Proposed Arizona law sparks debate in the morning meeting

Every morning, Glenn gathers his producers together to discuss the news of the day and plan out the radio and television shows. Today, a discussion emerged over a proposed law in Arizona that would protect businesses who refuse service to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs. Some are calling it a modern day version of Jim Crow laws, while others see it as a protection of individual religious beliefs. The conversation sparked debate in the meeting, with producers coming down on different sides of the issues.

Glenn said he doesn’t want to see a return to the days where people hung signs saying certain kinds of people weren’t welcome, but he also didn’t think people should be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

“We aren’t the same America we were in the 1950s,” Glenn said referencing the days of segregation. “We won’t frequent those places.”

Dan Andros, Glenn’s writer for the TV show, argued that he understood the position of the baker in California, who said he couldn’t make a cake for a lesbian couple because it violated his beliefs. However, Dan said he had a problem with refusing services to people based on their sexual orientation when the service has no ties to religion.

Glenn, however, argued that in a truly free society businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they wanted for any reason, but in doing so they will expose any underlying hatred or ugliness and people can and most likely will choose not to support them. If people really want to live in a world with less government and more personal responsibility, the burden is on the individual to support the businesses that are in line with their values and expose the people and businesses that don’t share those values.

“I don’t like that world where businesses say ‘I don’t want to serve your kind’, but that’s freedom. Freedom is ugly,” Glenn argued. “I know who people are. They aren’t wearing a mask all the time.”

  • Anonymous

    If you love humanity you can’t condone homosexuality. It’s a “no brainer”!

  • Anonymous

    They demand your permission and complicity. Or else. Else what?

    Freedom is not license.

    Do people still have the “right to say no”?

  • Kay

    “refuse service to gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs”

    A rather broad statement. If people were just turning gay people away at the door just because they were gay, I would have a problem with that and the opponents might have a point. But as far as I know, nobody’s talking about just blanket refusing to serve a gay person.

    We’re talking about compelling someone to contribute to a specific ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. People want to avoid being sued and losing their business because they wouldn’t make a “congrats bill and steve” wedding cake. I’m fairly certain that if Bill or Steve came in and ordered a box of cupcakes that had nothing to do with a gay wedding, there would be no problem.

    Having said that, I’m too lazy to read the Arizona law to see if it’s good or not.

  • landofaahs

    It’s weird how the AZ business community is worried about boycott from the gays but not from the people who would like to run their business the way they wish. Each company could make their own choice. I say it’s time for a backlash and boycott anything that takes away my rights to associate and do business with those I want and not doing business with those I don’t. Frankly everyone should advertise themselves as contract workers if you bake wedding cakes or do photography work. Within that construct the stress factor for making a gay cake might cause one severe distress and thus need to charge 100k or even $1,000.000 per cake. If you don’t like the bid then you have a right to refuse the bid. Lawyers have different fees for different cases etc. so it should pass the legal test if lawyers can do it.

  • Anonymous

    U.S Attorney General eric holder telling states attorney generals you can pick what laws to enforce and when and selectively enforce !!! If this is so maybe state will not have to enforce federal laws such as obama care law and have to set up exchanges per their state and state the attorney generals !!!!!!????? I think the push is on to further take away our rights & freedoms by this so so obama U.S attorney general he tellings states attorney general who in his progressive click that at their whim they can pick and chose to enforce laws and when and to what groups to help promote obama progressive police state in their state !!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    How are they going to know who gay or not ,they can be a professional football player ,boxer etc, plus the owner might perceive wrong because someone small or slight, not forceful as being gay and not to be serve !!! What the state or owner going to do will demand people must carry a picture I.D with sexual preference printed on it !!! ???? duh landofaahs I’m talking about clothing store and restaurants for common basic service not specialize request that go against your religion or only service you want to provide at your business Black,Gay,Spanish ,White what ever you should have the right say no it’s your business , and you were making cake for straight same thing you sell legally gun providing the service that you want to and someone will change the use that they change the gun to b e fully automate weapon for killing people not target practice or hunting you didn’t violate your what you believe !! I say don’t discriminate on general request as long does go against your religion and for special request its up to the business owner ,what is done afterwards with product to make it different it no longer pertain to you !!! you don t own it and it their problem !!!!!!!!!!! and the customer have the right to say no and walk away from doing business with bigots !!!

