ANOTHER suggested waste!

10 years ago

Amazing - and employers are to be forced to provide a day off with pay every year so parents can attend this.

Because - we all know employers can afford to give everyone an extra day off with pay. And - really - one day a year of meetings a year will accomplish so much for kids.

Sometimes I wonder if these people listen to themselves when they propose some of these bright ideas.

[ 5 ] Thanks

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8981851].message }}

DWaters

10 years ago

Perhaps the school department could reimburse the companies of people who take the day off for the meeting ~ or would that be a waste of tax payers money ???

My fingers are typing as sarcastically as possible....

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

How I really Make Money With Amazon

Want to get rich with top rated FREE Super Affiliate Training?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8981921].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

And I presume that parents that refuse to attend will have their children taken from them, and that those who DO attend will have to sign papers that they are willing to have the gov come in and "inspect" periodically.

This isn't a waste - it's fascism.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8981936].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

I thought this was pretty funny also. The lady calls the bill "crazy" and "insane" and then says the authorities are good at teaching kids and staying away from parents:confused:

Leslie Venokur, co-founder of Big City Moms, called the bill, proposed by Senator Ruben Diaz, "crazy" and "insane." She said authorities should "stick to what they're good at, which is teaching kids and staying away from the parents."

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8982058].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I thought this was pretty funny also. The lady calls the bill "crazy" and "insane" and then says the authorities are good at teaching kids and staying away from parents:confused:

I have a feeling she didn't mean that like it sounded. I think she meant what they were "supposed" to do was teach kids in school, not determine how they will be raised.

She's probably astounded that she worded something so poorly now that it's being circulated publicly. LMAO. I hate it when that happens.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8982197].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

I have a feeling she didn't mean that like it sounded. I think she meant what they were "supposed" to do was teach kids in school, not determine how they will be raised.

She's probably astounded that she worded something so poorly now that it's being circulated publicly. LMAO. I hate it when that happens.

I know what she meant

Remember we have Common Core here.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8982333].message }}

Joe Mobley 10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

And I presume that parents that refuse to attend will have their children taken from them,

Hey, let's think this through a bit.

How about each parent that doesn't attend will be given an extra child. Their children will be given a can of Red Bull to drink and a puppy before they are sent home.

Joe Mobley
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8985869].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Okay, if we're all through whining about it, would anyone care to suggest a better idea for making sure that kids get the care they need?

Too many biological adults in this country do nothing but push out one baby after another without even teaching them how to function in elementary school, much less the outside world.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8982520].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Okay, if we're all through whining about it, would anyone care to suggest a better idea for making sure that kids get the care they need?

Too many biological adults in this country do nothing but push out one baby after another without even teaching them how to function in elementary school, much less the outside world.

Not whining. pointing out stupidity.
There are already parenting classes all over, many are free.
How about instead of punishing the kids by keeping them back, why not just advertise free parenting classes. Convince the parents of the benefits to them and their kids if they go.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8982542].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Okay, if we're all through whining about it, would anyone care to suggest a better idea for making sure that kids get the care they need?

Too many biological adults in this country do nothing but push out one baby after another without even teaching them how to function in elementary school, much less the outside world.

Between doing NOTHING and slapping the parents and kid in the face, holding the kid back a grade, and charging society for NOTHING, the choice is SIMPLE! The better idea SAVES MONEY, is FAIR to the student, and lowers hostility. It is SIMPLE! DO NOTHING!!!!!!

As for the careless parents pushing kids out? I suggested a solution to THAT DECADES ago, and I was NOT the only one! DON'T PAY FOR THEM!

My mother one day actually told me of how she heard a woman, at the supermarket, saying she was going to have another kid to get another $50 periodic payment from the government!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8982603].message }}

bizgrower

10 years ago

This "help" from the government is too late. If they are going to do anything, they
should require passing grades on a test before people have kids.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8982622].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by bizgrower

This "help" from the government is too late. If they are going to do anything, they
should require passing grades on a test before people have kids.

At least THAT I could agree with. There are only TWO problems.....

1. WHO would do it? The government and psychiatrists are out. You need someone COMPETENT!
2. It HAS to be MEANS tested! You DON'T want poor people, that have a problem taking care of THEMSELVES, taking care of a kid. But with the PC nature of the US, such a test would NEVER be allowed!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8983448].message }}

bizgrower

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

At least THAT I could agree with. There are only TWO problems.....

1. WHO would do it? The government and psychiatrists are out. You need someone COMPETENT!
2. It HAS to be MEANS tested! You DON'T want poor people, that have a problem taking care of THEMSELVES, taking care of a kid. But with the PC nature of the US, such a test would NEVER be allowed!

Steve

I know such a test will never happen. But I do see too many
children who should not have the parents they have.

Right now, there are 5 children I would adopt.
And, I sure do wonder how these kids will turn out.
They seem so sweet, full of potential, and unlike the
drug and alcohol using, or violent parents they have.

Dan

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8983567].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

I think it's a weak link in our society. We have family courts and a legal system that values "parental rights" over the well being of a child.

We say that's not what we do - but it is. Children grow up entirely in foster homes and being given back to - and taken away from - addicted and neglectful parents. During the years the cases crawl through the courts - the child grows up without a family he can count on.

In my own family, my nephew and his wife had to fight to keep a little boy they had adopted. His family didn't want him - had abused him - but didn't want a "white family" to adopt him. When the judge asked the child if he felt "different" in the family - he said "I'm special"...he's a natural comedian and a happy kid with half a dozen brothers and sisters who love him.

A parent should have one chance and a limited amount of time to clean up their act and get their child back from CPS. If they don't do it - or fail again to care for the child, they should lose rights to that child immediately. Any absentee father - or mother - who hasn't financially provided for his offspring since it's birth...should have no right to say what happens to that child.

Obviously, I have a hard line attitude on this subject. I tried to adopt two little brothers many years ago....those boys stayed in a group home because their parents wouldn't "give them up" and courts took a "wait and see" attitude year after year.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8983873].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

In my own family, my nephew and his wife had to fight to keep a little boy they had adopted. His family didn't want him - had abused him - but didn't want a "white family" to adopt him. When the judge asked the child if he felt "different" in the family - he said "I'm special"...he's a natural comedian and a happy kid with half a dozen brothers and sisters who love him.

His old "parents" might have "TAUGHT" him to feel different, etc... I guess he is lucky that his answer was accepted in that way. It isn't like the new family can ask for any special treatment, or somehow abuse the child. People that adopt a child often have SOME idea of how it will affect their lives, and people with multiple kids certainly should.

Heck, I see some kids that have been up for adoption and toyed with "what if". I am not even going to get a DOG! WHY? I wouldn't want the dog to be placed at a kennel, or even have to struggle to be on a plane. and I would certainly NEVER trust a dog with airline cargo. I see how some treat their dogs, even in the plane, and almost feel like hitting them or something. Can YOU imagine being like 2 feet tall and having to contort to fit under an airline seat, in a carry on bag? I have seen a couple dogs do just that!

Then again, some foster homes are TERRIBLE! HEY, how about checking out the foster homes?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8984061].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

My father was school admin way back before the Dept of Ed was installed on us. There were one heck of a lot of people even back then that thought it was the school's job to totally raise their kids for them. I'm thinking part of the problem is that too many people are just plain having too many babies. If they can't figure out how to parent the first time around -- how the hell is it that they are allowed to have a 5th, 6th, 7th, etc time around?

My concerns are that the government is organizing this. They aren't going to help the child - they are going to throw orders that have to be obeyed. Period. If anyone hasn't figured out yet that the only thing the gov does this kind of thing for is indoctrination and control.........well - it's a little late to wake up now, I guess.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8985400].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

My father was school admin way back before the Dept of Ed was installed on us. There were one heck of a lot of people even back then that thought it was the school's job to totally raise their kids for them. I'm thinking part of the problem is that too many people are just plain having too many babies. If they can't figure out how to parent the first time around -- how the hell is it that they are allowed to have a 5th, 6th, 7th, etc time around?

My concerns are that the government is organizing this. They aren't going to help the child - they are going to throw orders that have to be obeyed. Period. If anyone hasn't figured out yet that the only thing the gov does this kind of thing for is indoctrination and control.........well - it's a little late to wake up now, I guess.

I knew a couple families that had LOADS of kids. Luckily, THEY seemed to be nice families. I actually knew one family that waited until their first child was in her teens before they had 6-7 other kids. She may have made a lot of babysitting money!

And my mother had 7 brothers. THEY seemed ok.

But you're right. The US government knows NOTHING about society, and shouldn't be trying to "re-engineer" it.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8985690].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Koo-Koo laws are being suggested by elected officials all the time. I couldn't pull the article up on my computer - it wouldn't load for some reason.

I wonder if it has any chance of it passing?

BTW...

