender allowed to ask if they are a couple? Will there be a sign on the door saying NO GAYS ALLOWED/WE DON'T SERVE HOMOSEXUALS?

I own a business and there are people I would rather not serve…maybe I will put a sign on my door stating "NO AHOLES ALLOWED". Think I could get away with it?

Jesus was a carpenter, I can guarantee you a few things with confidence.
1. Jesus would work for you.
2. Jesus would sit down and talk with you.
3. By the time he was done talking, you would be straight.

I don't know why it's so hard for you all to understand, just because Jesus loved everybody didn't mean he agreed with them.

He said himself, 'I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance'.

Don't you guys realize the purpose of the cross was for him to sacrifice himself for our sins? Why do you think you can have the 'warm fuzzy' Jesus without the crucified Jesus? The go and sin no more Jesus? The repent and believe Jesus?

Can't have one part of him without the other.

Well said. Jesus never once said "That's OK, you just go do anything you think is right, no matter what God says." Not once. He never once taught that sin is acceptable to God. In fact, He taught that ALL sin is offensive to God, and its worthy of death. People seem to forget that side of things ..... or they simply never read their Bible to know the difference between what people say, and what Jesus says.

The good news is that anyone and everyone who is on this side of death can repent and accept Christ, and be saved. They can repent of their sins, turn away from them, and accept Jesus as their Savior. Will we still make mistakes and sin? Of course. We are still sinful beings in a sinful world. However, if we have the Holy Spirit, He will convict us of our sins, and remind us that we ought not commit, or continue in those sins.

Some have the idea that Christians should just stand quietly by while sin pervades the world, and just pretend that it is OK, and that God won't punish sin ..... because one or more of His fallen, sinful creation thinks that an action or activity is just fine. God is eternal, and unchanging. He does not change His morals because of what we think. He expects us to follow His laws and rules. We are incapable of doing so because of the sin of the 1st man, so we need another way out of sin's conviction. Luckily, He gave us one, but only one. He sent His Son to die for us, to atone for our sins, if we will only repent and accept Him.

Unfortunately, too many "know better", and refuse to follow and obey God. The funny thing is that I heard a thing on the radio about a survey that was recently done, where almost 2/3 of Americans believe that the Bible is truly the Word of God ...... yet so many refuse to read it, and/or obey what it says. It is the best selling book of all time, bar none .... and many people have ,multiple copies in their homes ..... yet they either refuse to read it, or they try to play "pick and choose" about what It says. I know that I used to do this very thing. I tried to avoid my own sin by pretending that somehow words were enough. Words without conviction might as well be reading from a script.

Too many people think they know what the Bible says, without ever reading it .... and that's like pretending to know advanced calculus because they can add up the groceries in their cart in their head at the grocery store. They might have the basics, but the rest is simply not there. Maybe they can pretend, and try to double talk their way through .... but their Biblical "equations" do not add up to what the Bible teaches.

On a side note: PDR, I am glad to see you back.

Why would Christ change the way his Father made the human being? Creating a person with an inherent damning quality sounds absolutely disingenuous.

God did not create sin. Satan did, as a result of his fall, and as a result of God giving him free will. Satan then led man to sin as well. God could have stoped things right there, and just eliminated mankind and started over, but He gave us a chance. In fact, He gives us every chance possible.

Is it difficult to figure out sometimes? Sure it is. None of us are God. God is, by definition, perfect and Holy, and incapable of making mistakes. If He wasn't, then He couldn't be God. God is also infinitely just. That means that if He makes a rule, then that rule has to be satisfied. In order for us to be forgiven of our sins, He had to come up with the perfect way to do so that satisfied justice as well as love. He sent Jesus Christ to this earth, to be born a man, to live a perfect life, and to die on the cross for us. Not only did he die on that cross, but before he died, he took on the entire weight of the sins of mankind, past, present, and future. As a result, God the Father had to turn his back on God the Son. The anguish that Jesus had to feel while He was on that cross, with the weight of all of mankind's sins crushing down on Him had to be incredible. Jesus allowed himself to be tortured as He went to the cross, and to be tortured on the cross. Some people have this idea that Jesus was just nailed to the cross, and that was it. As horrible as that sounds, the reality was much worse. The Romans were masters of torture on the cross, and also extending life as their victims writhed in agony. Why would God the Son (Jesus) do this? Because mankind needed a perfect sacrifice to cleanse them of their sins. The Jewish people, and also the Gentiles, needed a route to heaven that was not dependent upon anything they could do, because we could never do enough. In order for God's justice to be satisfied, either we all had to be condemned, or He had to put forth another plan for us. This plan was alluded to throughout the Old testament, and came to be in the New Testament, in the form of Jesus Christ.

