A lawyer in California is pushing a ballot measure to legalize killing gay people

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Where are all of these cases of gays being oppressed by Christians? I see a whole lotta piling on the anti-Christian bandwagon, but no evidence that gays are being oppressed in America. However, there are people of faith who may not agree with their lifestyle. They're allowed not to agree with their lifestyle. There are laws in the US that are there to prevent one side from oppressing the other side simply because they don't agree. Good Americans allow for different points of view. Left wing radicals do not.

Not being able to marry, getting kicked out of college for not being heterosexual, discrimination on insurance, being a wedding cake, are just a view.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

SALLY KOHN’S SMALL BUSINESS REFUSES TO SERVE EVERYONE

CNN’s Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.

Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.

Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.

Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.

Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.

Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.

Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.

Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.

Sally’s speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.

Bob’s religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product — her speech — into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.

Although Bob’s religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product — a wedding cake — into something that violates Bob’s beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.

Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, Sally also believes that freedom and equality demand the government force Bob to craft and deliver his business product (wedding cakes) in a way that violates his beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, even though she offers her services to the public, the government cannot force Sally to serve everyone. For example, on her website, Sally offers to deliver “an inspiring tingle-in-your-toes speech,” but she could not be forced by the government and would not agree to offer that service to inspire or tingle anyone’s toes at a meeting of anti-abortion activists.

Nevertheless, Sally believes the product she serves the public (inspirational speeches) is more equal than the business product Bob serves the public (wedding cakes).

Thanks to her First Amendment protections, Sally does not believe she can be forced by the government to serve all of the public with her inspirational speeches.

Nevertheless, Sally believes Bob should be forced by the government to serve all of the public.

Sally believes her First Amendment speech rights are protected even when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Sally does not believe Bob’s First Amendment religious rights are protected when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Although she offers her product to the public, Bob would never dream of asking Sally to violate her First Amendment rights, her beliefs or her conscience.

Nevertheless, Sally would see the government punish Bob and the public shame Bob if he refused to violate his own First Amendment rights, his beliefs and his conscience.

Bob would never dream of trampling Sally’s First Amendment rights.

Sally wants the government to trample Bob’s First Amendment rights.

—

Breitbart News reached out to Sally Kohn for comment. Always a great sport, she told us…

“Any business can already discriminate in any way it sees fit — as long as it’s not discriminating on the basis of a protected identity. Period. So, for instance, a restaurant can say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or even “no people wearing blue shirts” as long as the reasoning or motivation isn’t a protected identity. So you can’t deny service based or race or religion. That’s the law.”

Kohn adds that she “wants gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans to have that protected legal status — which they do under the laws in some states, but not most, and not at the federal level.”

She added, “I can’t refuse to give a speech to a group based on religion for instance. That would be illegal (and immoral). But I can refuse to give a speech based on a group’s viewpoints on an issue. Because for instance, whether you’re against *or* for abortion is NOT a legally protected class of identity.”

“Even still, incidentally, under my understanding of the law, if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to come to my bakery and buy the same cake I sell everyone else, I’d have to sell them one. BUT I wouldn’t have to write “God Hates Fags” on it, just like I wouldn’t have to write a curse word on it if I didn’t want to. Because that’s not form of discrimination we legally/constitutionally protect against.”

“Free speech by the way doesn’t legally apply here because the government isn’t compelling any speech.”

“In sum, if you run a bakery and don’t want to follow the laws of our country and serve all people equally, get out of the bakery business. Certainly no one is forcing you to run a bakery.”

When I asked if like her right to not write “God Hates Fags” on the cake if a Christian baker was protected from the act of adding a same sex couple figurine and the name of the same-sex couple to the cake, she said she didn’t want to go into that.

“I don’t want to quote law,” Sally said, “but I’d be happy to refer you to a Constitutional lawyer who could explain this better than I could.”

Breitbart News politely declined the offer.

