Jonah Goldberg:
‘I could have handled that better.”
I don’t know if the captain of the Titanic ever said that. But Mike Pence did on Tuesday.
The Indiana governor has managed to step on an impressive number of parts of his own anatomy recently and in the process gravely injured what was already a long-shot ambition to run for president in 2016.
Earlier this month he signed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a private ceremony. In attendance were prominent opponents of gay marriage.
In response, great algae plumes of righteous outrage erupted across the Internet. Gay-rights groups, the Democratic party, and the mainstream media, in unison, lost their collective marbles and raised unshirted hell. Know-nothings of every stripe cried out that Jim Crow had returned to the land. Shouts of “boycott!” went forth, including perhaps of the NCAA’s Final Four, which for Hoosiers is like threatening a boycott of Easter Mass at the Vatican. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce hied to its corporate fainting couch and begged to be rescued.
Pence, desperate to put out the political fire, raced to a TV studio last Sunday to quench the flames on ABC’s This Week. The only problem is that he arrived at the scene with a rhetorical water pistol hoping to put out a five-alarm blaze.
“Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?” George Stephanopoulos asked.
“George, you’re — you’re following the mantra of the last week online [media coverage],” Pence said. “And you’re trying to make this issue about something else.”
Well, as they say in formal debate classes, Duh.
Two days later, Pence held a press conference to ask the state legislature to rewrite the law to placate the mob.
Pence still had the better part of the legal argument. Indeed, he and supporters of RFRA have nearly the entire legal argument on their side.
The federal RFRA was passed in 1993, in response to a Supreme Court decision holding that Native Americans weren’t exempt from anti-drug laws barring the use of peyote, even for religious ceremonies.
In response, Congress passed a law barring the government from putting a burden on religious practice without a compelling state interest. If someone feels their religious rights have been violated, they can go to court and make their case. That’s it. Jim Crow laws forced people to discriminate. RFRA doesn’t force anybody to do anything.
The original RFRA was a good and just law championed by then-representative Chuck Schumer and opposed by right-wing bogeyman Jesse Helms. It passed the Senate 97-3 and was signed by President Bill Clinton.
In 1997, the Supreme Court held that RFRA was too broad and could not be applied to states. So, various state governments passed their own versions. Twenty states have close to the same version as the federal government’s, and a dozen more have similar rules in their constitutions. These states include such anti-gay bastions as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Illinois, where, as a state senator, Barack Obama voted in favor of the law.
@George Wells:
and a bad idea can come from a good person?
What a strange notion. if it’s NOT in there, then it exists anyhow. so if the right to discriminate is ‘not in there’ it exists anyhow? Really?
I would say that is EGGZACKLY what it means. You’re saying that if there is no right to discrimate against gays written into the constitution then it is still in there? Or is it just ‘invisible rights’ that lefties want that are so well hidden but are ‘really’ in there?
I suspect if you did a little research, you’d find that if something is NOT in the constitution that it is not there so there would not be a law ‘either for or against’ that issue. Where it says that Congress ‘shall make no law’ means 2 things. First, Congress shall make NO (as in none) law and Second, if a State wants to make a law, as long as it is not prohibited in the Constitution, then they are allowed to do so.
@Redteam #51:
“and a bad idea can come from a good person?”
Do you REALLY need to ask this question?
“What a strange notion. if it’s NOT in there, then it exists anyhow.”
Sweet Pea, I’m just broken-hearted that you don’t have a CLUE what the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment means, but that just isn’t my problem.
If you can’t understand what Justice Arthur Goldberg, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan meant when they said:
that isn’t my problem either. I didn’t write it. Supreme Court Justices wrote it, to EXPLAIN to anyone STUPID enough that they couldn’t already understand precisely what it meant and what it means.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
In case you haven’t already figured it out, your understanding of, well, just about everything – is seriously flawed. But there is no point in your asking ME idiotic questions meant to twist what SCOTUS justices have said about Constitutional Law, as if you really have any desire to learn ANYTHING.
You obviously CAN’T learn anything from what I tell you, so do your own homework. But if, in June, you STILL can’t understand why the SCOTUS decided the way it did in the Gay Marriage case, don’t come crying to me, because I TOLD YOU SO.
@George Wells:
By that statement, I can only assume that you are of the opinion that the tactics outlined in After The Ball are good ideas and that you think even those ideas and tactics based in the philosophies of Goebbles, Bernays and Alinsky have merit.
I have no idea if Kirk, and his partner in the book, were good people. I can tell you that good people don’t promote the destruction of other people, which they did.
Well, goodie, goodie, you have found an amendment. But by the reading of that very, VERY liberal/progressive court, the opinion reads that there is NO right that cannot be ruled upon by the SCOTUS. But wait, WAIT………………… what about the 10th Amendment which says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved respectively to the states, and the people. Since the federal government does not issue marriage licenses, or grant the right to marry, that authority is reserved respectively to the states, and the people.
Actually, it can be found. In the 10th Amendment where those rights are delegated to the states and the people. The 9th cannot usurp the 10th. But by your reasoning, the government has no power to object to marriages not only between same sex partners, but that of siblings, mother to son, father to daughter, or number of spouses each person may want. Just a marriage free-for-all, accountable by none.
Ah, more of your sour grapes type anger is showing, George. So while the SCOTUS may rule your way, you cannot anticipate public approval any more than you have now. The tide IS changing, George. Parents are rallying against public school education where their children are subjected to the liberal/progressive teachers, many of them who are gay and force their opinions on a captive audience; gun rights advocates are winning, case by case, state by state, as we have watched the 2nd Amendment violated by the left wing; other violations, such as those imposed on us by an unconstitutional TSA, are being challenged. Roe vs. Wade, the sacred cow of the left, is seeing more and more Americans who do not support it and the radical, leftist gay movement is being exposed for who they are and they ain’t civil libertarians.
So enjoy what ever small victory you may have now. The fact that you are so self-centered that you care naught for the future has been apparent for a long, long time.
Perhaps you would like to explain what benchmarks the SCOTUS set for the determination of knowing someone is gay?
Nice dodge, but alas, no cigar.