Now we are all free to believe in Jesus, or not. That is our choice. God will not force any of us. He will continue to put people in our paths to try to bring us to Christ. He will make the Bible the best selling book of all time to make sure that people have access to His Word. He will put dozens of churches in cities.

One thing He will never do is force us to accept Him, or to love Him. That is our choice. That choice has consequences though. We are all told what they are, and we all decide for ourselves.

If he created him with it, he wouldn't have condemned the activity. Therefore to say he created him with it is wrong.

Creation is fallen, the whole of it and we all as humans need to be redeemed from the fall, we do that by asking (as Ytown has been so eloquently saying since I began coming here regularly) Jesus to forgive us.

My wife and I go back and forth struggling with our faith due to two of our kids being autistic, right now she's the one that has some questions and I have to remind her, the cross was plan B. If God had his way we'd all be sitting naked under a tree right now in the very presence of God himself.

Did he plan on Adam and Eve sinning? No. But he did plan for it. That plan was for Jesus Christ to come to earth, God in the form of man, live a perfect life and die a sinners death only the way God could in order to be the perfect sacrifice to satisfy his own justice.

We couldn't do it, so he came down here, became one of us and did it for us.

We are all created with a possible "damning" inherent quality.

Christianity preaches the choice to not sin. That's a choice you can make for yourself. Now try to live as a "choice" of a gay male. See, it's not that easy to "choose" sexual orientation because you can't choose to do it. There's striking research on sexual attraction being a continuum, but that's a different thread for a more enlightened time.

A good majority of the "pray the gay away" individuals end up needing psychiatric counseling, succumb to other undesirable outlets for their pain, or may ultimately end their own life. Reparative therapy on sexual orientation never works.

These two lines tweaked my naturally curious nature. They led to me asking these questions:

1. Why was this ceremony closed to the public?
2. Why was the media excluded from covering the proceedings?
3. Why were the identities of the invited guests kept secret from the public at large?

_______________

It would seem to me that in this day and age, when self-professed Christians are "taking it to the streets" ...with increased levels of political action and activism, they'd actually WANT to have their names attached to such an initiative.

I mean, really... If you're going to be a part of a "movement for change," why would you NOT stand up (in public) with pride, and say:

"I made this happen, America. I believe it to be right- not just for me, but for everyone in my state."

Why the closed doors?
Why was this event that effects ALL Indiana citizens held in a private ceremony?
Why the total media blackout during the event?
Why did they not shout it from the rooftops- before, during and after?

_________________

I see it this way: If your movement is so convinced enough of your Governor's "rightness" that he can influence the policies of an entire population of MILLIONS... then you should be 'man' enough to attach your name(s) and face(s) to the initiative in which you believe so deeply.

1. Susan B. Anthony was bold enough to do it for her cause.
2. Theodore Roosevelt was bold enough to put his face on his convictions.
3. Martin Luther King Jr. placed himself on the national and world stage to promote his vision for progress... and actually gave his life in that pursuit.

Which brings me to my most salient, poignant, and perhaps visceral example of all:

Jesus Christ: the Son of God, and Savior of all Mankind... who put his face, body, and mortal existence out there in the public eye- and willingly sacrificed his own mortality for His beliefs... a sacrifice which gave birth to an entire socioreligious movement. A movement that has lasted for 2,000+ years... gave His life, and risked his immortal soul for what he believed.


...which has (seemingly) led to this gutless display of cowardice and secrecy that we saw this week.


_____________________


To me, this little episode exemplifies very antithesis of what preachers on pulpits speak of every Sunday morning, when they talk about 'raising the sword for Jesus' in this holy war against the "forces of Satan."

To me, this is NOT "Christ In Action."


It's just another example of "slick deals... made in locked rooms."

In short: "Politics as usual."