  • ken.

    you cannot force someone to create something such as a cake or decorations to be used in an event or ceremony that is against their religious beliefs. you cannot force someone such as a photographer or caterer to attend and/or participate in an event or ceremony that is against their religious beliefs. but you cannot discriminate against anyone who simply comes into a store, restaurant, repair shop, etc,… based on sexual preference. there is a huge difference between the two types of service and the rights of either party.

  • Anonymous

    Your right I think you should make a general cake for anyone , but to make you take a action against your religion to make cake promoting gay relationship is wrong !!

  • http://disqus.com/KJinAZ/ KJinAZ

    The question here is does your state issued business license require you to make a contract with everyone who comes in your business. I do not think they can make that case. When you walk onto a car lot they are not required to sell you a car. Race or sexual preference aside there is no requirement to make a contract.

  • Guest

    I believe, as I see it, that this is a freedom of association issue. Whether that is over simplifying it or not, I don’t know but that’s how I see it.

  • Anonymous

    The cake would be recognized by the request of how the cake should be decorated.

  • raznet

    Arizona SB1062: Obama and the EEOC sued a trucking company (5/29/2013) for firing Muslim truck drivers that refused to deliver alcohol because it violated their Shari Muslim Religious Beliefs.
    http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

  • Anonymous

    A way to stop this creeping evil of the progressive giant iceberg from spreading more in taking rights,freedoms and controlling every aspect of citizens life !! We should have all states that are not control by progressive clicks of Judges,state social workers, politicians ,big progressive donors who own medical centers etc pass a law for protection of parents and child rights !!. That all parent have a right of second opinion from another license doctor ,hospital,medical center anywhere in the United States, and can have a out side doctor can evaluate your child where every she is !! Plus the parents rights to make decision on what treatment for their children illness per different qualified medical experts suggestions of treatment for illness !! Plus judges gag law only be for rape,incest ,minor doing a crime , and not use in a bias way in a medical dispute among professional doctors. or a judge to not use the threat of taking away the chid as blackmail to force parents to remain silent in a medical dispute !!! If parents can show so acceptance papers in another medical center ,qualified and license doctors anywhere and cannot be denied transfer of their child. We must stop these judges in providing a cloaking veil with gag orders and their threats to take child as hostage for this giant progressive iceberg of evil ,other wise citizens won’t know about this evil and unite stop it !! That judges can hide their bias,slanted ,one sided control in court room cases and hearing by close courtroom cases and hearings , each side should be able take the court room video and audio from fix camera and mic to a wi-fy for down load in real time to each side party and their relatives,friends to get the word out, and keep the court judges from being bias and running

  • Anonymous

    The thing that blows my mind here is the need to frame this in the terms of refusing service to gays. Literally ask yourself the question, “What would Jesus do?” and then act accordingly. I’m pretty much waiting for everybody to drop their stones and move on from this.

  • Anonymous

    Do you refuse service to people who have premarital sex too? No sin is worse than the other in God’s eyes; it’s all despicable. I think it’s hypocritical to cite religious reasons for a wedding cake maker to refuse service to a gay or lesbian couple but make exceptions in other areas. These types of laws allow people to avoid confronting their biases or prejudices. People have every right to disagree with the concept of gay relations/marriage, on religious grounds or otherwise but that doesn’t mean they should isolate the people who live such a lifestyle.

  • Anonymous

    keep the judges from being bias and running a kangaroo court in railroading who is going up against the judges progressive click you wash my hand I wash your !! The time to pass these protective laws is Now against this evil that is approaching your state and your children !! Plus our citizens cannot fight this evil if they don’t see it because judges miss use their powers in giving this evil a cloaking veil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pray for Justina and her Parents and all others in this situation and Pray that we can stop this evil from spreading more !!