@George Wells:Well, tell you what Sweet Pea. You still didn’t show anyone where the right to be gay is IN the Constitution, as you said. I’m still sure (even being stupid and all like I am) that you can not now, or ever, show me that there is a right to gay marriage SOMEWHERE in the Constitution. You might can find, within it, that there can not be a law prohibiting it, but you can not now, or ever show me that there is a right actually in the constitution, to be gay. And even after June, there will not be the right to a gay marriage WITHIN the constitution, there may be an interpretation that there can not be a prohibition against it, but not a right to it. I don’t expect a homosexual person to have common sense, as since we have agreed that homosexuality is a birth defect of a scrambled brain, I’m pretty sure it precludes common sense also.
I actually appreciate your ‘name calling’ because it is the first indication that you realize you’ve lost your argument and have had to fall back on hysteria (long thought to be common to women, may actually be mostly only inherent in feminine homosexuals).
Yes you do seem to lack the ability to pass on your ideas very well. (scrambled brain syndrome) I guess.
I find it unfortunate that you say you have lost your ability to follow along, but maybe you’ll recuperate.
@retire05 #53:
“By that statement, I can only assume that you are of the opinion that the tactics outlined in After The Ball are good ideas and that you think even those ideas and tactics based in the philosophies of Goebbles, Bernays and Alinsky have merit.”
That is about one of the silliest conflations of unrelated assumptions I’ve ever seen. I’ll give you credit for having either read or researched the works you refer to, but your “assumptions” fail at every turn. I’ve never crossed paths with “After the Ball,” and I’ve never read anything by the three folks you credit philosophies to.
My statement: “I couldn’t care less where a good idea comes from” means nothing more than what it says. I suspect that even Hitler had a good idea or two over the course of his lifetime, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with everything he did, and it doesn’t mean that one of his good ideas (presuming he had a few) should be trashed. But I get that confusing any issue is important to you, as you have so few good ideas of your own. But do try. Otherwise you’re such a bore.
“Watch what happens at the SCOTUS in June, and LEARN.”
“Ah, more of your sour grapes type anger is showing, George. So while the SCOTUS may rule your way…”
If the SCOTUS is going to rule the way I think (and you finally concede), how is my comment “sour grapes”? I’m getting what I want, remember? I’m HAPPY about that, not “sour.” Next time you’re thinking of calling “sour grapes” on someone, look into a mirror.
“Perhaps you would like to explain what benchmarks the SCOTUS set for the determination of knowing someone is gay?”
The SCOTUS has already addressed this question with respects to “religious persecution.” It decided that a person’s self-declaration was sufficient, as the state is in no position to dispute otherwise. The same logic would prevail in your question: The SCOTUS would accept a person’s declaration, if the question ever came up.
“Nice dodge, but alas, no cigar.”
No dodge. The question of visible attributes has already been brought up in religious persecution cases, and it was ruled irrelevant.
Are you dumb or blind? I’ll accept your self-declaration, either way.
@Redteam #54:
“You still didn’t show anyone where the right to be gay is IN the Constitution, as you said.”
“As I said”?
REALLY???
OK, Red, tell me where I said that there was a constitutional “right to be gay”?
Give a link, or refer to the post.
Your failure to provide such a quote will be accepted as your apology for having lied again.
.
@retire05: George has begun to be relatively humerous pretending he has insight into the Constitution.
Especially in saying that since there are many rights not mentioned in Constitution that means they are included as a right that we have just because it is NOT listed. As you pointed out. Yes, they said there are rights not mentioned, but that there would be no law concerning those rights made by the US government but if a State wanted to write a law concerning those rights, then they were free to do so, of course, without simultaneously violating one of the rights that are listed within the constitution. There is no ‘right’ to be gay, nor is there a ‘right’ to not be gay written into the constitution.
There is, written into the constitution, a prohibition against the US Government writing any law that infringes upon a person’s religious freedom. Somehow, that is not important any more. Because if a person has a religious conviction that they do not want to have to serve a homosexual, they have now violated the constitution to enact a law that infringes on your right to your freedom of religion. There are other similar usurptions of authority occuring, but one firm example serves to illustrate the point.
For any person, to not be required to associate with a homosexual person, does not infringe on the homosexual person’s rights in any way as they are still free to associate with anyone that they desire (assuming a common desire)
As in that video I linked earlier, clearly those homos had no problem discriminating against a drag queen homo. They appeared to be denying that person admission solely due to the fact (he, she, it) was wearing a wig. Or that they ‘didn’t look like their photo ID’. Do you suppose the cake bakers could verify if the customer wanting a gay wedding looked enough like their photo ID and deny them on those grounds? No, I suspect that wouldn’t fly (unless it is the homosexual cake baker wanting to use the photo ID gambit)
Have you noticed especially lately how George starts name calling when he can’t make a valid point? Good indication of frustration for not being able to play so taking his toys and going home.
I guess were I in his situation, I’d likely feel some of the same frustrations.
@George Wells: From 49
You having said this
Are you having trouble keeping up? Can’t remember what you just said? All you have to do is go back and read your previous comments. Geez I had quoted that to you in 51 above and Retire05 had quoted it to you in 53, So it was in at least 3 of the last 10 comments. More scrambled brain syndrome?
@Redteam #58:
From my #49:
From your #54:
Can’t you see that these two things aren’t the same? My statement addressed a right to gay marriage.
Your statement addressed a right to be gay.
They aren’t the same things.
Aren’t you embarrassed?
A mistake like that is caused by what?
Get some sleep. You might yet recover.
“Good indication of frustration”
You got that right. I address points of constitutional law, and you counter with snarky remarks about ass-less chaps and drag queens. Try keeping up a decent conversation for a change, and see what happens.
@Redteam:
Precisely. And the freedom to worship as one choses, and to believe, AND ACT, upon one’s faith, was so important to the authors of the Bill of Rights that they kicked the whole Bill of Rights off with that, and the freedom of the press.
What we are seeing now are designed attacks against one segment of believers, Christians, from the White House down to the gaystapo. They dare not attack Muslims, who also don’t believe in same-sex marriage, for fear of losing their heads. But Christians are truly peaceful, by doctrine, and so there is no fear in attacking Christians and labeling them “homophobe, Bible thumpers, bigots, et al.”
Do you know many gays, Redteam? Have friends that are gay? If so, as I do and have, you know that they, by nature, are not very happy people. That is why George revels in every attack against [Christian] societal values. He considers overthrowing the will of the people a victory. With every liberal/progressive court ruling, he will yell “Yeah, another victory!” but you can bet your last dollar that he would become apoplectic if someone said “Yeah, another victory!” when a gay man died of AIDS.