Don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with anyone's religious convictions. It's a purely political move by a politician, to garner future votes from a constituency that believes this 'law' somehow strengthens their belief center.

It's a shining example of cynical manipulation at its finest.


Like I've said before- in other threads about gay rights in America... I'm a married, straight male (from another state), with no real skin in this game whatsoever...

...but I can see a 'shady deal' going down when I see it.

___________________
___________________


This AIN'T about religion. It's about politics and votes. Pure and simple.

The choice is not the feeling, it is the action. Jesus was tempted, and withstood the challenges Satan out before Him. Some are tempted to have sex outside of marriage, and withstand the temptation. Some are tempted to kill someone, for real, and withstand the temptation. Others give into these temptations. Others still want to give into these temptations, and look forward to doing so over and over again. They love sin more than they love God.

Sinful temptations are not the problem .... as every person ever born who grows to adulthood will face temptation on a daily basis. Giving into, and even reveling in those sinful actions are a problem, at least if we believe in the Bible. (and I do) We all face sinful temptations. God wants us to, and will help us to withstand these temptations, if we ask Him to help us.

A gay person can choose to live a life without sex if he chooses to, just as any single person can. The Apostle Paul actually encouraged Christians to give up sex (and, as a result, marriage) in favor of devoting their lives and energy to Christ.

Now I realize that most gay people don't want to accept that as a solution, and frankly, if I were gay I might also have a problem with it. However, I do not make the rules. God does. If I consider myself a Christian, and believe in, and read the Bible, then I see that the Bible is pretty clear on the subject. (as well as many other issues that face people today) We all make our own choices as to how to handle the urges we feel. We make those decisions based upon our own morals and our relationship with God. Some consider God and the teachings of the Bible to be most important. Others consider their own desires to be most important. We all have to make such decisions for ourselves.

Person living in Same-sex relationship: "God, why was I born attracted to my own gender rather than the opposite one."
God: "Well, I wanted to see how devout you are. You can overcome my sick game I put up for you with my irreverent followers"
Person living in same-sex relationship: "So, you created a flawed individual who was hardwired to be damned to hell."
God: "Precisely. Your devotion to undo my sick mistake is much more important than your personal happiness."

God did not create sin. We live in a world rife with sin, and that is because of Man's original sin, the fall of Adam. That was because of the temptation of Satan, who originally fell into sin. God created free will, but not sin, That was Satan's, and man's. Man was created perfect until he sinned.

I admit that it is a difficult concept to grasp.

And THERE it is! YTown finally states that he should stay out of my business and let me live my life how I see fit. Thank you, YTown.

The main issue with all of this discussion is that many of you think being gay is a choice. It's not…trust those of us who have dealt with this for the majority of our lives. I *wish* it were that simple, I really do. This isn't like deciding what to have for dinner.

I'm also tired of hearing "gay" and "sex" together so often. Sure, a gay person could abstain…but that does NOT make them any less gay. Not quite sure how having sex makes the "sin" you speak of. You cannot change WHO YOU ARE by design. You wouldn't be able to be gay, YTown, even if you wanted to be…because you weren't hardwired that way. Anyway, that's a bit disjointed, but my coffee is still kicking in.

My point is, sex isn't what makes a gay person gay. Think about it.

Straight up. y'all need to realize that people aren't religious like you. I'm not forcing my agnostic/atheist ways on you, so STOP preaching that damn bible to me.


how freaking hard is that? I, and others around the country simply don't want to hear it.

Don't want gays to get married? pay their bills. either do that or shut your mouths and mind your damn business.

Gays hate some businesses won't back them a cake? shut your mouths and go to a different bakery that doesn't give a crap.

Damn man, for a bunch of conservatives on this board, y'all sure don't act like it. thought y'all was for less government, but every freaking thread, you guys are advocating MORE government.

I'm the only true conservative on this board. y'all have a massive identity crisis. maybe y'all should be the ones not being allowed to vote, as you make it clear in every thread you're bout a confused as a 9 year old boy who accidentally watched Cinemax after 11pm.

sick of this crap.

the word of god is not helping me pay my bills on the first of the month. keep that nonsense to yourself.

It's about time someone made that point. Long overdue, imo.

I'm surprised that in this day and age, there still exists people who think that a person can actually choose his/her sexuality.