  • Finch

    I love humanity and I love gay people. You sir, sound like a “no brainer”!

  • Anonymous

    For the last time, business owners just need to be “busy” or needs to “reschedule” when an event or service is solicited. This outrage from the gay supporters only adds to the momentum to eventually force churches to marry gays or shut down. Don’t give them fuel to the fire! Simply reject their requests in a quiet manner.

  • Anonymous

    To all the great citizens and Glenn Beck, Fox News that are praying and pulling for the freedom of Justina keep pushing !! These progressive don’t want to lose their giant iceberg progressive click machine that is across the country for just the tip of this progressive iceberg click in Massachusetts !! For people to say there is not big money involve, campaign power etc BS !! medical care one six of United State economics !!! Hope Glenn & Kelly start a national movement in other states in passing laws to prevent this formation of this evil click to get a footing in their states this would really put the pressure to free Justina they don’t want to lose the giant iceberg of progressive control corruption !!!!

  • joe michael villa

    Do you recall the story Glenn Beck told a few years back when he traveled to New York City and he was treated badly when he dined in several restaurants and then treated even worse on his flight back to Texas?

    Beck railed about it on his program the following week, repeatedly complaining that he was treated “as a subhuman,” stating that he “just wanted to be treated as a human” who was worthy of dignity and respect:

    Given that experience, you’d think that he would be opposed to the Arizona legislation that would allow business to discriminate against gay customers (or anyone else, for that matter) in the name of “religious liberty,” would you not?

  • joe michael villa

    Go ahead Arizona
    pass your hate law.

    I’m going to gladly watch your state lose money.
    Apple, Marriot, Microsoft, Hyatt, Google, Motorola have all stated publicly in the last week that they disagree with the law.

    You don’t deserve the Super Bowl next year and the NFL will yank the superbowl in a heartbeat. They pulled the super bowl from you when you didn’t pass MLK holiday and they will do the same with this law.

    I dare you, pass it.
    Please do it.

  • landofaahs

    Duh. Are you that stupid? All cakes would be made with a man and a woman atop the cake that could not be removed without ruining the cake. And you would be told that at the start. That is the only way we make our cakes at wedding cake world. If you do not like it, you should find someone who can make your cake to your specifications. LOL

  • Anonymous

    that right and you can say no in making cake of two men ,but once you sell a general cake after you sell it they the owner they can do what they want with it or change it to their likens !! plus they can put on any decorations they want straight or gay or take off your straight cake decorations and replace it with a gay decorations they own the cake !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Arizona is opening a huge can of worms if they pass this bill. This administration would love for the Arizona to pass it. Please don’t pass it.

  • E Van

    Glenn’s bad treatment had nothing to do with anyone’s religious beliefs.
    When I say I’m not interested in making this cake for Bill and Steve I can certainly do that with dignity and respect. They can leave with their dignity still intact and go elsewhere for their cake. No harm, no foul.

  • Bill Thompson

    The Christian faith boils down to the protection of the human person. We are called as Christians to love one another in the image of Christ & God the Father, who is love. This same concept is also shared by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. It is the sexual act of a man-man or woman-woman that is not condoned by scripture because it does not support life in the sharing of the procreation with God the Father, who is Love. However, we are still called as Christians to protect the dignity of all human kind, which can still be accomplished without condoning the actual sexual act. To have any other response would be a counterfeit of the Christian faith & American spirit & a terrible example to others both domestically & foreign. This proposed law is counterproductive & preposterous in the sense of economy, religion & the Constitution of the United States.

  • E Van

    If a heterosexual couple, who I somehow magically knew were having premarital sex, ordered a wedding cake, I would gladly make it and rejoice in the correction of their sin. It’s not at all the same thing.