IMHO here's another one...

Arizona bill’s other outrage: Why anti-gay bigotry is just the beginning:

Legalizing discrimination is horrible enough, but a sneaky pro-corporate provision in the bill will also shock you.

First the "papers please" law and now this...

Arizona bill’s other outrage: Why anti-gay bigotry is just the beginning - Salon.com

I'm sure glad we visited the Grand Canyon before they started acting crazy down there. I doubt if I'll ever step foot in Arizona again.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8986944].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Yes, it's certainly a good idea to trample on the First Amendment to ensure gays get their wedding cakes.

And where will it end?

[ 1 ] Thanks
4 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987005].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

And where will it end?

Were will it end? Most likely with the restaurant losing a lot of business. Just like they have a right not to serve someone, we also have a right not to eat in their place.
If you think the govt. has the right to force a business to serve people who are objectionable to their beliefs, then that same govt. has the right to force you to support those businesses with owners that have objectionable beliefs to yours.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987323].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Were will it end? Most likely with the restaurant losing a lot of business. Just like they have a right not to serve someone, we also have a right not to eat in their place.

If you think the govt. has the right to force a business to serve people who are objectionable to their beliefs, then that same govt. has the right to force you to support those businesses with owners that have objectionable beliefs to yours.

Your libertarian anti-govt hysteria has reached new heights of silliness.

Let me get this straight.

So according to your logic, any business should have the right to tell my family that because of their religious beliefs, they won't serve me because we're black and their religion has a problem with black people?

Let me know if I have your position correct or not.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987785].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

According to your logic, an elderly Christian woman should be forced to rent rooms in her home to sado-masochistic homosexual nudist devil-worshipers, right?

How does race or ethnicity come to compare with that crap you described above?

So you think it would be OK for someone to not serve my family because we're black?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987856].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

How does race or ethnicity come to compare with that crap you described above?

So you think it would be OK for someone to not serve my family because we're black?

OH, so NOW you are saying you are FOR this bill!?!?!?

You keep changing terms!

NEWS for you! A BUSINESS should be able to MITIGATE it's loses! It is only fair! That means that if the tenants are obviously drunk and do drugs, you SHOULD be allowed to say "NO WAY WILL WE ALLOW YOU HERE!"!

If you're faith says you shouldn't be with sinners, etc... You should be able to say the same to homosexuals, etc... since that will give you more life, liberty, happiness, and it IS the law under the first amendment! It is one of the most emphatic, please see first sentence of 1st amendment!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987902].message }}

socialentry

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Your libertarian anti-govt hysteria has reached new heights of silliness.

Let me get this straight.

So according to your logic, any business should have the right to tell my family that because of their religious beliefs, they won't serve me because we're black and their religion has a problem with black people?

Let me know if I have your position correct or not.

But what if you are a Yugoslavian muslim and your neighbor are hardcore fans of that guy?:confused:

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987930].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Your libertarian anti-govt hysteria has reached new heights of silliness.

Let me get this straight.

So according to your logic, any business should have the right to tell my family that because of their religious beliefs, they won't serve me because we're black and their religion has a problem with black people?

Let me know if I have your position correct or not.

Your left wing logic is slightly ahead of my silliness

Name one recognized religion that has a problem with blacks?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987946].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Your left wing logic is slightly ahead of my silliness

Name one recognized religion that has a problem with blacks?

About 15 years ago a couple young mormons came to my house to proselytize etc.

I was polite and I reminded them that they just let blacks join their church a few years past - so I told them I'd pass on the visit.

One got angry and the other developed a sly grin on his face.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987963].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

About 15 years ago a couple young mormons came to my house to proselytize etc.

I was polite and I reminded them that they just let blacks join their church a few years past - so I told them I'd pass on the visit.

One got angry and the other developed a sly grin on his face.

So you can't find any.
As I just mentioned the Federal Civil Rights act prevents anyone, regardless of their religion to not serve a person because of the color of their skin.
As for myself, if you know my political leanings as well as you think. Then you know I believe everyone is equal, period.
I believe every right I have or want has to go to everyone, or else it isn't a right.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987985].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So you can't find any.

As I just mentioned the Federal Civil Rights act prevents anyone, regardless of their religion to not serve a person because of the color of their skin.

As for myself, if you know my political leanings as well as you think. Then you know I believe everyone is equal, period.

I believe every right I have or want has to go to everyone, or else it isn't a right.

That's great but I thought maybe just maybe you agreed with your fellow libertarian Rand Paul that businesses should be able to serve whomever they please - for whatever the reason.

And many states are now toying with nullification of federal laws.

BTW...

Do you like Ken, have a problem with federal taxes?

Meaning, do the feds have a right to tax ?

Ken doesn't think so, (I guess not at any level - local or state) how about you?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8988062].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

That's great but I thought maybe just maybe you agreed with your fellow libertarian Rand Paul that businesses should be able to serve whomever they please - for whatever the reason.

And many states are now toying with nullification of federal laws.

BTW...

Do you like Ken, have a problem with federal taxes?

Meaning, do the feds have a right to tax ?

Ken doesn't think so, (I guess not at any level - local or state) how about you?

I'm not sure Rand said that, but either way I don't always agree with him. Also I call myself a libertarian or independent-libertarian, loosely. That group has the principles that are closest to mine. I don't listen to the Pauls or anyone else and agree with all they say, just because they belong to a group (or for any other reason).
As for federal taxes, I don't know anyone who likes to pay them.
The federal government has gotten way out of hand and needs to be made smaller and to just do what it was intended for. That is protecting our (and state) rights and protect us from foreign invaders.
Taxes should be used to finance it.
I have a problem with my taxes going to supporting their wars, subsidies, foreign aid, and numerous departments that aren't needed.

Edit: As for state and local taxes, that's a little different. Here in NY we have the highest property and school taxes in the nation. Then there's income tax, sales tax, electric tax, heating oil(s) tax, if you can think of it New York has a tax on it.
To show for it we have a bloated state government and little else.
I don't mind paying some taxes as there are services we have to have provided for us, like plowing, police, firemen, etc. But as with the feds. there is a lot of cutting of government that could be done in New York, that would lower our taxes.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8988174].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

By the way TL, your question about refusing to serve your family because of your color has already been made mute by the Federal Civil Rights act.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987967].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

And where will it end?

Nowhere, apparently. The language in this bill would permit discrimination against blacks, jews, hispanics, muslims, or anyone else.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987331].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Nowhere, apparently. The language in this bill would permit discrimination against blacks, jews, hispanics, muslims, or anyone else.

That ain't the half of it...

Here is what SB1062 allows in Arizona, should it pass.

-- A hindu brahmin doctor can refuse to provide medical service to patients who eat meat, as this is against his beliefs.

-- A muslim lawyer can refuse to take your case if you drink alcohol or eat pork.

-- A Sikh teacher might refuse to teach your kids, if they violate some tenet of the Sikh faith.

-- A Jewish cop might refuse to help you should you be a victim of a crime, should you be violating the Sabbath.

-- A Jain plumber and contractor might refuse to come out and fix your water main breakage should you not be a vegan complying with his strict Jain principles.

-- An extreme Taliban-like individual (I won't call them a muslim, as it's absolutely a violation of the Koran) can discriminate against women and children for just being alone in a public place.

-- A white supremacist might interpret the bible to say black people are less than a human so therefore they can't serve them.

Folks will be able to claim all sorts of ridiculous positions based on their (potentially ridiculous) religious beliefs.

The Governor has until Saturday March 1st to veto the bill and I think she will for many different reasons.

The above was borrowed from this article.

Rachel, Jed Lewinson are mischaracterizing SB1062

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987588].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

That ain't the half of it...

Here is what SB1062 allows in Arizona, should it pass.

-- A hindu brahmin doctor can refuse to provide medical service to patients who eat meat, as this is against his beliefs.

-- A muslim lawyer can refuse to take your case if you drink alcohol or eat pork.

-- A Sikh teacher might refuse to teach your kids, if they violate some tenet of the Sikh faith.

-- A Jewish cop might refuse to help you should you be a victim of a crime, should you be violating the Sabbath.

-- A Jain plumber and contractor might refuse to come out and fix your water main breakage should you not be a vegan complying with his strict Jain principles.

-- An extreme Taliban-like individual (I won't call them a muslim, as it's absolutely a violation of the Koran) can discriminate against women and children for just being alone in a public place.

-- A white supremacist might interpret the bible to say black people are less than a human so therefore they can't serve them.

Folks will be able to claim all sorts of ridiculous positions based on their (potentially ridiculous) religious beliefs.

The Governor has until Saturday March 1st to veto the bill and I think she will for many different reasons.

The above was borrowed from this article.

Rachel, Jed Lewinson are mischaracterizing SB1062

Try reading the bill. It doesn't say any of that.

