"When the constitution was written there was no air conditioning in the summer and no heat in the winter. So I am sure that is not in there."

Sbyvl is back, everyone.

Bo, I know. I am on your side. But according to Kuta and Jmo, cake IS a right. I think absolute musts, ie, food, water, shelter, heat, clothing, should be excluded from this law.

As it stands, I don't support this law. Too much ambiguity. But in the case of the baker, I think she had every right to deny service. Same to a Muslim who refused to serve a Christian. Or a gay business owner not making, "Support Traditional Marriage" t-shirts.

""Render unto Caesar" applies." - Kuta

"Our constitution does not say you have to serve every person who walks through the door. Interestingly, the Bible does say it." - AFatCat

I have already said the Bible teaches us to serve all. This is not about the Bible at all. This is a debate about government intervention into our lives. I am happy to feed all who are hungry, whether muslim, gay, jmo or anyone else. However, I dont need, or want, my government telling me I have to.

Jeff, are you seriously using arguments based on the Bible as to why governments should force citizens to go against their personal convictions?

AFatCat, you're welcome to move to northern Alaska. There's not much government there. Otherwise, you should get used to governments existing and getting more and more interventionist, because they're not going away. I don't care if you agree or not. It's a fact.

KC, you listed necessities and then said they should be excluded from what law, welfare? That doesn't leave much to offer.

Necessities should be excluded from the law in question. But you don't "deserve" to have a cake baked for you.

I wish the time and money spent on these types of laws could be used towards helping others.

The bulk of the New Testament (outside of salvation by faith), is about doing good works and letting your actions towards others define who you are as a Christian.

Too many times the Far Right is building a flammable trench instead of turning the cheek.

But are they being taken advantage of to justify these types of responses? Are their convictions really being trampled upon?

Probably not, and there normally a "Christian" way out of most things (like getting asked to bake a gay cake).

Adding to the ballet in California to shoot all gays is probably not walking the extra mile.

But sadly the other side of the aisle is just as insufferable.

@bo: Sorry about that. You ninja'd me. I was referring to KC.

I do think the GOP expected there to eventually be a legal showdown, some political theater which they could control better. I grant that they didn't expect the immediacy of the backlash right now. Their backtracking is comedy gold.

Sure, WWJD? To me, "Render unto Caesar" means that Jesus understood that people have to accept the authority of the state over parts of their lives, including how they conduct business. However, it doesn't apply to the faith that is in their hearts a la John 3:14.

And helping to change that is apparently out of the question? Also, you are making this specifically about Christians. They may have been the target, but now you are basing your entire argument off of the Bible. Like you said, the Bible isn't law. It has no basis in this argument whatsoever.

Bo Sox, spoken like a true Massachusetts voter. More government is coming so just accept and move on is the message. Yes, it is true the government will continue to grow. But since we are not ostrichs, sticking our head in the sand and hoping for the best is not our best plan.

Does anyone else think the world would be so much better if the president were an ostrich?

Is the Penteteuch your moral compass or is the word of Jesus? Which one holds more weight? WWJD?

It *is* about conservative Christian beliefs. Don't delude yourself into thinking it is about "freedom." Were the libertarians on board with this? Were the Muslims? Were the atheists? Which ones other than anti-homosexual Christians were involved in crafting this law?

Exactly.

I should say "...anti-homosexual and pro life Christians..."

What does it matter? I'm a Bible-believing Christian and an attorney. This government has no right to tell me what to do with respect to my religious beliefs. I have a Constitutional guarantee to the free exercise of my religion. If I run a business and I have a right to refuse service to people who are drunk, rowdy, shirtless, or shoeless, I have a right to refuse service to anyone else, including for reasons related to my Constitutionally-protected free exercise of religion.

It doesn't matter who wrote it, it matters how it applies. It doesn't say that an individual can be refused service because he or she is gay. Is that covered? Apparently so. But this in no way means that it only applies to the Christian right.

This isn't about my morals Kuta, stop making it about me. This is about everyone.

@Maher: "If I run a business and I have a right to refuse service to people who are drunk, rowdy, shirtless, or shoeless, I have a right to refuse service to anyone else, including for reasons related to my Constitutionally-protected free exercise of religion."

Except you DON'T have that right. If you're an attorney, surely you understand how the Commerce Clause interacts with the 14th Amendment.

Ag, I agree with you completely.

Kuta, i do not know who crafted the law or what is in their hearts. I do know that hating it because you feel that the "religious right" is hateful only makes the government stronger and us one step closer to being slaves.

As a person who believes what Jesus taught, I would serve my neighbor (as defined by Jesus). But i do not need or want the government to be able to tell me I have to. But these are redundant statements.

@KC: Do you believe that a broad coalition crafted this law? Just because a majority voted for it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or even a constitutional thing to do.

The government is telling you what you cannot do.

If you operate a business in public, you can't deny service to members of the public.

PERIOD.

That's how it works.

I don;t know Kuta, nor frankly do I care. What is popular is not always what is right, which I am sure you realize. In the end, this is what it boils down to: "The government is telling you what you cannot do." Personally, I believe that this shouldn't be up to the government.

"If you operate a business in public, you can't deny service to members of the public.

PERIOD.

That's how it works."

*currently, this is how this works. It appears the legislature in Indiana is trying to rectify this infringement on people

@ Jeff - I don't know what you are professionally, but if you know anything about the law, you know that (1) the state of civil rights law is hardly settled - particularly on gay rights issues, (2) that most of the relevant commerce clause/14th amendment precedents relate to race-based discrimination, one of several categories of discrete minority groups that courts have heard CR cases about, (3) that different groups are evaluated under different levels of scrutiny, (4) that religious restrictions are evaluated more searchingly than sexual orientation restrictions, (5) courts in various circuits have made various rulings about refusal of service. So yeah...pretty much none of this is resolved.

I'm not aware of a single Free Exercise v 14th Amendment case that is on the books.

". But in the case of the baker, I think she had every right to deny service. Same to a Muslim who refused to serve a Christian. Or a gay business owner not making, "Support Traditional Marriage" t-shirts."


You are quite wrong, denying service based on religion is illegal. And as a federal law, a state law cannot overrule it. The legality of denying service based on sexual orientation is not yet determined, and won't be by this law as it's being redrafted currently. So any ruling would probably favor the consumer, not the business until that changes.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

I don't mean legal right. I just don't care. Private enterprise should be just that. Private.

Lol you were worried about the legality earlier when it suited your argument and were using it to imply I could be sued for my beliefs. But now that you shove your foot in your mouth suddenly legality doesn't matter.

I am not talking about what IS law, but what I think it should be. Since what is law isn't up to us but the Courts, you're wasting your time arguing about it.

Also, yes, you can be sued for your beliefs, just as the baker could. You still are a huge hypocrite for advocating your beliefs be upheld, ie not serving the KKK, but others can't. Who made you god jmo? (outside of webDip, of course) Why is your morality better than that baker's? Arrogant asshole.

@KingCyrus - you haven't addressed my point. If this law were to be upheld, would it not be more expensive to be a gay person than to be a straight person? Would you not be forced to waste more time/receive inferior services due to refusal of service? Is that fair?

Basically, stop putting yourself in the owners shoes and start putting yourself in the affected customer's shoes.

A gay person already has that problem. It's just exacerbation.