  • Anonymous

    Should not wedding cake maker and wedding photographer have the same protection in refusing to violate their Religion beliefs or what they believe as morally wrong for them and their family ??????

  • Anonymous

    The operative word is “condone”. One can love all people without giving permission or approval.

  • kanakattack

    Holy! Who are these guys in Glenn’s morning meeting??? Actually, I can’t blame them. They’re just repeating the lies that came from the hijacked Civil-Rights Movement that had nothing to do with “rights” but instead was about control.

  • Anonymous

    Learn how to read.

  • kanakattack

    What’s the difference exactly? You’re offering a service or product in exchange for a traded currency or other item of value. A store is offering the products inside their establishment in exchange for currency. A photographer is offering their product of skill in photography in exchange for currency.

    The problem is that you’ve been brainwashed along with 99% of America since the 1960s to think that refusing service to someone for ANY reason is against the law. Look if I want to refuse service to someone because they’re black, yellow, green, gay, straight, Catholic, Atheist, left-handed, or not wearing a shirt I reserve the right to do so. It’s my property, it’s my money, it’s my risk. The Civil Rights movement was started NOT on the foundation that someone can do that but because it was against the Constitution for the government to create laws that encouraged it; a.k.a. Jim Crow laws. Most people don’t even realize the truth of what really went on in the 1950s and 60s and how the Civil Rights Movement was hijacked by opportunist progressives to impose more government control on the population.

  • russellmuscle1

    Surely there’s a reasonable way to write this legislation that won’t end up with hospitals refusing gay people. No, you shouldn’t be able to sue anyone for not wanting to make you a cake. That’s just retarded, and anyone who’s made a cake knows that you don’t want somebody who isn’t feeling you to make your wedding cake. Wedding cakes take an enormous amount of time, effort and love…..it’s art. Perhaps…….non essential services can refuse customers for any reason including sexual preference? See, it’s not just like, they would pick up the cake and never see them again. They actually have to go set the cake up, just like the photographer has to attend the wedding. Maybe only certain services can discriminate? I don’t know, as much as I hate to see people discriminated against, I hate the idea of somebody being forced to do a non essential service for somebody else by law just as much.

    I know it would really hurt me for somebody to not want to make my cake because I’m white, straight, conservative……but then again do I want to destroy them and possibly their entire family’s quality of life over a cake? – NO.

  • russellmuscle1

    7tom7 perhaps with a Birthday cake, but with a wedding cake that isn’t really realistic. Making wedding cakes is a very involved process, much more so then just having them pick up the cake and sending them on their way. You are a part of that wedding.

  • russellmuscle1

    I’m not sure if Jesus would make them a cake…….:-)

  • russellmuscle1

    Nice!

  • russellmuscle1

    He was treated badly for his political beliefs….so Joe does make a good point. At the same time though, I still don’t think Glenn should sue anyone for not making him a cake.

  • raznet

    Ah, someone caught it. This is not about defending the First Amendment right, ” ..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”.

    The protests against this Bill are an attack on specific Judeo-Christian tenants. In fact, the attack is on the First Amendment. The only real conflict is when an employer or customer wants an employee or business owner to violate their religion to provide a service…. Selectively enforced for Judeo-Christian “offenders”. The goal here is to give the government the ability to define how and when certain religions are allowed to practice.

    The step before this was to remove churches from politics through the 501C3 Tax law.

    The next step is to insist that a Rabbi, Priest or Pastor must marry a same sex couple.

    Once that is established, there will be enough precedence for the US government to systematically define and license churches and temples. …but not mosques.

  • Anna Larson

    Reading through the comments, I see people are only association this legislation with Gay and lesbian couples, but it goes MUCH deeper than that. It’s ANY religion and any religious belief. So if a woman walks into a store owned by a Muslim, they could refuse to provide a services because she’s not dressed appropriately for their religion. Or if an unwed mother walks into a pharmacy owned by a catholic, she could be refused service due to the Catholic’s beliefs. Seriously, the damage goes much deeper than just discrimination against gays.