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
2. "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
3. "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.
4. "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders, amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by code or ordinance or by practice.
5. "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.
6. "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.
7. "Religion‑neutral zoning standards":
(a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements, sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
(b) Does not include:
(i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
(ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
8. "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the person's religious mission.
9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission.
Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B. Except as provided in subsection C, government of this section, state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. Government State action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding. The person asserting such a claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
E. In For the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
F. For the purposes of this section, "state action" means any action by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or application is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.htm

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987671].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Try reading the bill. It doesn't say any of that.

It's typical media hyperbole. Calling it an Anti-Gay bill makes for great headlines especially since most won't bother to research whether any of the news is even accurate.

I liked this guys take on it:

Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to gay people | The Matt Walsh Blog

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987756].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

It's typical media hyperbole. Calling it an Anti-Gay bill makes for great headlines especially since most won't bother to research whether any of the news is even accurate.

I liked this guys take on it:

Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to gay people | The Matt Walsh Blog

Good article Mike

The bill is about being able to use your religious beliefs as a defense in court.
It doesn't allow businesses to put signs up saying "no gays" or anything like that. It doesn't allow a business to ask a persons sexual preference before they are seated.
What it does allow is a for a business to not participate in any actions that are against their religious beliefs, and to be able to use that as an explanation in a court if there is a civil suit.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987915].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

That ain't the half of it...

Here is what SB1062 allows in Arizona, should it pass.

-- A hindu brahmin doctor can refuse to provide medical service to patients who eat meat, as this is against his beliefs.

SO WHAT? It IS his RIGHT! so WHY must you have a BRAHMIN doctor?

-- A muslim lawyer can refuse to take your case if you drink alcohol or eat pork.

SO WHAT? Do you WANT a lawyer that doesn't respect you?

-- A Sikh teacher might refuse to teach your kids, if they violate some tenet of the Sikh faith.

SO WHAT? If they teach the Sikh disciplines, it is only right!

-- A Jewish cop might refuse to help you should you be a victim of a crime, should you be violating the Sabbath.

THAT is a bit different, since they are COPs! Then again, such a devout jewish cop would NOT be violating the sabbath! In rabbinic law, they are not to work, and not even allowed to turn the key on the ignition, or even FLIP A SWITCH on the sabbath! I had a client once that was the CEO of a large company in LA. He was TRAPPED on the floor he was on, and stayed there the whole night! WHY? Because he could NOT push the buttons on the elevator!

Note to some that would dispute me here. Only SOME cultural, and conservative jews follow things to this degree. Most of the more devout do. Most of the reform likely don't. But I have spoken with many jewish people about this.

-- A Jain plumber and contractor might refuse to come out and fix your water main breakage should you not be a vegan complying with his strict Jain principles.

WHO CARES?

-- An extreme Taliban-like individual (I won't call them a muslim, as it's absolutely a violation of the Koran) can discriminate against women and children for just being alone in a public place.

Since the first amendment was written SO long ago, they had no concept of how it would violate itself. They had things on their minds where that would only be a GOOD thing! So certain things ARE NOT ALLOWED! SATANISM, for example, is protected, but you can NOT have things like human sacrifices. Likewise, there are limits to how you can treat women, kids, thieves, etc....

-- A white supremacist might interpret the bible to say black people are less than a human so therefore they can't serve them.

SPECIFICALLY forbidden! Look at the mormon faith that had to make changes because of this. Even the freemasons had to change things.

Still, I have not seen ANYTHING in the bible speaking towards racism. In fact, most players were Semitic and/or ARAB. I don't recall white or black being mentioned in the concept of race.

Folks will be able to claim all sorts of ridiculous positions based on their (potentially ridiculous) religious beliefs.

There ARE limits! Various indian(both kinds), satanic, christian, etc... ones are ALLOWED! Most cults, like koresh AREN'T!

The Governor has until Saturday March 1st to veto the bill and I think she will for many different reasons.

She made it clear that it is between morality and economics.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987742].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

And where will it end?

GIVE ME A BREAK! NOBODY said they wouldn't serve homosexuals, though there ARE DRESS codes and PDA codes that may affect ALL! I am currently wearing no less than FIVE different types of fabric, assuming you consider leather a fabric. If leather ISN'T a fabric, then I am wearing FOUR! My shirt, pants, socks, and underwear all have different types of fabric. And MANY have tattoos now. I DON'T! I can't understand it! But even some PRETTY women, and marines have tattoos.

But HEY, it is THEIR business! Some restaurants, even by BEACHES, don't want people in bathing suits. SO WHAT!?!?!?

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987680].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

So ol' Bob doesn't want you in his diner. Get over it.

Then Ole Bob shouldn't have a dime of my tax breaks and that would be fine with me.

Ol Bob wants to discriminate - fine.

But not one thin dime in tax breaks, write offs etc.

Ole Bob is benefiting for public tax breaks etc. and...

I'll be damned if Ole Bob's going to get tax breaks while discriminating against me.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987798].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Sorry, but the government has no right to tax anyone, let alone use taxes as a punishment.

How is Bob getting tax benefits, by the way?

Now that's truly fringe of you Ken.

Bob is getting tax write offs etc., that every business is entitled to.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987851].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Now that's truly fringe of you Ken.

Bob is getting tax write offs etc., that every business is entitled to.

He asked about tax BENEFITS! I'm curious MYSELF!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987874].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

He asked about tax BENEFITS! I'm curious MYSELF!

Steve

Any state and national tax benefits that any other restaurant gets such as...

- Advertising

- New equipment purchases

- Maybe providing health care benefits for his workers

Very few people are hanging around the WF who are not in business for themselves.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987892].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Any state and national tax benefits that any other restaurant gets such as...

- Advertising

- New equipment purchases

- Maybe providing health care benefits for his workers

Very few people are hanging around the WF who are not in business for themselves.

Advertising is a REDUCTION of taxes PAID!
Equipment purchases is often a REDUCTION of taxes PAID for EARLIER expenses.

BTW BOTH often HELP workers and HELP the company make a profit so the company makes MORE money and pays MORE taxes!

HEALTH CARE BENEFITS? NAME ONE!!!!!!! COME ON, just ONE! On second thought, don't bother.

But now you say the WORKERS should supposedly suffer. If that is suffering. The OLD plan was better. I get to see how badly I am hit within the next 6 months or so. WHOOPIE!

But NONE of that is a benefit! If someone steals $20,000 from you, and gives you even $19,000 back, it is NOT a benefit! OH, there is a NEAT video I would LOVE to post.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987921].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Then Ole Bob shouldn't have a dime of my tax breaks and that would be fine with me.

Ol Bob wants to discriminate - fine.

But not one thin dime in tax breaks, write offs etc.

Ole Bob is benefiting for public tac breaks etc. and...

I'll be damned if Ole Bob's going to get tax breaks while discriminating against me.

Do you even know what a writeoff is!?!?!?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987862].message }}

TLTheLiberator 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Do you even know what a writeoff is!?!?!?

Steve

You bet your sweet ass I do.
- Thanks
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987870].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Koo-Koo laws are being suggested by elected officials all the time. I couldn't pull the article up on my computer - it wouldn't load for some reason.

I wonder if it has any chance of it passing?

BTW...

IMHO here's another one...

Arizona bill's other outrage: Why anti-gay bigotry is just the beginning:

Legalizing discrimination is horrible enough, but a sneaky pro-corporate provision in the bill will also shock you.

First the "papers please" law and now this...

Arizona bill's other outrage: Why anti-gay bigotry is just the beginning - Salon.com

I'm sure glad we visited the Grand Canyon before they started acting crazy down there. I doubt if I'll ever step foot in Arizona again.

THAT IS GARBAGE! It is NOT a discrimination bill! It is ANTI discrimination!

Some photographers have been hauled into court because THEY don't want to attend and shoot at a "gay wedding".

Some BAKERS have been hauled into court because THEY don't want to bake cakes for "gay weddings".

GIVE ME A BREAK! What happened to freedom of speech? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness? The freedom OF religion?

They were NOT the only photographers or bakers, so WHY THEM?

The arizona bill merely codifies at the STATE level what is codified at the NATION level, but people seem to want to DENY! HOLDER came out and said that everyone(ACTUALLY only those that AGREE WITH HIM), can now ABANDON the law!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987660].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Reality begs to differ with you, Steve.

When you do business with the public, you are legally bound to do business with ALL the public. And if you're a public servant, you're also bound to serve all the public.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987678].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

No, you aren't. Who tells you these things?

What a well-reasoned retort.

Do you honestly think a paramedic could refuse to put an injured transvestite (or black person) into an ambulance out of "religious freedom" and still keep his job?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8988201].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

What a well-reasoned retort.

Do you honestly think a paramedic could refuse to put an injured transvestite (or black person) into an ambulance out of "religious freedom" and still keep his job?