The Memories Pizza issue showed how angry, how violent, and how intolerant gays really are. As I have said, many times, it is not tolerance George and his ilk want; it is total, and unconditional acceptance. They will never get it.
@George Wells:
Actually, no you didn’t. What you did was bastardize a SCOTUS opinion to try to mold it to your own personal opinion.
The U.S. Constitution serves two purposes; it outlines the limited authority of the federal government and says what the federal government cannot do to the citizens of this nation. It, by no stretch of anyone’s imagination, addresses an issue that is, by 10th Amendment decree, left up to the states and to the people.
So you seem to know as much about the U.S. Constitution as you do about the history of the radical gay movement that you seem to approve of (although you make a blanket claim you do not while not providing any examples).
@retire05 #61:
I’ll stipulate that I don’t know squat.
So help me out. What in the Hell does this mean? :
“So you seem to know as much about the U.S. Constitution as you do about the history of the radical gay movement that you seem to approve of (although you make a blanket claim you do not while not providing any examples).”
Am I supposed to be providing “examples” of what I don’t know anything about???
How can I “prove” that I DIDN’T read the authors you referred to?
Can you prove that you didn’t read the Marque de Sade?
And why would I know anything about the “Radical Gay Movement”?
When was it?
Probably when I was in the Navy, or doing analytical chemistry.
I sure wasn’t unemployed or retired… or bored enough to find the time to read the trash that you evidently bone up on.
Well, I’m happy for you. You know everything, apparently, which is way more than I know.
What I DO know is what is going to happen in June, and you evidently know it too. I’m at least not too stupid for that, apparently.
And you and Redteam can spit and howl all you want, argue that it means nothing, and at the same time predict doom and gloom, for all I care, but it won’t change anything.
I put my few modest chips on this hand, and it won.
As a Republican at heart, I support your other causes, and wish you success in them. But as you did not fight at my side for MY rights, I won’t fight by your side either. Good luck.
@George Wells: From my 54: an exact quote:
Your comment:
I did say at one point, the right to be gay,l but that was not what I asked you to show. As I said 3 times, you said there was a right to Gay marriage in the constitution and I asked you to show it to me.
Aren’t I embarrassed? Not by a long shot. I’m not the victim of scrambled brain syndrome resulting in homosexuality, amongst other things. I will stipulate that you do not seem to be improving any with age.
why do you have a problem with comments about things in your world. Most gays seem to be proud, isn’t that what ‘gay pride’ is all about? Aren’t there parades advertising assless chaps? I’d assume you are comfortable talking about things you are familiar with.
When you actually find a mistake, let me know.
So you think something so simple as sleep would correct my problem. What do you think it will take to help you with your scrambled brain syndrome, I hardly think sleep will get you there. But you’re welcome to try.
@George Wells: There you go again Sweet Pea:
You know what George, at the end of June, you will still be a queer. At the end of June I and Retire will still be straight.
I think that’s what really chaps your ass, not your queer activities.
@George Wells:
You have said, repeatedly, that you don’t support the actions of radical gays. Yet, with every word you type, that is disproven.
I didn’t ask if you read them. I said you agreed with them.
de Sade was a person. You mean he wrote a book? Who knew?
Do you know who Harvey Milk was and what his agenda was? Never heard of him? Perhaps you live in a cave, but I doubt it since you seem to have internet service. To claim that you are not aware of “anything” about the radical gay movement shows you are either totally dishonest or blatantly stupid.
Perhaps you can share with us all where you purchased your crystal ball? To claim to know what the court will do, and how Justice Kennedy will rule, is a fool’s folly. Remember, many said that Citizens United would lose. Many more said that Hobby Lobby would lose. To totally turn societal norms up on its end, and totally void the 10th Amendment, will be a tough call for the SCOTUS.
Just remember this, George; as I lose my rights, so you will lose yours. Totalitarian authority will eventually turn on even those that supported them. It’s the nature of the beast. The appetite of the leviathan is never sated.
From the Sunday Review, by Frank Bruni:
Something tells me he hasn’t checked with the Islamists.
@retire05:
Today is Easter, the Day of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I wish for you and yours all the love in the World.
Happy Easter!
@George Wells:
I do not “seem to say” any such thing. Read precisely what I wrote, not what your revisionism “seems” to want me to have written. Your perversions of what I wrote are from your own mind not mine.
You are not “pointing out the law”, you continue to misrepresent it. You are obnoxious because of your anti-religious bigotry, which is clear in the pictures you paint of those who follow any system of belief that dares disagree with with LGBT activists or those of faith who flatly refuse to bend your.political agenda.
It is clear to me that what your radical “social justice” LBGT friends are doing, is purposely searching out businesses whose owners hold a religious belief against gay marriage and refuse to participate, and maliciously targeting them for destruction. (It’s also interesting to note that these LGBT activists have not targeted Muslim businesses). You know full well that if one business refuses your commission that there are other businesses that will. But you don’t care about that. Your goal is not equality, but conquest, destruction and the persecution of these religious business-persons. That’s fascism, which we will continue to oppose.
A government that forces someone into labor that violates their religious beliefs, can only be considered an oppressive fascist regime. The Constitution and the Framers of it expressively did not support creating a democracy because that always leads to oppression and fascism.
@Redteam:
George doesn’t really care about the Constitution, nor does he understand all the icky basic principals of constitutional law (you know that “supreme Law of the Land” stuff of which the 1st Amendment’s “free exercise of religion clause” is part) and how it relates when it butts up against unconstitutional state laws or lower court rulings. You see he thinks that “jurisprudence” by, (oh, say the 9th District Court,) is binding on the SCOTUS. The radical left only recognize the Constitution as a tool to use against itself when convenient, in order to transform the US into a totalitarian state.
@Ditto #68:
(George): “If the restaurateur has a sign in the window explaining that he does not serve Blacks, your position would seem to be that a black should walk away… not make an issue, not try to establish the point that he has an equal right to be served in public accommodations.”
(Ditto): “I do not “seem to say” any such thing. Read precisely what I wrote, not what your revisionism “seems” to want me to have written.”
My apologies, Ditto. My “seem to say” comment indicated what I THOUGHT you meant a Black person should do when faced with a “NO BLACKS” sign. I made that “perverted” leap of logic because if that Black fellow DIDN’T walk away and look for another establishment that WOULD serve him, what else was he supposed to do?