If they really thought about it for more than 2 seconds, the very next thing they'd consider is themselves... and whom they crushed on when they reached the "age of attraction." Were they in control of their attraction? Did they make a conscious CHOICE?

It's no more the gay person's choice than it is the straight person's. It is what it is... a function of biological hardwiring.

This has as much to do with God and Satan as dolphins have an direct association with bicycles.

I dunno, Clem…I think this has everything to do with God for those of us that believe. I just can't, for the life of me, figure out how He made such a large "mistake" like gay people. I also can't figure out how so-called "Christians" consider their hate mongering as okay. They judge and condemn, but haven't a clue what any of us have been through. Just let us live our lives how we see fit and we'll deal with God when we get there.

I don't believe God is a hater. That's where I landed with all of this. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Just as if the haters are wrong, they're wrong. ::shrug:: It is what it is…it's just that NONE OF US really know what that means.

Some great discussions.

What I've noticed is a large percentage of the comments supporting this legislation do so based on religious beliefs.

The law will be challenged due to the fact that it's a religion based law.

If 31 states already have RFRA laws, either by legislation or court decision, is Indiana going from light green (court decision) to dark green (legislation) really that big of a story?

The policy goes well beyond the gay / anti-gay debate. It is also to do with religious institutions being forced to provide contraceptive care to employees when such practices violate their beliefs, it's to do with localities seeking to seize religious properties for purpose of eminent domain, Amish buggies on public roads, and various other conflicts between religious entities and government regulation.

My opinion is the free market will solve this, and the reasoning is simple: businesses want to do business; they want to make money. They are not in business to turn away business. I believe this to be the case in 95 cases out of a hundred. You'll still have the 5% that will deny service, but is that really such a big deal? Would you really want to patronize them?

Even now, the state itself is being challenged by public blowback.

Social media has blown up over this decision, even the NCAA (headquartered in Indianapolis) has spoken out against it. Although it's too late to move this year's tourney finals, there's talk of them being held elsewhere next year.

This may work to the benefit of businesses which want to engage in exclusionary practices, but it most likely will have a net negative effect of the state's overall profits. Major corporations have taken the same tone as the NCAA. It's getting ugly for Indiana- and it's getting ugly fast.

The power of the purse will most likely determine the final outcome, because this story isn't done yet. Not by a long shot.

jc

The article doesn't do it justice, gotta watch that video lol:


FRC’s Jerry Boykin: ‘God’s Army’ Must Rise Up Against ‘Evil’ Of Gay Rights (VIDEO)


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/28/...y-rights-video/

For the second time this week, a member of the notoriously hateful and rabidly homophobic Family Research Council seems to be inciting violence amongst conservative Christians an effort to create some kind of “uprising” to go up against the movement for equal rights for LGBTQ Americans. First, the organization’s president and Hater-in-Chief Tony Perkins said that a “Christian uprising” was inevitable if the Supreme Court legalizes marriage for same-sex couples in all 50 states, and now, another member, Jerry Boykin, has said that his fellow conservatives must rise up as “God’s Army.”

During a blistering speech at one of the FRC’s “Watchmen on the Wall” events in Springfield, MO, Boykin sent out a fear-filled warning to his fellow Christians, referencing SOGI, the city’s non-discrimination ordinance that forbids discrimination against people based upon sexual orientation and gender presentation and identity. He said:



“If you’re a Bible-believing Christian, if you’re a person who has a biblical worldview, if you serve the one and only God, you are going to be persecuted, plain and simple.”

So, in other words, Mr. Boykin is stoking the fires of the paranoia and persecution complexes that so many people on the right have with regards to this issue. They think that because they no longer have the right to actively and openly discriminate, that they are somehow being persecuted. Boykin went on to say:

“This SOGI nonsense is an example of exactly what they’re trying to do us. They’re trying to put us in a situation where we’re going to lose our businesses, where we’re going to be forced to accept what Adolf Hitler forced the church to accept in Germany in 1937.”

So, being unable to turn people away from public services just because you don’t like who and what they are, Mr. Boykin, is just like what Hitler and the Third Reich did? The very comparison is frankly absurdly bizarre and ridiculous, and when you invoke that, you’ve already lost the argument and shown everyone with even a tiny bit of a brain just how paranoid and delusional you really are. No longer having the right to discriminate against others at will does not equal persecution, sir. If you truly believe it does, it is you who has the problem, not everyone else.