  • Memegalt2012

    Glenn is exactly right. Let the free market work. If you want to be known as the business who wont’ serve gay people, you may pay a heavy price…but that price shouldn’t come from the GOVT…it should come from consumers who refuse to patronize your business. It is so hard to get people to understand this.

  • Anonymous

    I bet he’d share some fishes and loaves though.

  • russellmuscle1

    The difference is that decency requires that we don’t allow people to be turned away for food or medical care, or have to drive out of town to find a store they can shop at. That would be wrong. Making a cake or photography is non essential and very involved. To do a persons taxes, make them a cake, represent them in a court case, you have to establish a relationship with them. You have to be part of what they are doing. To sell them a steak, not so much. There’s a huge difference in buying an orange from a person or having them make you a cake.

  • russellmuscle1

    Perhaps the bill would have to be very specific to work.

  • russellmuscle1

    I bet he would too……thank you, that does give me some clarity. However, I still don’t like the idea of these cake makers and their children being ran out of town or sued for not wanting to make a cake for a specific event. I don’t think Jesus would smile on that either.

  • russellmuscle1

    Good point. It’s a slippery slope isn’t it?

  • Anonymous

    C’mon, government, give us freedom of religion now! Everyday people around me act immorally, against my religious principles! I need the freedom to tell them they are wrong, and I’m right, and that if they did as I tell them the world would be a better place! You know, Freedom!! Stop persecuting my Christianity, I won’t stand for the government telling I cannot be a Christian any longer.

  • russellmuscle1

    You have the freedom to do that actually.

  • Anonymous

    Well, with so many gay and atheist people around, the government protecting them, it surely don’t feel that way.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Glenn’s position.

  • Anonymous

    My position essentially is that they should be free to discriminate. And I am free not to give them my business. No person should be compelled to enter into any transaction with anyone without their free consent. My question is simply this, would Jesus discriminate? Or would he love them as he loves you and I? Anyway, I just think that AZ leadership should have just kept their big yappers shut. As with most anything, adding government rarely helps a situation.

  • Dan Heizinger

    And what is wrong with that? It’s their damn business. Where do you, Anna Larson, get the authority to tell people they MUST provide a product or service for someone they don’t wish to?

  • Anonymous

    Arizona caved to victimhood. America lost another bit of ground to Liberty and Individual Freedom this evening. Texas is THE last hope of true American Constitutionalism and antivictimhood. God Help Us Survive this assault from those who are weak cry babies and agents of Satan.

  • Anonymous

    Does expressing a moral value make me a bigot? I am a Christian
    who doesn’t bow down to homosexuality as stated in the Bible. Do I hate the sin, yes. But I DO NOT hate the individual, NO. If I choose to not make a cake or serve them or do whatever, does not mean I don’t like them personally. I don’t buy into their way of life based off my convictions. Am I a racist, bigot? NO! I am exercising my Faith period. Do you have the right to exercise your faith…YES. What make me so different? Grow up America and exercise your Freedoms with vigor. Soon the whiners and victims will take them away!!!

  • Anonymous

    The Agenda of Lies is busy in Texas: San Antonio and Austin.

  • Finch

    Aaah, we’re back to “love the sinner, hate the sin” shyte again. The problem is that you people don’t have a full comprehension of what the concept of “love” truly means, judging by your disgusting view of other peoples love as immoral. Thank God (pun intended) you’re on the losing side of history, as social conservatives have always been in the last couple of centuries. Losers, utter losers.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    as a country, well after blacks were enslaved, we still refused to allow them to assimilate into society. blacks couldn’t drink from this fountain; couldn’t go there or sit down there; COULDN’T VOTE and so on.

    this is the same discrimination. it is the same thing. even though you might think it different because your belief system allows you to reject the person based upon the behavior you don’t like, you are still not looking at the human being. if the human being wants a cake baked for them regardless if that cake is for the wedding to their same sex partner, it is still a human being getting married or for whatever purpose they might want this cake.