My position was, and is, that if a person encounters a situation in which:
#1. Someone is breaking the law,
#2. The witnessing person is being harmed by the infraction,
#3. The person being harmed is in a position to remedy the infraction, and
#4. The person being harmed agrees with the law in the first place,
then the witnessing/harmed person has a duty to himself AND to the society to NOT walk away from the infraction.
The constitutional guarantees of freedom and equality are not toothless. Violations of the law are punished aggressively in the hopes that such vigor will serve as a deterrent against further infractions. You, or anyone else, breaks the law at your own peril. If you disagree with the law, you are free to “fund-my-stupidity” and donate to your cash to criminals. or you can support organizations that work within the system to change the laws, as I do.
You assume too much. My goals have all been met. My comments now are simply observational. Gay activists are attempting too much, too fast. They’re young, I suppose, and eager. They’ll learn.
As far as the 9th Circuit is concerned, it’s pretty much a joke, wouldn’t you agree? They have by far the worst reversal record of any circuit, and it’s a fair bet to put your money that they WILL be reversed on any given decision they post. That said, I have to wonder why you bother to associate them with me. Ahhhh, but of course… you are still stuck on that notion that I’m a liberal. Figures. Everyone here seems to believe that there are only two possibilities in the universe: BLACK and WHITE. Nothing is quite so simple, Ditto. If you could get past that error, we could have some decent conversations. I support more of your positions than you would believe, I’m sure.
@George Wells:
You’ve repeated that general statement many times, but have yet to give anyone an example of anything you are conservative about.
“you seem to say” that if someone encountered a sign at a business that said, “the business is a Christian business and we prefer to not serve gay persons” then the person reading the sign has an obligation to go in and ‘force’ the business to deal with them. But suppose they go in and don’t identify themselves as homosexuals and have no problem with the business. Should they then go back and tell the people they are homosexuals and that they appreciate the business not making an issue of them being homosexual?
Just curious George, if it were your issue, how would you force a Christian doctor to perform an abortion, if he didn’t want to do so? You and I both know that will never happen. In fact, the government is doing all they can to shut down all abortions, even tho they’re legal.
@Redteam #70:
I’ve listed the conservative issues I support so many times that I should have saved a document of them to cut and paste each time one of you wing-nuts flies off about me being a liberal. Why should I bother to do it again? You obviously can’t remember from one day to the next, so why do you even bother to ask?
Next question:
“Just curious George, if it were your issue, how would you force a Christian doctor to perform an abortion, if he didn’t want to do so?”
And here’s ANOTHER example of the same failure to remember a blessed thing I say. This whole fracas has nothing at all to do with “forcing” anyone to provide ANYTHING that they are not already in the business of providing. Why on Earth can’t you get that through your thick skull? Now pay attention:
1. NOBODY is asking a Jewish Deli to serve Chitterlings.
2. NOBODY is asking a Muslim grocer to sell Kosher meats.
3. NOBODY is asking an ophthalmologist to perform abortions.
4. NOBODY is asking Home Depot to sell ice-cream.
5. NOBODY is asking a florist to bake cakes, or a baker to sell flowers.
6. NOBODY is asking a restaurateur to sell reading glasses to gays.
ARE YOU BEGINNING TO SEE A PATTERN YET?
It’s not about making ANYONE provide a good or service that they are not ALREADY in the business of providing.
It is about to WHOM they ARE providing the services that they ARE in the business of providing.
If a restaurant is in the business of serving nothing but hotdogs to patrons, they need to serve hotdogs to any and all law-abiding patrons, PERIOD. Not pizzas, not Phillip’s head screwdrivers, not pineapples. HOTDOGS.
Every doctor is certified (by whichever Board of Medicine in his state controls the practice he or she is in) to perform procedures consistent with his preparatory and continuing education. Doctors don’t get certified to perform procedures they don’t want to perform, and they would be guilty of malpractice if they performed such procedures WITHOUT being certified to do so. A “Christian doctor” who didn’t want to perform abortions would not have “abortions” on his curriculum vitae, would not be certified to provide abortions, would not have “abortions” on his “services-provided” brochure, not on his Yellow-Pages” advertisement, not on his office door, would not have an “abortion” disclaimer for a patient to sign, wouldn’t have the necessary surgical instruments (they are function-specific) and likely wouldn’t know where to begin if you held a gun to his head.
Neither would the Muslim grocer know where to get Kosher meats, and you can’t make him learn. Not because he’s stupid (like some people, who are evidently as dumb as dirt) but because nobody has a right to force someone to provide ANYTHING that they are not already in the business of providing. This distinction should apply to the cake-baker as well. If a baker makes extraordinarily wonderful wedding cakes, he should be willing to provide exactly the same cake to a straight couple as to a gay couple. He would NOT be responsible for providing a plastic little couple of dudes in tuxedos to put on the top of the cake IF HE WAS NOT OTHERWISE IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING PLASTIC LITTLE COUPLES OF DUDES IN TUXEDOS.
I’m baffled over the fact that every other conservative who is screaming about religious freedom is making this same bizarre argument of confused logic. It isn’t about WHAT is being served, it is about WHO is being served.
I have a few questions about who I can serve in my restraint. Can I deny food service to drunks who are disrupting my place of business? Can I expel someone from my place of business who uses language distasteful to me? Can I refuse to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple that depicts human genitals? Do I not have the right to refuse service to people who want me to deny my religious beliefs? (This is not based upon race, creed or religion.) Should gay couples provide some type of proof that they belong to a protected class instead of just saying they belong to a protected class? Please enlighten me oh wise ones!
@George Wells:
Slipped a cog there, George. and NOBODY is asking a gynocologist to perform an abortion unless it is absolutely necessary, not just ‘a choice’.
Is that a ‘gay’ thing?
Are you saying that if a Muslim butcher routinely butchers animals that he could be forced to butcher a hog? Yeah, sure.
actually the Home Depot near me does sell some food products.
You seem to have forgotten that you said the ‘right to a gay marriage’ is in the Constitution and you have been asked to tell us where and you are ignoring the request. I’m gonna guess that your thorough search was unable to uncover it. How appropriate it was Easter weekend. I guess that Easter egg just couldn’t be found.