It's not likely (not impossible, but not too likely) that someone who goes in to the saving a life business would refuse to save a life. And he SHOULD lose his job if he refuses.

But as for ANY business HAVING to serve ANYone, well, that's not quite so cut and dried.

From an article:

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

There have been quite a few court cases where BOTH sides of this issue have won. I'd post some, but I think everyone here is capable of finding these cases

Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8988228].message }}

David Maschke

10 years ago

Tolerance is now defined as a one way street of forced, political correctness.

[ 4 ] Thanks

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8987996].message }}

David Maschke

10 years ago

Can't we talk about something more pleasant and uplifting?

How about Putin's face turning red with anger. Now that's funny. Ha Ha Ha.

I thought of a new joke today...

What's Putin thinking and planning?

Answer: He'll let you know when he's kicking your teeth in.

Ha Ha Ha! That's a funny joke. It's all a funny joke. Putin putting 150,000 troops on alert is hilarious :p

Why isn't anyone else laughing?

Thanks

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8988188].message }}

David Maschke

10 years ago

Aaaw, isn't that nice? That's so sweet.

Russia has a ship in Havana now.

It's probably there to show goodwill and spread happiness.

We live in a world of butterflies, sunshine and flowers

I'd frolic, but I don't know how.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8988246].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Jan Brewer is going to veto the bill and good for her. Even a very conservative Governor like her understood this was a terrible bill. "Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard one example where business owners' religious liberty has been violated."

The 1st amendment doesn't give anyone in a business that serves the public the right to discriminate against any group of people.

In related news:

"U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled Wednesday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional...

'Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,' Garcia wrote in the order. 'Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.'”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0..._4860669.html?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8988923].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Jan Brewer is going to veto the bill and good for her. Even a very conservative Governor like her understood this was a terrible bill. "Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard one example where business owners' religious liberty has been violated."

The 1st amendment doesn't give anyone in a business that serves the public the right to discriminate against any group of people.

In related news:

"U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled Wednesday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional...

'Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,' Garcia wrote in the order. 'Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.'”
Texas Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge

Brewer vetoes another crazy Arizona bill.

And Rick Perry (who's now wearing glasses in an attempt to look smarter) is reportedly very upset at the Texas ruling.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/26/texa...k_perry_upset/

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8989358].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Brewer vetoes another crazy Arizona bill.

And Rick Perry (who's now wearing glasses in an attempt to look smarter) is reportedly very upset at the Texas ruling.

Texas ban on marriage equality ruled unconstitutional, Rick Perry upset - Salon.com

To bad they don't make him act smarter

You know how I feel about rights, so marriage has always been a hot button for me.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990547].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

To bad they don't make him act smarter

You know how I feel about rights, so marriage has always been a hot button for me.

Not a big fan of Perry myself, but this is yet again something being skewed as him being anti gay when according to a couple of articles I read, he claims it's about the courts "not allowing Texas to govern itself the way the people voted" (his words). I guess we're gearing up for another election where every politician will be painted in some way in a negative light...business as usual

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990666].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Not a big fan of Perry myself, but this is yet again something being skewed as him being anti gay when according to a couple of articles I read, he claims it's about the courts "not allowing Texas to govern itself the way the people voted" (his words). I guess we're gearing up for another election where every politician will be painted in some way in a negative light...business as usual

I'm not a fan of politicians (but you knew that already)

I already posted how I feel about rights, so in this case I don't give a crap how the people voted.

Nobody has the right to decide if another person is allowed to have the same right they have. That's why they're called rights and not privileges.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990761].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I'm not a fan of politicians (but you knew that already)

I already posted how I feel about rights, so in this case I don't give a crap how the people voted.

Nobody has the right to decide if another person is allowed to have the same right they have. That's why they're called rights and not privileges.

Yup, not arguing that at all. Just pointing out the usual misinformation the media heaps upon the masses. And how the sheep all gobble it up and regurgitate

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990794].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

To bad they don't make him act smarter

You know how I feel about rights, so marriage has always been a hot button for me.

That may be one of the very few issues in which you and Mr. Perry part company.

- Feds stay out of everything possible economic: check.

- No min wage: check.

- Against the ACA: check.

Texas will lose over 9.5 billion dollars between now and 2022 and at least 1 million Texas residents won't get health insurance coverage because Texas is one of the states not interested in Medicaid Expansion via the ACA.

- #44 needs to resign = check.

- States rights over federalism = check

That's all I could think of off the top of my head.

It seems like you two part company on some social issues but not the major economic issues of the day.

All The Best!!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990801].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

That may be one of the very few issues in which you and Mr. Perry part company.

- Feds stay out of everything possible economic: check.

- No min wage: check.

- Against the ACA: check.

Texas will lose over 9.5 billion dollars between now and 2022 and at least 1 million Texas residents won't get health insurance coverage because Texas is one of the states not interested in Medicaid Expansion via the ACA.

- #44 needs to resign = check.

- States rights over federalism = check

That's all I could think of off the top of my head.

It seems like you two part company on some social issues but not the major economic issues of the day.

All The Best!!

I agree with most of them. But I base my decisions on the issues based on my understanding of the issue and not what someone else thinks or what I'm told to think.
As for the medicaid expansion, the states should have the option to decide on it, but that doesn't mean I'm against it. My biggest complaint on the ACA is that it is mandated we buy insurance.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990880].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

You know, if they REALLY mean that all should be equal to this degree, does that mean I can take out life insurance on TL? I mean if you don't even need to be married, etc.... And as for the non preexisting conditions ban, I guess I should be able to get life insurance on my mother! I mean they can't say that her death disqualifies as it is a preexisting condition. How much should I take out? A BILLION? I mean she IS dead already, so I should't have to pay many premiums!

And what of 5year olds? I guess THEY can now be doctors and all, since ALL are equal!

WOW! I bet a LOT of 5YOs would LOVE to hear THAT!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990343].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Tea Party leader attacks Jan Brewer for allowing “slavery” and penis cakes:

Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips is losing his mind over Gov. Brewer's veto of Arizona's anti-gay Jim Crow bill.

Tea Party leader attacks Jan Brewer for allowing

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990635].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Tea Party leader attacks Jan Brewer for allowing "slavery" and penis cakes:

Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips is losing his mind over Gov. Brewer's veto of Arizona's anti-gay Jim Crow bill.

Tea Party leader attacks Jan Brewer for allowing

That article was just as stupid as the one from the DailyKos.
Also calling it an anti-gay Jim Crow bill shows a lack of reading comprehension.
I'm not saying the bill was good or necessary, but it's nothing like what both liberals and conservatives are claiming.
If I was a strict Christian or Muslim, or belonged to any religion that felt homosexuality was a sin, why should I be forced to take part in a ceremony or function that would make me uncomfortable and in conflict with my faith?
On the other side of the coin. If I was gay and getting married, why would I want someone catering my wedding or taking photo's, or being involved in any way who is not going to give 100% in effort to make it my perfect day?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990741].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Well, it certainly wasn't about religious freedom. Why was it written when there wasn't one case the Governor could find that anyone's religious freedom was being suppressed or violated? The answer is pretty clear to both conservatives and liberals and was correctly labeled an anti-gay bill. It reminds me a lot of the so-called "voter fraud" bills being passed in states which are clearly attemps to make it harder for certain groups of voters, who tend to vote for one party, to vote. They made up some nonexistent problem, voter fraud, and used it to pass a law that makes it harder to vote for clear political reasons.

Originally Posted by ThomM

Also calling it an anti-gay Jim Crow bill shows a lack of reading comprehension.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993012].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, it certainly wasn't about religious freedom. Why was it written when there wasn't one case the Governor could find that anyone's religious freedom was being suppressed or violated? The answer is pretty clear to both conservatives and liberals and was correctly labeled an anti-gay bill. It reminds me a lot of the so-called "voter fraud" bills being passed in states which are clearly attemps to make it harder for certain groups of voters, who tend to vote for one party, to vote. They made up some nonexistent problem, voter fraud, and used it to pass a law that makes it harder to vote for clear political reasons.

Tim I posted the bill on page one, read it.
After you read it point out the parts that show it to be an anti-gay Jim Crow bill.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993034].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Someone can say the same thing about the "voter fraud" bills: "Show me the part in the bill that says we are biased against certain groups of people". Of course in the "voter fraud" bills it won't say "This bill will make it harder for some groups to vote because they tend to vote for one party" but that is exactly what those bills do and is the only reason those bills were written.

Originally Posted by ThomM

Tim I posted the bill on page one, read it.
After you read it point out the parts that show it to be an anti-gay Jim Crow bill.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993080].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Someone can say the same thing about the "voter fraud" bills: "Show me the part in the bill that says we are biased against certain groups of people". Of course in the "voter fraud" bills it won't say "This bill will make it harder for some groups to vote because they tend to vote for one party" but that is exactly what those bills do and is the only reason those bills were written.