    NOW, if this human being wants something obscene or sexual on the cake, they can go to the erotic baker FOR THAT because it requires YOU to behave in a way you’re not willing to — THEN you discriminate.

    if a pharmacist doesn’t want to provide birth control to women because of his religious convictions, he should get another job because his job requires him to dispense medication he does not favor. however, those who are in a religious vocation should never be in a position where they have to provide anything of the sort and the government, AS WE ALL KNOW, has no business at all in the personal lives of its citizens.

    we don’t have to like or befriend, but we are supposed to tolerate and that takes a little discipline.

  • CylonesRUS

    You can love whom you wish, you can love money, sin, murder, virture, fair or unfair play what ever, but at judgement, you will be weighed in the balance, whatever that is, I do not know what that balance is, but you and God will and you will spend an eternity in what ever place you are jugded fit to be in. By the way, most likely you will like what your “sentence” you are given, It those thousands years that preceed that judgement, that may be troubling, and maybe not, cause I do not know if you will make the cut for the pleasant thousand years or not, as I am not your judge, but consequeces are there for all, either good, evil or somewhere in between.

  • Finch

    I’m an atheist, so what you’re saying here has as much bearing on me as as Zeus’, Thors or Brahmans laws and values. You can’t demonstrate that any god exists, much less your specific god, whichever it may be. And as you or anybody else can demonstrate that there is an afterlife, we’re stuck in here and now. And here and now is being poisoned by bigoted people all around the world for people that just crave love, care and warmth as much as anyone else. The only difference is that they want to be with people of the same sex. If you see one of the most fundamental human needs as immoral for some people and not others, I’m very sorry, but you’re not a good human being (yeah, I decide that).

  • landofaahs

    Now if scientists could just find that gay gene if it exists, then we could abort it out of existence.

  • Finch

    Really?
    Essentially saying “I’m not serving you because you’re so
    immoral!” is not respect, even if it is said in a polite tone.
    Tone is not the problem here, the message is the problem.

  • Anonymous

    Your statement right here:

    “NOW, if this human being wants something obscene or sexual on the cake,
    they can go to the erotic baker FOR THAT because it requires YOU to
    behave in a way you’re not willing to — THEN you discriminate.”

    is exactly what the discussion is about. People are being forced to behave in an obscene way that they are not willing to. That obscenity is a making a cake that is vile and perverted. A country that is willing to tolerate a “conscientious objector” for the military should be able to do the same for the religious.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    you’re not distinguishing between these two things: tolerate making a cake for a GAY COUPLE (people), but not as long as you have to put an obscene or objectionable thing on it. an ordinary cake is not obscene. yes or no?

    a conscientious objector is not willing to participate in operations he/she opposes. if what they oppose is war, they should have never joined the military.

  • Anonymous

    Yes – an “ordinary cake” is not obscene. How the cake is to be decorated or utilized could be. Is the request to merely make a cake or is there something more to that request? I suspect that there is something more that is desired.

    Perhaps a cake that has, for example, “Happy Wedding Day Archibald and Larry” decorated with LGBT flags and colors?

    Some people may believe the issue ridiculous. Religious conviction is not ridiculous. Go have a read on religious martyrs. To take this case to an extreme: Is one going to go to a Jewish bakery and request a swastika cake, a request that the bakery must then fulfill or be sued and driven out of business? To most people a swastika represents hate. To a number of people homosexual activity represents hate.

    Tolerate means to endure. If the request (demand?) is to endure something, perhaps those requesting should endure something as well.

    The “conscientious objector” status applied to the military draft. One’s belief of war did not alter the draft — only the type of service. Then, if CO status was approved, alternate service was still required.

    To apply the CO status to a bakery an alternate service could be: plain cake or rolls or something else not requiring LGBT adornment or words promoting the same.