So if you’re not in the business of catering Gay weddings, you won’t have to? Or are you gonna try to say you didn’t say it? I gonna stipulate that to be in the ‘business of catering gay weddings’ that you have to have actually ‘catered a gay wedding’.
Now you’re not being consistent:
who decides what a ‘law abiding’ patron is? Is that a judgement call? Why can someone judge if someone is law abiding but not whether they want to cater their wedding? Isn’t who you serve being good for your business a judgement call? Could the wedding caterer just deny the gay person access into the store based on whether they are ‘law abiding’ or not? Since a gay in drag with a wig can be denied access into a gay bar, why can’t a gay be denied access into a cake shop? There is a liquor store near me with the sign, No shirt, no shoes, no service, but I’ve seen persons in there without shoes. Is not wearing shoes more objectionable than being gay? Less objectionable? So when the gay guy starts in the store just say ‘whoops, your shirt is the wrong color for today, come back some other time and wear the correct color shirt’. Of course that is a metaphor, but why not?
All your BS about doctors and abortions is BS. An abortion could be a medical emergency, required to save a life. In those cases, it is not a violation of Christian belief. To perform an abortion for birth control would be a sin to them. So I’m saying a regular gyn doctor would know ‘how’ to perform an abortion, they just don’t approve of doing them voluntarily, and currently are not required to do so anywhere in the US. (note, they also can’t be required to perform an abortion on a gay guy either)
Strange you use this example:
On “The Good Wife” they used that example of what someone would be ‘forced to do’ and they said if you normally put a plastic man and woman on a cake you would be forced to put two men on a cake. (This was a rehearsal for a trial involving those issues)
I don’t see why you are confused about that. You’ve seen the drag queen being refused entry into the gay bar by the feminine bearded guy, would you say they are denying (he,she, it) admission because of who(he, she,it) is, or because of what (he,she,it) is?
George, once you have the Christians in line, are you gonna attack the Islamists next. You gonna make them accept gays?
@Randy:
Excellent question Randy. Similar to ones I’ve asked and no gay seems to want to take that question on?
Another question. Does a couple have to ‘actually be gay’ to have a gay wedding? Suppose the wedding planner denies them, then they say they’re gay. Do they have to prove it?
No one seems to have a problem with a doorman admitting or not admitting for various ‘questionable’ reasons. For example you are wearing a wig but your id does not show you in a wig, so no go. OR, you’re drunk and unruly? huh? by whose standards? give me a breathalyzer test.
@George Wells:
How about this one, George?
“Tolerance is a two-way street,” Santorum continued. “If you are a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church?”
Read more at http://conservativevideos.com/santorum-should-gay-printers-be-forced-to-make-god-hates-fags-signs-for-westboro-baptist-church/#hQ2reDoFFJXf3Uv6.99
@George Wells:
You keep trotting out that false premise of yours as if it were true, when it patently isn’t. None of the persecuted business persons has refused all business with gays (or blacks, or Muslims or Jews, etc… They have only refused to participate in gay weddings because they see it as a violation of their religion.
It’s currently passover, yet by your false argument, if a Black entered a Kosher Jewish Baker and demanded that they bake them a loaf of challah during passover (against their religious doctrine during those eight days), your claim would be that these Jews are being racist.
Your argument doesn’t hold water. The Supreme Court is not going to throw the guaranteed First Amendment rights of “religious free exercise” under the bus to please a bunch of radicals on a malicious crusade to destroy religious businesses. They (and we) are also all quite aware about how the far left is going after other free speech rights of the religious community, proceeding cases to strip them of their non-profit status.
The majority of your postings on Flopping Aces belies that. You and your fellow radicals are on a “social-justice” jihad against established religion. You are fascists pushing the US into totalitarianism. We reject your claim to ‘supporting our positions’ as nothing more than the same kind of lies we get from establishment RINOs.
@Ditto:
Of course he does, and that is his whole purpose here at FA. Trot out hypotheticals as if they are fact. The fact is that NO baker refused to bake a cake a gay, NO florist refused to provide flowers to a gay person, NO pizzeria refused to serve a gay ordering a pizza over the phone or standing at the counter.
What the baker did do was refuse to provide extra services which would have required them to a) participate in the same-sex ceremony by delivering a cake and setting it up and b) provide a message of support by what was written on the cake or what topped it. The florist that was sued refused to deliver flowers to a same-sex wedding ceremony. Each one of these cases entailed more than just the baking of a cake or the making of flower arrangements.
But those facts are not going to stop the gaystapo. You see, they’re after Christians and the goal is to make sure that anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage is made to pay for that belief by experiencing great person loss. YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE. One way or another.
Picture this: two people work together in a company that has a number of employees. One of them is gay and invited all the other employees to their same-sex wedding. One of them is a Christian who doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage. Where does that leave the Christian? They either risk losing their job being labeled a bigot if they refuse to attend based on their faith, or they lie about why they can’t make the wedding between two men/women. Who is the one then being persecuted? Certainly not the gay who demands “equal” rights but the Christian whose religious beliefs are guaranteed by the First Amendment.
300 companies wrote an amicus brief to the SCOTUS supporting same-sex marriage. What if Christians in American started refusing to support those companies? Do those companies think they could continue to exist based on dollars earned from the gay community only? No, they couldn’t and when Christians have had enough, and cease doing business with companies that support same-sex marriage, you will see a total reversal on the part of those companies. The bottom line for them is the dollar, not political correctness or pandering to one segment of our society.
These radical actions by those like George (who will be quick to tell you he doesn’t support “radical” actions but is also quick to try to rub the tide into your face, or mine) will see a backlash that is coming. And then, everyone loses.
@Ditto #76:
“If the restaurateur has a sign in the window explaining that he does not serve Blacks…
“You keep trotting out that false premise of yours as if it were true, when it patently isn’t.”
What isn’t true?
Redteam might jump up and down clapping his hands while he drools uncontrollably, but you haven’t made it clear enough for me to understand your meaning.
You know that such signs (“We don’t serve Blacks”) were common in your and my youth, right?
Why were they there?
What “Law” made it reasonable and tolerable that law-abiding Black citizens could be excluded at will from public accommodations?
(This is a serious question I am asking.)
THEN:
In 1964 some civil rights legislation capped some noisy and at times courageous civil rights advocacy, and both the public mood and legal outcomes shifted to more accurately accommodate what the Constitution had for a long time maintained about equal rights and equal treatment for all.