BTW I had NO IDEA that blacks generally didn't bank, invest, fly, drive, go to other countries, use checks, use credit cards, or go to political conventions.

PLEASE! Show us the evidence. I'm INTRIGUED! I mean I KNOW the amish don't. The "state citizens" ALSO generally avoid doing it the accepted way. But te Amish and state citizens ALSO don't vote, and tend to be white!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993117].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Someone can say the same thing about the "voter fraud" bills: "Show me the part in the bill that says we are biased against certain groups of people". Of course in the "voter fraud" bills it won't say "This bill will make it harder for some groups to vote because they tend to vote for one party" but that is exactly what those bills do and is the only reason those bills were written.

So I asked you to read the bill and show me where it's an anti-gay Jim Crow bill and you come back talking about a voter fraud bill?
So you didn't read the bill and find where it's an anti-gay Jim Crow bill?
Why are you trying to change the subject?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993118].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

I read the bill. I think I made it clear how the voting fraud bills relate to the so called religious freedom bill.

Originally Posted by ThomM

So I asked you to read the bill and show me where it's an anti-gay Jim Crow bill and you come back talking about a voter fraud bill?
So you didn't read the bill and find where it's an anti-gay Jim Crow bill?
Why are you trying to change the subject?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993190].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I read the bill. I think I made it clear how the voting fraud bills relate to the so called religious freedom bill.

Not at all and there is no comparison.
Voter fraud bills effect everyone that vote regardless of party or non-party affiliation.
This Arizona bill allows people who are faithful to their chosen religion to not be forced to participate in events that go against their religious teachings.
So if I was a faithful Christian (or Jew or Muslim, etc)
and a gay couple asked me to cater their wedding I could decline (based on my faith) and not be forced to do the job. In other words they would have to get a different cater.
It's no different then if I had a catering business that only served vegan food and I declined to do a party that wanted a beef bbq.
Should the vegan catering business be forced to serve beef?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993234].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

That's really not a good camparison. In one example you discrimate against a whole group of people, in the other you simply don't offer that service or product in the first place.

Again, baking a cake for gay folks doesn't make someone a sinner any more than baking one for an adulterer does.

Originally Posted by ThomM

It's no different then if I had a catering business that only served vegan food and I declined to do a party that wanted a beef bbq.
Should the vegan catering business be forced to serve beef?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993276].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That's really not a good camparison. In one example you discrimate against a whole group of people, in the other you simply don't offer that service or product in the first place.

Again, baking a cake for gay folks doesn't make someone a sinner any more than baking one for an adulterer does.

Wrong again. I doubt a person of faith in a catering business ever offered services for something they consider against their faith or found offensive. You can be sure a Christian bakery turns down phonographic cake requests all the time and always have.

So you get to decide what a person of faith should do, even if it makes them uncomfortable and they believe it goes against their faith?
Besides I NEVER said it makes them a sinner and I know better then to judge what another person believes is a sin or not.
If a Christian decides that doing something makes them a sinner, that that's up to them, not me.

When the courts are forcing people to go against their faith just to please a group when their action doesn't harm the group being pleased, we've got the govt. taking over religion.
Just like you deciding what makes a person a sinner, the courts are deciding how a person must practice their religion.
The first Amendment prohibits the govt. from impeding the free exercise of religion.
That means a person of faith should be protected from being forced to participate from engaging in things that are conflict with their faith.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993412].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

When the courts are forcing people to go against their faith just to please a group when their action doesn't harm the group being pleased, we've got the govt. taking over religion.

Only that's not what's happening at all.

If your faith tells you not to do business with the public without discriminating against parts of it, guess what? You're free not to do business with the public! The government certainly doesn't FORCE anyone into that kind of business. And you're still free to practice your faith. No intervention in religion here.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993459].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Only that's not what's happening at all.

If your faith tells you not to do business with the public without discriminating against parts of it, guess what? You're free not to do business with the public! The government certainly doesn't FORCE anyone into that kind of business. And you're still free to practice your faith. No intervention in religion here.

Except their not trying to discriminate against anyone. Their not trying to prevent anyone from coming into their business and buying a birthday cake or regular cake. They are declining "Events" that they feel are inappropriate for them to participate in.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993500].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Except their not trying to discriminate against anyone. Their not trying to prevent anyone from coming into their business and buying a birthday cake or regular cake. They are declining "Events" that they feel are inappropriate for them to participate in.

They don't need to be trying to discriminate, Thom. The reality is that actions have consequences.

If you're going to practice any particular religion - or none at all - the government cannot penalize you just for having a certain faith. Nothing in the constitution protects you from anything and everything you might want to do in the name of your faith.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993672].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

They don't need to be trying to discriminate, Thom. The reality is that actions have consequences.

If you're going to practice any particular religion - or none at all - the government cannot penalize you just for having a certain faith. Nothing in the constitution protects you from anything and everything you might want to do in the name of your faith.

So if a Christian church doesn't believe in gay marriage, that church should be forced to perform one?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993690].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So if a Christian church doesn't believe in gay marriage, that church should be forced to perform one?

Churches don't ordinarily do business with the public.

(Not to mention, they usually perform marriages only for their own members.)

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993803].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Churches don't ordinarily do business with the public.

(Not to mention, they usually perform marriages only for their own members.)

They do all the time. Services are usually open to all and they will preform a marriage for anyone who will agree to their criteria.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993902].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

They do all the time. Services are usually open to all and they will preform a marriage for anyone who will agree to their criteria.

In those cases, churches do it out of their own volition. They aren't being forced to, which was the point of your question.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994060].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

In those cases, churches do it out of their own volition. They aren't being forced to, which was the point of your question.

My point was what if a gay couple went into a church that felt being gay was a sin and asked to be married there.
Should the church be forced to preform the service?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994088].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

My point was what if a gay couple went into a church that felt being gay was a sin and asked to be married there.
Should the church be forced to preform the service?

I can't imagine why. Many other churches will marry gay couples, and of course, they can go to the courthouse in states where it's legal.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994185].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

I can't imagine why. Many other churches will marry gay couples, and of course, they can go to the courthouse in states where it's legal.

Then why should a Christian caterer, baker, or florist be forced to supply a gay wedding? There are plenty of others in those trades who will gladly do the job.
That's the main point I have been trying to make all along.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994275].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

Nice try, but no: all the services I choose to provide are equally accessible to gays and to heterosexuals.

Fixed that for you.

Some services you just simply don't provide for whatever reasons, just like the baker. All of the other services you choose to provide, just like the baker, are equally accessible to gays and heterosexuals.

And why should you care if there are men who may be on your site looking for something more than just a platonic relationship? Many, if not most, romantic relationships begin as a platonic relationship. Having a section on Man Dating Tips, for example, can easily be misunderstood (and used against you). Bromance to romance can, and does, happen. What happens if any of your members do develop a romantic relationship? Do you ban them? Do you limit their interactions with others?

Further, do you have any female members? If not, you're discriminating against them. I refer you to the definitive source on bromances, The Bro Code:

Article 22 : There is no law that prohibits a woman from being a Bro. Women make excellent Bros. Why? Because they can translate and navigate the confusing and contradictory whims that comprise the Chick Code.

Article 22 | The Bro Code

I think you're on shaky ground. All it takes is for someone to decide your business practices exclude them.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994298].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Then why should a Christian caterer, baker, or florist be forced to supply a black wedding? There are plenty of others in those trades who will gladly do the job.
That's the main point I have been trying to make all along.

See how changing that one word is the point I have been trying to make all along?

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994583].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

See how changing that one word is the point I have been trying to make all along?

It is a fallacious point anyway. Ironically a lot of blacks don't like you doing that because it cheapens their point, and is using them.

Hey, I am not crazy about sports. If I were king, and felt much as you guys do, maybe I would do what some of YOU want and BAN SPORTS! I mean football can lead to and cause head trauma. FACT! It encourages steroid use which can lead to STERILITY! FACT! People may be pushed beyond their limits and DIE! FACT! Don't forget that a couple that DIED that were taking ephedra(which was BANNED for this), were playing FOOTBALL during, or not long before they DIED! AND, the head trauma has been implicated in ALZHEIMER'S!

And what of baseball? That ball moves PLENTY fast! People BRAG about its speed! It is DANGEROUS in SO many ways.

The SAME could be said of TENNIS!

And this increases health care costs ALSO! It ALSO reduces the AVAILABILITY of healthcare!

I could go on and on, but if we keep with the nanny state, you can bet these things will go BYE BYE!