Boykin then went on to, essentially incite violence:

“We’re at war. This is not about civil rights, this is about the evil that has come into our society and is trying to destroy our ability and our freedom to be able to worship our god as we choose.

We’re not rising up against evil. When we rise up against evil, we’ve got to rise up like an army. We’ve got to act like we’re in the military because, in fact, we are God’s army.”

Not being able to discriminate against others is not stopping you from worshipping your god, Mr. Boykin. However, if anything comes of this incitement to violence that you and your boss Tony Perkins are calling for, you’ll be in jail, because, no matter who you are, that is illegal.

Listen to Boykin’s bizarre rant below:

________________________

And yet y'all wonder why people are moving away from religion. some of y'all sound like a bunch of nut cases.

Swish,

Taking ones country back can mean many things. I believe my liberties are not anyone's to take from me. I believe the forcing of a business to associate with someone is a violation of their rights. I have them regardless if I wish to use them. I have the right to speak or not to speak. I am not required to then speak about things I do not care about, desire to speak about, or agree with. The fact that I do not speak up about something does not mean I lose my freedom of speech. Would you not agree?

Then how can my freedom of religion and association be taken in the same way. I do not encourage discrimination of homosexual individuals. However, I do not wish them to seize from me my right to freedom of association. I do not see how a businessman who does not sell a gay couple a cake for a gay wedding in any way denies them anything. They can go to any other business that will freely associate with them. The discrimination we need to worry about is from the government. The government should not discriminate against their citizens. When the government gets in the baking cakes business, they should not discriminate on who they sell cakes to.

No citizen in the USA can be forced to give up their Constitutional rights. I will not have my rights limited by the government and I will not accept someone limiting your rights either. The diminishing of one citizen's rights diminishes all citizen rights. Please do not let your bias against Christians cloud your judgement about their rights.

sorry but christians have been violating other's rights in this country since before the constitution.

Slavery: Christians
Womens rights: Christians
Jim crow: Christians
Segregation: Christians
Gay rights: Christians.

you're right, the government SHOULDN'T be discriminating against their citizens, except the fact that the country is controlled in congress/senate by a bunch of GOP members who, if they could, would make this country a religious State, where we'd be forced to read the bible in school, and pray, and best believe they would want Gays jailed for being gay, as evidence of this:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/06/21/103568/texas-gay-marriage-felony/

Sorry, but the only people DOING the discriminating are the religious nut cases in this country, mainly christians. Some of the worst hate mongering, war mongering people i ever met.

ya know, opposite of what christianity is suppose to be.

The religious freedom movement keeps presenting the notion that it's their rights that are denied.

The only thing they are being required to do is not discriminate against Americans.

On the other hand the religious freedom movement will require Americans to accept prejudice and discrimination for the sake of religious beliefs.

One party loses nothing, but the ability to discriminate and the other party losses the rights that other American are permitted.

Religious "freedom" is nothing more than, (I'M THE VICTIM!!!) political double talk for for not having the government's endorsement to act on prejudice.

No love loss for the religious nut jobs here Swish but I have to disagree:

Slavery: Businessmen, not just white either.
Womens rights: Religion, Business and Politics.
Jim crow: Mostly White Bigots and Politicians
Segregation: Same as Jim Crow
Gay rights: Homophobes from all walks of life.

And with this, you have made my point. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you should use bigotry and prejudice against them. It seems some wish to pick their sin.

According to what I understand, these laws are based on not serving those with a sinful lifestyle. Now that sounds all fine and noble but let me ask you this. What about people who are divorced? People who have committed adultery? Who has lied or stolen? Perpetual liars? A drunkard? A drug addict?

You see, there are a host of sins and sinful lifestyles. In this case it seems, people have decided to pick the sin that offends them the most and make a stand based on that sin and that sin alone.

That's why I see this as pure prejudice and bigotry. Unless and until Christians, which I am one of, decide to include all sinners or no sinners, I certainly can't advocate the "pick a sin" mentality shown here.

Now if you wish to omit all sinners, which we all are, you would no longer have a business, then maybe I would have to re-think my position. But as long as you decide to pick one sin alone and then try to take some moral high ground, I see nothing noble about it.