“FOR ALL” finally applied to Blacks.
As far as I am aware, no distinction was ever made regarding whether or not alternative restaurants were available for the excluded Blacks to patronize.
Neither was a legal distinction made between those services that were “non-essential,” “discretionary” or “not life-dependent” on the one hand as opposed to those services that could not be foregone without mortal consequences.
In the eyes of the law, that Black fellow now had as much a right to a pizza in a White pizzeria as he had a right to be treated promptly in an emergency room.
Now, I’m not exactly sure why some of the commenters here seem to think that the right to service only applies to members of “protected” classes of people. It has long been my understanding that such a right to service in a public accommodation belongs to any and all law-abiding citizens.
Yes, I fully appreciate that the Republican-dominated Congress has refused to add “sexual orientation” to the non-discrimination legislation that covers some by-definition “protected” classes. But my admittedly incomplete understanding of the Law tells me that the sort of discrimination against gay people that is being advocated in the name of “religious freedom” is fundamentally wrong, and more dangerously, if allowed to spread, can and eventually WILL be allowed to refuse life-saving services to anyone that the provider wants to exclude FOR ANY REASON.
Precisely:
What “test” is in effect to assure that a “religious objection” is genuinely “religious” as opposed to simply selfish?
What “test” is applied to assure that the refused service does no harm to the excluded individual?
What limit, if any exists to control the damage to “unprotected classes?
What law covers this?
There are those who would combine the freedom of association with the freedom of religion in such a manner as to exempt them from respecting any other constitutionally guaranteed rights, as they wish.
My humble understanding of the Law suggests that there is no such free discrimination pass to be found in the Constitution.
I recognize that oftentimes there are conflicts between different rights and freedoms as are enumerated in the Constitution, and that it falls to the SCOTUS to sort them out and – as wisely as possible – to balance these opposing rights to the benefit and the preservation of as much freedom for as many people as is possible.
It may well be that the SCOTUS will favor those who would discriminate against gays, for there are likely many more of them than there are gays people. But I think that instead they will find some moderate accommodation that will satisfy neither side and at the same time preserve some rights for both.
I think that this would be best.
You might bother to note that I have not demanded anything. I have repeatedly PREDICTED what I think will happen, and I have explained the reasoning I have drawn upon to arrive at those predictions. I am doing this conversationally, and I make a point not to insult you, call you obnoxious, etc., because it otherwise distracts from the point of the discussion. I am happy to be shown where my understanding of the Law is flawed, and I have given you ample opportunities to enlighten me. Please, do me the honor.
@Redteam #73:
Our conversations have become intolerably dysfunctional.
If you would like to continue them, do so with civility, and I will respectfully return the favor.
And if you would like to receive answers to your questions FROM ME, ask a few and stop.
You asked at least 14 questions in #73, and they cannot all be equally important. Pick something you want to talk about and stay focused.
Thanks.
@retire05 #77:
“These radical actions by those like George (who will be quick to tell you he doesn’t support “radical” actions but is also quick to try to rub the tide into your face, or mine) will see a backlash that is coming. And then, everyone loses.”
If the current direction that you so strenuously object to DOES reverse, how does EVERYONE lose?
Wouldn’t everything just go back to the way it was, with gays stuffed back into closets, and bigots free to exercise their… bigotry unpunished?
What part of gay liberation do you NOT want to see destroyed?
For the record.
@Redteam:
Just a few of George’s comments toward you.
Now he says:
George seems to want to put his hypocrisy on full display.
@Redteam #75:
The State of Virginia is in the business of selling “personalized” license plates. The State allows many types of messages, but by published policy refuses to issue tags that are “offensive,” along with an assortment of other “prohibited” massages. This policy applies to every potential customer, and as the DMV doesn’t often get to know its customers personally, there is little doubt that the policy is administered fairly. Although there isn’t enough room on a tag to spell out “God Hates Fags,” the DMV would certainly not issue such a message, and it has a team of researchers to catch abbreviations like “G.H. F’s” or some such, so those might also be refused.
Similarly, printers usually carry some restrictions on what they are willing to print as well, these restrictions being in some cases dictated by ordinance, and in other cases by provisions contained in their liability insurance policies.
A printer who posts a sign saying “WE PRINT ANYTHING” would be obliged to print as many “GOD HATES FAGS” signs as the Westboro Baptist Church is willing to buy, regardless of the printer’s “feelings”.
@retire05 #81:
I didn’t say “Yours,”
I said
OUR CONVERSATIONS.
I took credit for my half of the problem.
If Redteam is man enough to take credit for his half, we can start over.
Like I said, it has become childishly tiresome, and distracting from the merits of BOTH sides of the argument.
How can you have a problem with that?
@retire05 #77:
“300 companies wrote an amicus brief to the SCOTUS supporting same-sex marriage.”
Companies in the business of making money.
“What if Christians in American started refusing to support those companies?’
The majority of Christians support gay marriage. YOU already announced that YOU would stop buying APPLE products. What happened?
“Do those companies think they could continue to exist based on dollars earned from the gay community only?”
The 2% of gay people in the population might have a slightly higher proportion of discretionary income due to statistically fewer dependents, but their impact on consumer purchasing patterns is insignificant.
What IS significant is the impact that “millennials” have on consumer purchasing patterns. The YOUNG are by far the greatest purchasers of technology, and the YOUNG support gay marriage by about 80%. Notice how heavy in technology that list of 300 companies was? They know who their customers are and what issues their customers support. That Amicus Brief was nothing more than free advertising to those company’s target market.
Notice that no companies that make potty chairs and walkers – or operate nursing homes – signed on to the thing?
Notice that you never see a Game-Boy, “World-of-War Craft” video game or other such nonsense at your local nursing home?
Wonder why?
Do you really think that the 70% of the folks on Social Security who object to gay marriage are a COMMERCIAL force to be reckoned with? (Other than for adult incontinence products?)
Do you?
@George Wells:
Actually, my problem is with you personally. Oh, not because you’re queer, but because I find you less than honest, duplicitous and tend to not answer questions when you know that any answer given by you cannot be supported.. You are, also, here at FA for only one reason; to push the gay movement (agenda) in spite of the fact that you have denied knowledge of any “radical” gay movement.