SERIOUSLY, you CLAIM to be afraid of one TINY little thing, and you BAN IT! You will RIDICULE the idea of God, and try to ban any expression of the belief ANYWHERE and claim that evolution answers the question leading to a belief in God. That last claim shows how little you really understand the question. You THEN claim that since you know ALL ABOUT the question you can answer the idea of a persons belief and describe it and THEN, in doing so, dictate what it must be!

You dictate the persons belief and then state they therefore are making these claims solely out of HATRED, and NOT out of faith.

If you want to be an ATHEIST(One that believes there is no god), GREAT! A true atheist may ridicule, but it doesn't mean they would debate a priest about their beliefs.

If you want to be AGNOSTIC(One that doubts there is a god), GREAT! A true agnostic probably wouldn't say much about the issue.

But PLEASE don't say HEY, they believe this, when it isn't the case at all. I have to wonder if you EVER even read the bible! A lot of the stuff about associating and staying away from sinful acts and the like is even in the OLD TESTAMENT! THAT is the part even a devout jewish person would read. AGAIN, many jews think angels are a christian invention. Angel IS derived from a greek word for MESSENGER. The first description of an angel in the bible, as most chistians see it, may be the description of them for the building of the ark of the covenant. That was described in "exodus". The Jewish people have a special section that has only 5 books, including exodus in it. It is the "pentateuch" or "Torah". And it is in the Tanakh. So WHO KNOWS!?!?!? You have to wonder how much a jewish person has read the tanakh if they don't know about the description of one of the most important relics in the entire religion. The FIRST Indiana Jones movie was about the search for it!!!!!

Of course, various jewish people tend to be in their own culture, much like the amish. And the average christian would likely feel out of place going to a jewish bakery in a jewish part of town, and asking them to make a decidedly CHRISTIAN wedding cake.

But HEY, tell all your homosexual friends! The NEXT frontier is ultra orthodoxed Jew, Amish, and American Indian! It would be interesting to see how THAT ends up.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995150].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

See how changing that one word is the point I have been trying to make all along?

But Tim that's not what this is about.
It's about being asked to participate in events that go against their religious beliefs.
You're changing what it is about to prove your point.
Stick to what it's about.

Why should a person of any faith be forced to provide services for an event when that event goes against their faith and there are others who can provide those services?

Now can you answer that question without changing it into something else?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995397].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

It's the same thing Thom. Why do you think it's ok to discriminate against one group and not another? To answer your question though, it's called the Constitution and to be specific it's part of the 14th amendment, the equal protection clause. You should know that already though.

Originally Posted by ThomM

But Tim that's not what this is about.
It's about being asked to participate in events that go against their religious beliefs.
You're changing what it is about to prove your point.
Stick to what it's about.

Why should a person of any faith be forced to provide services for an event when that event goes against their faith and there are others who can provide those services?

Now can you answer that question without changing it into something else?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995437].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

It's the same thing Thom. Why do you think it's ok to discriminate against one group and not another?

It's not the same thing at all.
If anything it's discrimination against people of faith when they are forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

So I'll just assume you can't answer the question as it is stated without trying to change it into something else (while trying to claim it's the same thing).

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995465].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

I went back and answered it. I'm sure you won't agree but you would be wrong. We have a constitution and people have to follow all of it whether you think one part is wrong or not. It is absolutely the same issue, just a different group. You can't pick and choose between different groups of people. I also have given examples where religion was used to discriminate against other groups in the past and actually it is still being done today.

Originally Posted by ThomM

It's not the same thing at all.
If anything it's discrimination against people of faith when they are forced to do something that goes against their beliefs.

So I'll just assume you can't answer the question as it is stated without trying to change it into something else (while trying to claim it's the same thing).

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995505].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I went back and answered it. I'm sure you won't agree but you would be wrong. We have a constitution and people have to follow all of it whether you think one part is wrong or not. It is absolutely the same issue, just a different group. You can't pick and choose between different groups of people. I also have given examples where religion was used to discriminate against other groups in the past and actually it is still being done today.

No you compared it to things that aren't the same, but you avoided answering the question as I stated it.
If you want to drag the Constitution into it, see what the the 1st. Amendment says about it.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,

There is nothing in any recognized religion that says being black is a sin, so that ends your idea that THAT is the same.
There is something in most recognized religions that say homosexuality is a sin. So if someone comes into a business and asks them to take part in a gay event and it goes against that persons faith to do so, why should they then be forced to take part when there are others who will gladly do the job?
Are you saying it's alright to force someone to go against their faith, when there is no harm or violence involved?
What you are doing is violating the rights of people of faith because you favor another group.
It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, they still have the right to practice their faith as they see fit as long as it is in a non-violent manner.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995559].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Making a business treat people equaly for a service they offer to the public is not impeding their riligion. That's just ridiculous. If someone wants to offer a service to the public they should understand that that means all groups.

I can post the religious argument that defended slavery, defended segregation, defended sexism, defended all sorts of discrimination. Religion can't be used as an reason for a business to discrimate. Now, what a church does is different.

Originally Posted by ThomM

No you compared it to things that aren't the same, but you avoided answering the question as I stated it.
If you want to drag the Constitution into it, see what the the 1st. Amendment says about it.
There is nothing in any recognized religion that says being black is a sin, so that ends your idea that THAT is the same.
There is something in most recognized religions that say homosexuality is a sin. So if someone comes into a business and asks them to take part in a gay event and it goes against that persons faith to do so, why should they then be forced to take part when there are others who will gladly do the job?
Are you saying it's alright to force someone to go against their faith, when there is no harm or violence involved?
What you are doing is violating the rights of people of faith because you favor another group.
It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, they still have the right to practice their faith as they see fit as long as it is in a non-violent manner.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995624].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Making a business treat people equaly for a service they offer to the public is not impeding their riligion. That's just ridiculous. If someone wants to offer a service to the public they should understand that that means all groups.

I can post the religious argument that defended slavery, defended segregation, defended sexism, defended all sorts of discrimination. Religion can't be used as an reason for a business to discrimate. Now, what a church does is different.

Tim I'm not talking about denying service. I'm not saying it's OK to not sell something to someone in a public setting.

I'm talking about specific events like a marriage ceremony and reception which are not public.
How is it different for a church? Do you mean it's alright for a church not to participate in a wedding that goes against it's teachings, but a member of that church has to participate?
If a member of that church gets an invitation to that wedding should they be forced to go?
Just like there are other places and churches that gay couples can get married, there are other places gay couples can get the services they need for that wedding.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995687].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I went back and answered it. I'm sure you won't agree but you would be wrong. We have a constitution and people have to follow all of it whether you think one part is wrong or not. It is absolutely the same issue, just a different group. You can't pick and choose between different groups of people. I also have given examples where religion was used to discriminate against other groups in the past and actually it is still being done today.

Interesting how YOU get to pick and choose. How about us following an EARLIER amendment with lots of case law and referring to even the pramble of the declaration of independence rather that SUBJUGATE a group of people to LITERALLY cater to the WHIMS of a small group of people that subjects THEM to effectively slavery, violates the spirit of the country, as stated in the DoI, and violates THEIR rights.

AGAIN, *****PLEASE***** answer this one question that only a few have asked and NONE of the "plantiffs" have ever dared to answer..... WHY THESE PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!!?

Would a jewish person sue a CHRISTIAN church for not having PESACH? Would a person from India sue a company for not having Diwali? Would you sue a vegetarian restaurant for not having a turkey sandwich? Would a man sue a gynecologist?

So WHY? ****WHY****?!?!?!?!?!? WHY does a homosexual sue a CHRISTIAN baker for not supporting their marriage!?!?!?!?!?!?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995595].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Well, in three of the examples you listed below you ask if someone would sue someone else for something they didn't have or do. The problem with that is the baker baked cakes including wedding cakes. Plus, by baking the cake he isn't saying he supported the wedding in my opinion, and in the judges opinion. He's simply baking a cake.

Originally Posted by seasoned

AGAIN, *****PLEASE***** answer this one question that only a few have asked and NONE of the "plantiffs" have ever dared to answer..... WHY THESE PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!!?

Would a jewish person sue a CHRISTIAN church for not having PESACH? Would a person from India sue a company for not having Diwali? Would you sue a vegetarian restaurant for not having a turkey sandwich? Would a man sue a gynecologist?

So WHY? ****WHY****?!?!?!?!?!? WHY does a homosexual sue a CHRISTIAN baker for not supporting their marriage!?!?!?!?!?!?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995797].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, in three of the examples you listed below you ask if someone would sue someone else for something they didn't have or do. The problem with that is the baker baked cakes including wedding cakes. Plus, by baking the cake he isn't saying he supported the wedding in my opinion, and in the judges opinion. He's simply baking a cake.

He baked cakes for TRADITIONAL weddings, and it ISN'T simply baking a cake. HECK, there are a LOT of cakes baked, and the plaintiffs didn't buy one of THOSE! BTW looking at one site, it advertised a magazine called "brides". Is the plaintiff going after THEM next? Is it FAIR you have to be female to be a bride, or a princess?