Laws can be unjust.

This is an ethical argument about who keeps and loses their First Amendment rights once that right becomes a for-profit business product.

This is about an American social compact that is supposed to go beyond the law when it comes to respecting one another’s sincerely held beliefs.

It is also about equal protection under the law — in this case the very first Amendment.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/01/sally-kohns-small-business-refuses-to-serve-everyone/

[JohnR! 5,495]

Google - which is the search engine recommended by the mods - gives us the file location for this image as:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Fags.jpg

To answer the second question, 'whatever it is' the answer is: A human being, created to the image of god, if you're to believe scripture and all that stuff...

Whatever 'it' is eh?

BTW, what is the file name of that image?

Edited April 1, 2015 by JohnR!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

SALLY KOHNS SMALL BUSINESS REFUSES TO SERVE EVERYONE

CNNs Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.

Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.

Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.

Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.

Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.

Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.

Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.

Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.

Sallys speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.

Bobs religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product her speech into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.

Although Bobs religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product a wedding cake into something that violates Bobs beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.

Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, Sally also believes that freedom and equality demand the government force Bob to craft and deliver his business product (wedding cakes) in a way that violates his beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, even though she offers her services to the public, the government cannot force Sally to serve everyone. For example, on her website, Sally offers to deliver an inspiring tingle-in-your-toes speech, but she could not be forced by the government and would not agree to offer that service to inspire or tingle anyones toes at a meeting of anti-abortion activists.

Nevertheless, Sally believes the product she serves the public (inspirational speeches) is more equal than the business product Bob serves the public (wedding cakes).

Thanks to her First Amendment protections, Sally does not believe she can be forced by the government to serve all of the public with her inspirational speeches.

Nevertheless, Sally believes Bob should be forced by the government to serve all of the public.

Sally believes her First Amendment speech rights are protected even when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Sally does not believe Bobs First Amendment religious rights are protected when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Although she offers her product to the public, Bob would never dream of asking Sally to violate her First Amendment rights, her beliefs or her conscience.

Nevertheless, Sally would see the government punish Bob and the public shame Bob if he refused to violate his own First Amendment rights, his beliefs and his conscience.

Bob would never dream of trampling Sallys First Amendment rights.

Sally wants the government to trample Bobs First Amendment rights.

Breitbart News reached out to Sally Kohn for comment. Always a great sport, she told us

Any business can already discriminate in any way it sees fit as long as its not discriminating on the basis of a protected identity. Period. So, for instance, a restaurant can say no shirt, no shoes, no service or even no people wearing blue shirts as long as the reasoning or motivation isnt a protected identity. So you cant deny service based or race or religion. Thats the law.

Kohn adds that she wants gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans to have that protected legal status which they do under the laws in some states, but not most, and not at the federal level.

She added, I cant refuse to give a speech to a group based on religion for instance. That would be illegal (and immoral). But I can refuse to give a speech based on a groups viewpoints on an issue. Because for instance, whether youre against *or* for abortion is NOT a legally protected class of identity.

Even still, incidentally, under my understanding of the law, if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to come to my bakery and buy the same cake I sell everyone else, Id have to sell them one. BUT I wouldnt have to write God Hates Fags on it, just like I wouldnt have to write a curse word on it if I didnt want to. Because thats not form of discrimination we legally/constitutionally protect against.

Free speech by the way doesnt legally apply here because the government isnt compelling any speech.

In sum, if you run a bakery and dont want to follow the laws of our country and serve all people equally, get out of the bakery business. Certainly no one is forcing you to run a bakery.

When I asked if like her right to not write God Hates Fags on the cake if a Christian baker was protected from the act of adding a same sex couple figurine and the name of the same-sex couple to the cake, she said she didnt want to go into that.

I dont want to quote law, Sally said, but Id be happy to refer you to a Constitutional lawyer who could explain this better than I could.

Breitbart News politely declined the offer.