It is YOU I don’t like, although I do have definite opinions on homosexuality that I have already given you.
Really? Based on what poll? Remember, you said the majority of Christians support gay marriage.
When looking for a devise made by Apple, I purchased a competitive brand. I will not purchase an Apple product. Nor do I purchase any products made by Heinz.
Only because of the infiltration into the educational system by gays and other radical leftists. And I suspect that infiltration is the very reason we are seeing a surge in home schooling and low cost Christians schools.
Most certainly. Who do you think is buying high ticket items such as RVs and boats and other things that people can now enjoy when they retire? Do you think it is your “millennials” that are purchasing high end vehicles, the things mentioned above? I remember you bragging how you had purchased gold at a good price and are now well situated. Do you think your precious “millennials” have that kind of money? In case you haven’t noticed, their average income is decreasing, not increasing. News flash, George; 62 is the new 45.
As to your nursing home reference, since I don’t have a reason to frequent nursing homes, I don’t know what they have their for their residents. Guess that is your line of expertise.
Odd that someone who whines about bigotry toward gays has no problem showing age bigotry. But then, that’s you, George; a hypocrite to the enth degree.
@George Wells: 78
George, I know you can’t help yourself, but that is a ‘gay’ activity. It’s not something straight males do.
That’s not the subject at all. stay on subject. It’s the having to deliver the pizza to the gay guys house and serve it to him.
Huh? The US Constitution, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’
Now I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that means “NO LAW”., It doesn’t mean ‘in some cases’ or to ‘suit some gays’ etc. NO LAW seems to be very clear.
Who in the hell are you trying to fool? I pointed out just yesterday how many names you call me ‘out of frustration’ of your not being capable of making a serious argument. Once you know you’ve lost, you start name calling. Always have.
Just to buck up your point, as of Feb 2015 just 3 in 10 women over 65 rely only on SS for their income.
Just 2 in 10 men over 65 rely on SS only for their income.
Apparently all of those are from ”the Left.”
@George Wells:
That’s not true at all. I pointed out the other day how many times you called me names and I never, not one time called you a name. The civility is all on one side, and it ain’t yours.
I don’t give a damn if you answer my questions or not. In most cases I recognize you don’t answer them because you know it would make your side look foolish. Other times, you just don’t have an aswer. But I will continue to write any question I think of and since it is not your custom to answer questions (because you can’t) I don’t really expect an answer. I didn’t expect you to answer all those questions in 73. You can’t. There is no answer that fits your mantra.
@retire05: LOL
There, fixed it for you.
@George Wells: 82
is that a gay thing?
Who decides that? in fact, who decides who decides that? Will a gay person think the same things are offensive that straights think are? Do blacks consider the N word to be offensive? I would say in that case, it depends on who uses the N word. ever hear a rap song by a black rapper? full of N words. is it offensive? it is to me, but apparently not to black people. Suppose the vote on the committee is split 50-50 that it’s offensive, is it allowed? Is 50-50 the right point to declare it offensive, or not? Who decides? Suppose it is offensive to me that a gay is on the committee to decide what’s offensive, does my offensiveness count or only the gay’s?
Really? in who’s opinion? fairly to who? who decides?
Do the gays have a right to object or sue the printer? who decides?
@George Wells:
Problem is you were about 95% of the name calling. I answer your questions, as all conservatives do, the others never answer. That’s because they never have a winning point. I wouldn’t answer either if there were no appropriate answer.
I don’t actually take any responsibility for the poor argument that you have and your failure to answer questions and your name calling. Blame it on ‘who’ not ‘what’.
Retire05 said:
George better get tuned up for nursing homes. Gays life expectancy is quite a bit shortened by the side benefits of gaity. I’d be checking out some nursing homes if I were in your situation, George. Just saying.
@Redteam #90:
The DMV of the State of Virginia decides what is “offensive”
The courts agree that this decision belongs to the DMV.
And in answer to the additional questions posed in this series:
A citizen always has the right to appeal a decision made by the State to disallow a personalized tag.
The State of Virginia disallows the “N” word.
It doesn’t matter WHICH person or WHICH group considers a word or message to be offensive. What matters is that the STATE considers it offensive.
(Sometimes tags are issued that are then reported to the State as being offensive, and then such tags are replaced and the personalized fee refunded, the tags found offensive being no longer valid.)
I don’t know how many individuals are on the “committee” or what happens if there is a difference of opinion. (That question has never been an issue.)
If you have a problem with how the Virginia State DMV decides what is offensive, you are welcome to take the question up with the anyone in the Department who is willing to listen, or you have a right to take them to court.
(You ALWAYS have that right. You do NOT have a right to have every complaint go to trial, as many frivolous complaints are thrown out by whatever judge is assigned to them.)
“Objecting” isn’t a legally significant action in the sense that you are using it in this question. Anyone, gay or otherwise, has a right to “sue” if they believe that they have been harmed by the actions of another. That doesn’t mean that they will prevail in court. They would have to demonstrate significant harm in order to have a reasonable chance of winning. I doubt that proving such harm would be easy, but I’m not the judge of that.
There. I answered every one of your questions. I answered them honestly, and to the best of my ability. I answered them without insulting you.
Three questions in return:
Did you learn anything that you did not already know?
If you already knew the answers, why did you ask the questions in the first place?
What difference does it make how the Virginia State Department of Motorized Vehicles administers its personalized license tag program?
@retire05 #85:
“Actually, my problem is with you personally… It is YOU I don’t like.”
That’s helpful.
@George Wells:
Is that a machine? Does it have a brain? Who decides what info is given to the DMV for them to make a decision on? Are any humans associated with the decisions or is it just a Dept that does it?
The ‘state’ disallows it? how asinine. Are any humans involved? Who picks the humans? Are they all Black? are any black? are any white? Do they disallow the W word? Have they asked the W’s if they want the W word disallowed?
isn’t the ‘state’ rather inanimate? is that just so no one can be ‘blamed’?
@Nanny G #87:
“RVs and boats and other things that people can now enjoy when they retire?”
I’ll “buck up” that point too. MY point WASN’T that retirees don’t have income, it was that retirees aren’t spending large amounts of money on the same things that millennials are spending on, and that those 300 companies that Retire05 was upset about having signed onto an amicus brief in favor of gay marriage aren’t companies that do a lot of business with the geriatric crowd. Can that possibly be in contention? Were there any RV manufacturers in that list of companies? Boat manufacturers? Florida Condo Builders?