GEE, maybe the baker should take them at YOUR word, and simply provide a non descript cake such as THIS:

Wedding Cake Tableau

built using a flavor combination from a list, and icing from a list, and not provide any logistics, or identifying words, figurines, or figures, and see how it goes.

I'm betting the plantiff would balk and go back to court, but maybe the defendant could then argue against all your claims and demand attorney fees back.

BTW did you notice on big bang theory recently? I watched it a few times lately and don't know if it is a new show or old, but yesterday or the day before, Howard Wolowitz, the guy that lives with his mother, fantasized about someone that apparently was from the new battlestar galactica. THEN, he found it was his girlfriend. THEN, the three were there with takei who said he was there because Howard was homosexual. What a way to try to strengthen their cause!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995850].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

I can't imagine why. Many other churches will marry gay couples, and of course, they can go to the courthouse in states where it's legal.

I can't EITHER, but they ARE! Some churches have been ORDERED to, at the very least, allow their property to be used for it. In SOME ases, it would be ILLEGAL to do so, even if it didn't go against the church, because some churches are on land in a trust or belonging to another, that FORBIDS such use!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994311].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

But the bill wasn't allowed - it was vetoed yesterday....so why keep arguing it?

We were sanctimonious about Russia's attitude toward t gay community before the Olympics. It wasn't that long ago that gay/lesbian people had a rough time here as well.

They don't need to be trying to discriminate, Thom.

That's common sense - but then I look at your signature and I note you have clearly stated "strictly platonic" and wonder if a person with a big chip on their shoulder would consider that "homophobic".

You are right - you don't have to be trying to discriminate. By the same token, you don't have to go looking for discrimination, either.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993917].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That's common sense - but then I look at your signature and I note you have clearly stated "strictly platonic" and wonder if a person with a big chip on their shoulder would consider that "homophobic".

If they looked at the FAQ on my site, they would discover that it's gay friendly - which of course is not the same thing as a dating site for gay people. And for the record, I haven't recently been accused of any homophobia, so I believe that my visitors have understood the difference.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994074].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic

If they looked at the FAQ on my site, they would discover that it's gay friendly - which of course is not the same thing as a dating site for gay people.

So then the baker, for example, only needed to post a notice similar to what is on your site?

"Is this a gay marriage bakery?"

"No. Seriously, no. This bakery is not about providing services for homosexual marriages. If you're looking for a gay marriage cake, please go to one of the many other bakeries out there. They have what you want; we don't.

"However, even though we do not provide gay marriage cakes, it's still a gay-friendly bakery. We will not exclude or refuse other services based on sexual orientation. After all, religious business owners and homosexuals can easily develop other close business relationships. As long as that's all you're looking for, you're perfectly welcome."

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994148].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That's common sense - but then I look at your signature and I note you have clearly stated "strictly platonic" and wonder if a person with a big chip on their shoulder would consider that "homophobic".

His site also says it is "not about romantic relationships or finding sexual partners," under a FAQ that asks specifically, "Is this a gay dating site?"

So basically, yeah, he's the baker, the photographer, the printer, etc., who chooses not to provide certain business services for a select market.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994146].message }}

Hopeless Bromantic

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

His site also says it is "not about romantic relationships or finding sexual partners," under a FAQ that asks specifically, "Is this a gay dating site?"

So basically, yeah, he's the baker, the photographer, the printer, etc., who chooses not to provide certain business services for a select market.

Nice try, but no: all the services I provide are equally accessible to gays and to heterosexuals. The baker who makes wedding cakes only for opposite-sex couples is not in the same situation at all.

Thanks

Signature

Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
_______________________________________________
"It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994189].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

TL posted a link to a couple stories that show that the same groups behind the Arizona bill have similar bills in other states.

Originally Posted by Kay King

But the bill wasn't allowed - it was vetoed yesterday....so why keep arguing it?
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995446].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Like I told Steve, they don't have to fall in love and commit sodomy. We are talking about baking a cake or taking photos etc... Providing services they provide everyone else. Nobody said anything about making pornographic cakes. Geesh.

When you exclude a whole group of people it is called discrimination and is illegal in this country as it should be. The civil rights act protects this from being done to people because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin as you posted earlier. Before that bill there was discrimination in businesses and I bet many quoted the bible in defense of doing so. I'm not sure why you see discrimination against this group of people as being any different. The idea that they can discriminate becasue of so called religious freedom is bs.

Originally Posted by ThomM

That means a person of faith should be protected from being forced to participate from engaging in things that are conflict with their faith.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993466].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Like I told Steve, they don't have to fall in love and commit sodomy. We are talking about baking a cake or taking photos etc... Providing services they provide everyone else. Nobody said anything about making pornographic cakes. Geesh.

When you exclude a whole group of people it is called discrimination and is illegal in this country as it should be. The civil rights act protects this from being done to people because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin as you posted earlier. Before that bill there was discrimination in businesses and I bet many quoted the bible in defense of doing so. I'm not sure why you see discrimination against this group of people as being any different. The idea that they can discriminate becasue of so called religious freedom is bs.

Tim you're making it something it's not.
Like I told Bro, they're not trying to stop anyone from coming into their business and buying other types of cakes or pastries. Nor are they questioning people about their sexual preference before they make a purchase. They simply want the right to be able to decline in participating in an event they find offensive because of religious beliefs.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993505].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

If this bill was allowed they could do the things you claim they don't want to do. Why not? If they are allowed to use religion as a reason to discriminate then why not put a sign saying "our religion says I don't have to serve gays. No gays allowed because we find you offensive".

Originally Posted by ThomM

Tim you're making it something it's not.
Like I told Bro, they're not trying to stop anyone from coming into their business and buying other types of cakes or pastries. Nor are they questioning people about their sexual preference before they make a purchase. They simply want the right to be able to decline in participating in an event they find offensive because of religious beliefs.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993654].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

By the way, this country had laws against interracial marriage for over 300 years. The people behind the laws had a few arguments this type of marriage:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

Sound familiar? If you want to let people discriminate against gays then why not let them go back to discriminating against people because of their race?

History News Network | Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993663].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

If this bill was allowed they could do the things you claim they don't want to do. Why not? If they are allowed to use religion as a reason to discriminate then why not put a sign saying "our religion says I don't have to serve gays. No gays allowed because we find you offensive".

I knew you'd blow this out of proportion.
It's not about discrimination, it's about not participating in events that are against your religion. What is so hard about that to understand.
I've made that clear through out this discussion.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993687].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That's really not a good camparison. In one example you discrimate against a whole group of people, in the other you simply don't offer that service or product in the first place.

Again, baking a cake for gay folks doesn't make someone a sinner any more than baking one for an adulterer does.

The place baking a cake did NOT offer cakes for homosexuals! Such a thing requires different decorations, and is catering to a different clientele, etc...

The idea about vegetarian is a GOOD one. LIKEWISE, a conservative or orthodox jewish place, and I believe maybe moslem, MIGHT sell hamburgers but NOT cheeseburgers, though they may have cheese!

If they do, it is their right. Rabinnic law says you shouldn't mix dairy products with meat, though it IS an interpretation of a biblical reference.

And who are YOU to declare anything about religion anyway? The amendment was based on faith and treatment by the individual and denomination, NOT by some third party! YOU may say it says nothing about not killing, and deny contentious objectors, but the courts have recognized that as a consequence for a LONG time!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993510].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, it certainly wasn't about religious freedom. Why was it written when there wasn't one case the Governor could find that anyone's religious freedom was being suppressed or violated? The answer is pretty clear to both conservatives and liberals and was correctly labeled an anti-gay bill. It reminds me a lot of the so-called "voter fraud" bills being passed in states which are clearly attemps to make it harder for certain groups of voters, who tend to vote for one party, to vote. They made up some nonexistent problem, voter fraud, and used it to pass a law that makes it harder to vote for clear political reasons.

Colorado Baker Ordered to Make Cakes for Same-Sex Couples

New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony

Here are two of MANY!

The $%^&( arguing that the bakers were only asked to bake a cake are LYING! They WEREN'T asked to bake a cake. If they were, it would have been baked, or they could buy at a STORE. It was a WEDDING CAKE! That means PLANNING, SPECIAL DECORATIONS, LOGISTICS, ETC.....

They ALSO argue that this is NOT speech, but BAKING! OK, then PLEASE revert ALL charges and history from the "art" films, movies, magazines, etc.... that claimed free speech often NOT from words but actions, pictures, placement, method, etc.... It may take a CENTURY to do that! IMAGINE! People have moved, some things changed hands several times, some things may have been the basis for other things. The world will then be a VERY different place! THEN, we can talk about how baking is different.