  • Plow Comms

    Your antidote to the illusions conjured up by clowns like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Van Jones: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • russellmuscle1

    The problem is that with these wedding services, you actually have to be a part of the wedding. You plan the cake with the couple, make it of course, then you go to the wedding and set it up. It’s not like somebody comes in and buys the cake and leaves. When you take that order, you actually become a part of that wedding. So, yeah, it’s understandible that a Christian couple might not be comfortable with being a part of the gay couples wedding. What’s extremely sad is that now, the family has been sued and this gay couple will be exacting more revenge on them financially (they’ve pretty well been ruined already). Does the punishment really fit the crime? The lesbian couple already won, aren’t they being a little petty to also ruin this FAMILY (as in children will also suffer) financially as well? Isn’t that a little extreme? These people surely don’t have anything to give them.

    Surely their must be some kind of protection for a family like this without allowing open dicrimination. I mean, at the end of the day, this is all over a CAKE right? Should people really be ruined over cake?

    I’ll be honest with you, I hope karma catches up to this couple. I couldn’t sleep at night knowing that I’d done that much harm to a family over a cake.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    “To take this case to an extreme: Is one going to go to a Jewish bakery and request a swastika cake, a request that the bakery must then fulfill or be sued and driven out of business? To most people a swastika represents hate.” — as in my previous post, you’d go to the cake nazi.

    you make mention: “To a number of people homosexual activity represents hate.” — i disagree. for some does it represent perverseness, backward lifestyle, etc,? yes, but i don’t think it represents hate.

    to your point on the adornment factor — i agree w/you on that. in this regard, you have to frame your job (if you’re a cake maker) as a term of art for under that umbrella term, you can make your case. i agree that you should just be able to say it’s religious freedom but the courts will not honor an american’s religious freedom in bho’s america. so, term of art “I CANNOT MAKE THIS CAKE BECAUSE I WILL NOT, AS AN ARTIST, CREATE THAT EVEN IF YOU PAID ME.” is art religious? it can be. this may seem a disingenuous remedy but if it works it should be tried.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    yes, see my reply to tonybigs regarding ‘adornment’ – — ‘participation’ goes right along w/that. i’m w/you on the karma thing. if gays get vengeful, as you’ve described, then this is not a good person so the idea of tolerating a good person is easy, but tolerating a bad person is inviting all kinds of discriminating actions. my point in general, and i think you agree, is that just being gay doesn’t make them bad.

  • Anonymous

    Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting free exercise of one. Ruralists like Glenn support the Constitution. Urbanites on his staff do not.

  • Anna Larson

    Seriously? Where exactly in my post did I say that I had any authority to tell anyone they MUST provide a service? I’m just pointing out that the law as written went much deeper than people are making it. Of course the point is mute now that the law has been vetoed. But basically people are born with basic rights. If you can’t handle being “forced” to being nice to people that’s your problem. not mine. And your attitude is part of the problem not the solution. You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to, but then it’s your own choice to go to jail. Discrimination is still discrimination it doesn’t matter if it’s religious discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Gender discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination. It’s all wrong.
    I wonder what happened to that part our founding fathers wrote In the Declaration of Independence?
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
    that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    Not to long ago it was illegal for an interracial couple to marry. Not to long ago people were degraded for the color of their skin. Now people are discriminated against because of their orientation. and it all boils down to a religious belief. Where were the Christians when Slavery was abolished? Were they all up in arms that Slaves were to be set free? It says in the bible that Slavery is ok so why don’t we have slaves today? Because people decided the bible was wrong about slavery. The bible says its bad to eat ham and bacon and crab legs and shrimp and lobster, but Christians decided that the bible was wrong and now it’s ok.
    The bible say a woman must have long hair, a head covering and not be allowed to wear adornments. But Christians decided the bible was wrong and now that’s all ok.
    The bible says that Divorce is wrong, but people decided the Bible was wrong and now we have divorces all the time.
    It seems the bible is wrong on many things. Maybe, just maybe, The bible is wrong on others.