The short list I saw included companies that cater to a somewhat younger demographic than the group that is the most hostile to gay marriage. I didn’t see the complete list of amicus brief signers, and I might be wrong, but I suspect – as I already indicated – that the signing companies did so for reasons calculated to increase their bottom lines, not damage them. All business carries risk, and this instance is no different, but those companies probably know where their business needs to be on this issue better than we do.
You ARE aware that the old folk who are 80% against gay marriage are dying off and being replaced my youngsters who APPROVE of it by the same margin, right? Your precious Retire05 acknowledges as much when she accuses gay teachers of indoctrinating the youth of America to acceptance of all things homosexual. I can’t recall her producing any evidence to support that hypothesis, but I suppose that it could be true. I was under the impression that the “sea change” is the result of young people knowing other gay youth and appreciating that they are not monsters, but maybe “brain-washing” is also going on. It certainly sounds more sinister, doesn’t it?
@Redteam #94:
I answered most of the 17 questions you asked.
You refused to answer any of the three questions I asked.
Conversation is a two-way street.
@George Wells:
The false premise you keep making is that these businesses are refusing to sell or provide services to gays. That is simply not true. None of these businesses have put up signs saying said “No Gays”. Since they haven’t done so, your comparison to segregation and the racial and sexual equality laws is invalid as is all your overly verbose claims spouting the same invalid argument over and over. What these business owners have refused to do is violate their religious rights by participating in a ceremony that is incompatible with their faith. Their right to free expression of their religion is in the Constitution. Your claim that they have to give surrender their Constitutional rights, and violate their religious convictions to serve the political will of totalitarian, religion hating bigots has nothing to do with equality. It is the fascist bulling of hateful gays, who certainly could easily find many businesses willing to take their money, but have instead searched out Christian establishments to persecute and destroy, because these hate-filled gays refuse to allow others to have an opinion and belief contradictory to that of the LGBT and far-left.
I have continually here on FA made it very clear that I am neither Democrat, Republican nor even Libertarian but a staunch Constitutionalist (Conservative towards the limited powers granted a small government, yet Liberal towards the interpretation of the Bill of Rights recognized as belonging to the people and the states). I have supported the rights of gays to join in civil unions. Until today, I was actually on the fence about gay marriage. But now that I have read your continual chest beatings, and experienced the open activism of the LGBT whose “social-warriors” are demanding that the ‘religious right’ must surrender up their First Amendment “Free Exercise” rights, I must admit George, you have forced my hand. I have been converted. I am no longer on the fence. I will instead stand with my fellow Constitutional Conservatives in support of the “Religious Right’ their First Amendment rights against the religious persecution of the radical fascist-socialist left. Up your revolution.
@George Wells:
Once again you show that you don’t know your butt from a biscuit. Who do you think uses the products of companies like Bristol Myers Squibb, Cigna, Aetna, AIG, CVS more? Your precious indoctrinated millennials or what you insultingly call “geriatrics?” How about companies like American Airlines, Direct TV, Comcast, General Mills? Think it is the beloved millennials spending all that money with those companies?
@Ditto:
George, and people like George, don’t give a damn about your Constitutional rights. They only care about being made a “protected” class so that they can force their views on you using the strong arm of the law. Tolerance, same-sex marriage was never the goal. The goal is purely political; forced acceptance. It’s all about power.
We were all told “Don’t worry. The religious right will not be threatened if gay “rights” are granted by the government.” Well, we have seen that not to be true. Now businesses, owned by those who hold religious convictions, are being sued out of business. The business owners are being threatened, having to close up shop, losing their livelihoods, and having their own futures put in jeopardy.
Gay protesters have marched with signs saying “Gay Rights or Gay Riots.” That should have told everyone where this was headed. In California, a failed state like New York, churches were vandalized, pastors were threatened, having their homes set on fire, and other such violent actions by gay “rights” advocates.
And to what end? If same-sex marriage is forced on the entire United States by the courts, and not the states or the people, what is next? Name one social engineering program that has worked out well. Schools were desegregated and what happened? Minority children are still stuck in failing inner-city schools because people are basically tribal and live near their own kind. Our educational system is a disaster with kids getting out of high school barely literate.
Same with the feminist movement. Are women really better off and they are used, made pregnant then dumped by men who have no respect for them. Has the number of single mothers in poverty gone down, or up? Abortion was supposed to be safe, and rare. How did that work out? How many millions of babies have been aborted?
Same sex marriage will lead to legalized polygamy. Then where do we move the bar to? Marriage between adult siblings? Parent and child? With your dog? How far do we move the societal bar? And George can whine and lament how that will never happen but we already have TV shows about a polygamous family called Sister Wives.
@Ditto #97:
Where did I ever make such a claim, so poorly written or otherwise?
Is that the solution that the law requires? To go somewhere else?
Not something that I’ve ever done or supported.
I will happily concede that there has never been a “no-gays” sign if you would kindly tell me what law prevents them. To the best of my knowledge there is no such law.
“Until today, I was actually on the fence about gay marriage.”
I recall no such ambivalence. You have been attacking my advocacy from the start, and you never demurred from accusatory hyperbole of the “leftist-socialist-Marxist-fascist” sort. But claiming otherwise sure sounds better, doesn’t it?
Otherwise, I am happy to have assisted you in the resolution of your political confusion. Your convictions must have been particularly weak to have been so easily swayed by such an ineffectual a writer as myself. I appreciate the compliment.
@retire05 #98:
You seem to agree that approximately 2% of the population is gay. Of that 2%, what portion would you estimate are “radical fascist-socialist gay activists”?
In other words, what tiny fraction of the population in this great land is causing such terrible social devastation that the other 99.9% of THE PEOPLE are powerless to stop it?
I think that your characterization of the problem being caused by the over-reach of a tiny fraction of noisy activists is immensely overstated.
Those activists hold no leverage on the direction of the courts, and have precious little influence on the vast majority of voters. What is influencing the majority opinion in America is the witness of individual gay citizens and neighbors who the general population has come to know and trust. Their welcomed association within the wider community has changed minds that court decisions could never influence. The forced minor victories of the litigious activists will be short-lived, but the bonds forged through honest and open communication will long endure.
I am afraid that the sky is not falling…