FURTHER, photographers are asked to act as ARTISTS! Never mind that they merely photograph instead of paint. With overlays, placement, lighting, planning, placement, etc... they do a LOT of things PAINTERS would. AND, at this point, they MAY be asked to touch things up just as a painter would.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993066].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

The judges ruling seems like a well reasoned one to me and I don't see any religious reasons for this form of discrimination. By their own teachings we are all sinners so perhaps they shouldn't sell cakes to anyone but their own god. :/

"Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech,” wrote Spencer in his ruling against Phillips. “It is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree.” He added that “at first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

Originally Posted by seasoned

Colorado Baker Ordered to Make Cakes for Same-Sex Couples

New Mexico Court: Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony

Here are two of MANY!

The $%^&( arguing that the bakers were only asked to bake a cake are LYING! They WEREN'T asked to bake a cake. If they were, it would have been baked, or they could buy at a STORE. It was a WEDDING CAKE! That means PLANNING, SPECIAL DECORATIONS, LOGISTICS, ETC.....

They ALSO argue that this is NOT speech, but BAKING! OK, then PLEASE revert ALL charges and history from the "art" films, movies, magazines, etc.... that claimed free speech often NOT from words but actions, pictures, placement, method, etc.... It may take a CENTURY to do that! IMAGINE! People have moved, some things changed hands several times, some things may have been the basis for other things. The world will then be a VERY different place! THEN, we can talk about how baking is different.

FURTHER, photographers are asked to act as ARTISTS! Never mind that they merely photograph instead of paint. With overlays, placement, lighting, planning, placement, etc... they do a LOT of things PAINTERS would. AND, at this point, they MAY be asked to touch things up just as a painter would.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993093].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

The judges ruling seems like a well reasoned one to me and I don't see any religious reasons for this form of discrimination. By their own teachings we are all sinners so perhaps they shouldn't sell cakes to anyone but their own god. :/

By THAT reasoning, all should go to heaven and be rewarded for all they have done, even YKW.

ALSO, you are saying that the bakers should INTENTIONALLY SIN because another has sinned. By THAT measure, someone should go and kill you and all that you know simply because someone killed some guy in russia in the distant past. Silly reasoning at best. Be HAPPY more people don't feel as you do there. BTW The bible has LOTS of teachings against hating sin, discouraging sin, not sinning, and not attending such things. HECK, look at SODOM! People were killed JUST FOR BEING THERE!

Genesis 19
New International Version (NIV)
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."...

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”...

15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”

16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”

"Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech,” wrote Spencer in his ruling against Phillips.

STUPID "reasoning", and I already told you why!

“It is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree.”

NOPE! They AREN'T "pledging", but rather actually DOING the act! This is like saying that a person isn't being asked to give allegiance to a country, only to fight for its principles TO THE DEATH! REALLY DUMB REASONING! HOW do those guys get to be called judges?

And NOPE! They don't display a "motto", but only all the symbolism for it! That is like saying a person doesn't have to display a bumper sticker on their car supporting a candidate, but simply must go to all conventions and campaign for them!

He added that “at first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

WHAT cost to even those PEOPLE, let alone society? If it was SO important, why didn't they GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!?!?!?!?

I mean I have a CARDIOLOGIST as my basic doctor. I didn't decide to go to a GYNECOLOGIST! If I DID go to a gynecologist, and they turned me down, could I SUE? WHY NOT? It IS PRECISELY what THESE people have done!

How is MY going to a woman's doctor, even though I am a man, ANY different from going to a Christian baker even though you want them to OPENLY go against the christian faith?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993135].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

Umm, they are baking a cake, not being asked to fall in love with a man and have anal sex. :/

Originally Posted by seasoned

ALSO, you are saying that the bakers should INTENTIONALLY SIN because another has sinned.
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993205].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Tea Party leader attacks Jan Brewer for allowing "slavery" and penis cakes:

It IS slavery!!!! They are FORCED to do it, NO MATTER WHAT! And what if it is more expensive or they must special order certain supplies(They NEVER had occasions to buy "groom/groom" decorations, for example). Do you think that maybe they would be sued if it cost even a PENNY more? After all, they were SUED for simply politely saying they couldn't be the one of ******MANY****** that would be available to do this. They NEVER hurt them, or said they wouldn't sell to them. They NEVER tried to blackball them.

What if they were thinking about retiring now, or decided to? Do you think the "plaintiffs" might say *****YOU MUST WORK NOW!*****?

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990765].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

BTW as followup! What if, TOMORROW, the jets at say "SOUTH WEST" had to be replaced with jets that used a slightly different type of fuel, that cost say 10% LESS than the regular fuel, and the new planes were FREE, worked the same in EVERY other way, and got the same gas mileage?

Costs would go UP! TICKET prices would have to go up! WHY? Because they have PREARRANGED fuel costs, and inflation has driven costs up. LIKEWISE, these bakeries have stocked up on certain things, likely have moving average cost/profit calculations, and may have suppliers that they can't even use for things like this.
That means that more traditional components may be sold at BELOW the current market. OTHER items would be sold at the CURRENT market.

I don't know how much costs will go up, but they likely will. Imagine if they have those statue decorations and find they paid 50% more than one in a conventional marriage. 50% may only be a few bucks in this example, but they have PROVEN they WANT to sue!

They may want odd colors, and have lots of debate. That can cause costs to go up TENS of dollars per issue. They may want odd tastes. WHO KNOWS!?!?!? This is a LOT of trust and effort on both sides for really NOTHING.

We aren't just talking about a simple cake, or even a basic wedding cake. The closer it gets to that, the more one must ask WHY THIS PLACE!?!?!?!?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8990799].message }}

lcombs

10 years ago

It's the age old problem responsible for most of the problems we're all facing.

The people who make the decisions don't have a clue about what they're doing.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8991450].message }}

TLTheLiberator 10 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

It's the age old problem responsible for most of the problems we're all facing.

The people who make the decisions don't have a clue about what they're doing.

Some do some don't some will some won't.
- Thanks
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8992295].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

CNN And MSNBC Expose The Anti-Gay Group Behind Arizona's SB 1062 | Blog | Media Matters for America

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8993552].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

The bakers and photographers, etc... DON'T ask if the customers are homosexual. They sell their PRODUCTS to all, and provide normal services to all.

The ideas some come up with sometimes are ODD! I even went to a church that sometimes had OTHER pastors, and their congregations over. A few times they were churches that had a number of "ex homosexual" members, etc... I imagine a number weren't REALLY ex!

I don't know if he came from one of those churches once or what, but I one day made a number of predictions, around 1994 or so, that were against a supposed "LEADER" in the biomedical industry, to a couple friends there. The average homosexual would be VERY angry! I suddenly heard a voice behind me ask me if I was a doctor or something. He had that tone that generally only some homosexuals have. He said he "was" a homosexual. And he said I explained it well, and was 100% right.

I'm kind of sorry I was right, because he did seem like a nice guy and DID eventually die of AIDS. One thing I said was they were barking up the wrong tree, and the supposed experts claim of a cure in 5 years was LUDICROUS. But FUNNY THING!(sarc) NOBODY asked him to leave. He stayed there. He kept coming until not long before we heard he died. Last time I saw him, he was friendly, and said hi, etc...

Had he been trying to pick up people, or marry another man, or some such thing, he WOULD have been asked to leave.

Another member of that church had a monozygotic(Basically born with the same dna and base potential) twin that he said was homosexual. I never met the brother, but his devout brother wasn't bad mouthing him or anything of the sort.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994289].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

BTW I called a local sandwich shop, that claims to deliver, etc.... THEY REFUSED!!!!!!!!!
To make things WORSE, they said that if I lived on the other side of the street, they WOULD deliver. I asked if they had ANOTHER franchise that handled MY area, and they said NO.

I met the owner, and asked her WHY! She said that it was because they are considering getting more franchises and, if they are found to have delivered outside their franchise area, they would be BLACK BALLED. Should I sue? BTW they DON'T have any signage saying they don't cover my area!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8994302].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

BTW did you know that some churches have NO church!?!?!?!? From what I understand at least some amish have NO church. They share homes!

HECK, I went to a church one that was on top of a car body repair shop! The pastor was NOT paid by the church! HIS income came from an insurance company where he was paid to audit customers businesses and tell them how they could make changes to avoid accidents! It was a true WIN/WIN/WIN/WIN/WIN, which is something you RARELY see! His CUSTOMERS won by having better records, etc... Their employees won by having fewer injuries. The CHURCH won by not having to pay his salary. His employer won by not having to pay a lot of claims, and HE got a salary! but what if someone wanted HIM to allow them to use that area for a homosexual wedding? It wasn't even his property, not even for the period the church had services! And the church was small, maybe 20 people, and many were practically teenagers.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8995811].message }}

ANOTHER suggested waste!

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?