Laws can be unjust.

This is an ethical argument about who keeps and loses their First Amendment rights once that right becomes a for-profit business product.

This is about an American social compact that is supposed to go beyond the law when it comes to respecting one anothers sincerely held beliefs.

It is also about equal protection under the law in this case the very first Amendment.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/01/sally-kohns-small-business-refuses-to-serve-everyone/

The act of selling a cake is not in conflict with the proprietor's religious beliefs.

He just isn't allowed to use those beliefs to infringe on the rights of others to prevent access to the service.

Presumably we are now going to discuss how it is bigoted to not allow bigots to get away with being bigoted. If so, please put it back on the shelf.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Venkman

[Teddy B 17,252]

Whatever 'it' is eh?

BTW, what is the file name of that image?

Google - which is the search engine recommended by the mods - gives us the file location for this image as:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Fags.jpg

Give the guy a break, he was prolly searching for European cigarettes.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Whatever 'it' is eh?

BTW, what is the file name of that image?

Such a petty guy with too much time on your hands. It's from the public domain dude. I didn't name it. And, had I noticed the name the owner gave it, I would have endeavored to either change it, or not use it. Your attempt to make it appear that I gave that name to the image should not stand. However, I request for the moderator of the site to delete the image due to the offensive name the author of the image gave it in the public domain.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Google - which is the search engine recommended by the mods - gives us the file location for this image as:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Fags.jpg

To answer the second question, 'whatever it is' the answer is: A human being, created to the image of god, if you're to believe scripture and all that stuff...

The statement contained blatant prejudice.

"a man or whatever it is"

Recognising the masculinity of the man in the photo while at the same time denying it.

He's a man, but only until revealed as gay. Then there's a question mark over it.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Venkman

[LibCampFireClub 635]

The statement contained blatant prejudice.

"a man or whatever it is"

Recognising the masculinity of the man in the photo while at the same time photo image whilst at the same time also denying it.

Hardly petty man, or perhaps you aren't a man, but just one of the many variety of options provided in the drop down menus of Facebook. I'm in full support for anyone to describe themselves as being what they want to be. It would have been rude to deem him as a man, as he may not want that distinction. You need to broaden and open your closed mind.

Edited April 1, 2015 by xxClosedxx

[decocker 7,198]

It's the law. You ignore it, and I am sworn to preserve, protect and defend it, so help me GOD. Because of the constitution, I tolerate your right to attempt to oppress those who disagree with you, as feeble as it may be.

that's two. why don't you tell me how i oppress people who disagree with me...

waiting.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

that's two. why don't you tell me how i oppress people who disagree with me...

waiting.

I'm in full support or your recovery, or for you to continue being intolerant of other points of view. What you choose to do and believe is your choice. I'm in full support that you are allowed to have a choice. God bless America!

[decocker 7,198]

I'm in full support or your recovery, or for you to continue being intolerant of other points of view. What you choose to do and believe is your choice. I'm in full support that you are allowed to have a choice. God bless America!

you're such a little tap dancer. got nothin, huh.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hardly petty man, or perhaps you aren't a man, but just one of the many variety of options provided in the drop down menus of Facebook. I'm in full support for anyone to describe themselves as being what they want to be. It would have been rude to deem him as a man, as he may not want that distinction. You need to broaden and open your closed mind.

You referred a photo depicting a man as a man and an "it" in the same sentence. The 'it' was not necessary - since the man is still a man whether gay or straight.

There's no reason to do that.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

you're such a little tap dancer. got nothin, huh.

This one is interesting. Have a look:

SALLY KOHN’S SMALL BUSINESS REFUSES TO SERVE EVERYONE

CNN’s Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.

Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.

Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.

Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.

Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.

Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.

Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.

Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.

Sally’s speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.

Bob’s religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product — her speech — into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.

Although Bob’s religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product — a wedding cake — into something that violates Bob’s beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.

Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, Sally also believes that freedom and equality demand the government force Bob to craft and deliver his business product (wedding cakes) in a way that violates his beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, even though she offers her services to the public, the government cannot force Sally to serve everyone. For example, on her website, Sally offers to deliver “an inspiring tingle-in-your-toes speech,” but she could not be forced by the government and would not agree to offer that service to inspire or tingle anyone’s toes at a meeting of anti-abortion activists.

Nevertheless, Sally believes the product she serves the public (inspirational speeches) is more equal than the business product Bob serves the public (wedding cakes).

Thanks to her First Amendment protections, Sally does not believe she can be forced by the government to serve all of the public with her inspirational speeches.

Nevertheless, Sally believes Bob should be forced by the government to serve all of the public.

Sally believes her First Amendment speech rights are protected even when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Sally does not believe Bob’s First Amendment religious rights are protected when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Although she offers her product to the public, Bob would never dream of asking Sally to violate her First Amendment rights, her beliefs or her conscience.

Nevertheless, Sally would see the government punish Bob and the public shame Bob if he refused to violate his own First Amendment rights, his beliefs and his conscience.

Bob would never dream of trampling Sally’s First Amendment rights.

Sally wants the government to trample Bob’s First Amendment rights.

—

Breitbart News reached out to Sally Kohn for comment. Always a great sport, she told us…

“Any business can already discriminate in any way it sees fit — as long as it’s not discriminating on the basis of a protected identity. Period. So, for instance, a restaurant can say “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or even “no people wearing blue shirts” as long as the reasoning or motivation isn’t a protected identity. So you can’t deny service based or race or religion. That’s the law.”

Kohn adds that she “wants gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans to have that protected legal status — which they do under the laws in some states, but not most, and not at the federal level.”

She added, “I can’t refuse to give a speech to a group based on religion for instance. That would be illegal (and immoral). But I can refuse to give a speech based on a group’s viewpoints on an issue. Because for instance, whether you’re against *or* for abortion is NOT a legally protected class of identity.”

“Even still, incidentally, under my understanding of the law, if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to come to my bakery and buy the same cake I sell everyone else, I’d have to sell them one. BUT I wouldn’t have to write “God Hates Fags” on it, just like I wouldn’t have to write a curse word on it if I didn’t want to. Because that’s not form of discrimination we legally/constitutionally protect against.”

“Free speech by the way doesn’t legally apply here because the government isn’t compelling any speech.”

“In sum, if you run a bakery and don’t want to follow the laws of our country and serve all people equally, get out of the bakery business. Certainly no one is forcing you to run a bakery.”

When I asked if like her right to not write “God Hates Fags” on the cake if a Christian baker was protected from the act of adding a same sex couple figurine and the name of the same-sex couple to the cake, she said she didn’t want to go into that.

“I don’t want to quote law,” Sally said, “but I’d be happy to refer you to a Constitutional lawyer who could explain this better than I could.”

Breitbart News politely declined the offer.

Laws can be unjust.

This is an ethical argument about who keeps and loses their First Amendment rights once that right becomes a for-profit business product.

This is about an American social compact that is supposed to go beyond the law when it comes to respecting one another’s sincerely held beliefs.

It is also about equal protection under the law — in this case the very first Amendment.

http://www.breitbart...serve-everyone/

[JohnR! 5,495]

You need to consider the source. When other poster used this type of verbiage, it possibly meant no harm in its myopic view of the world.

Bless the beasts and the children..

The statement contained blatant prejudice.

"a man or whatever it is"

Recognising the masculinity of the man in the photo while at the same time denying it.

He's a man, but only until revealed as gay. Then there's a question mark over it.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Such a twisted group are the left wing radicals. They are so intolerant of any view that differs from the ones they are fed by the left wing radical leaders and believe they validate their veiwpoint by attacking those who disagree. It's America folks. That's the way we roll. Having fun yet?