Andrew Walker:
When Ed Schultz orders the microphone to be turned off because he’s getting schooled about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), we know not to expect the Left to answer for its many sins when talking about religious liberty.
And given the liberal misinformation regime, don’t assume the Left to be held accountable for the principles that that lead to its protest against religious liberty. But the moment we’re in requires us to think critically about the perilous state of our constitutional rights and the Left’s hostility toward them.
Policies come to us with principles attached to them, and when debating public policy we should consider the principles not only of legislation that has passed but also of legislation that has been rejected. No one to my knowledge is discussing where the principles implied in the Left’s rejection of the RFRA lead. Responsible statecraft entails an examination of a principle’s logical conclusion. In the case of liberalism, the conclusions to which its principles lead help us see just how deeply opposed those principles are to the constitutional order we’ve inherited.
When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites compelled speech. When photographers are forced under threat of fines to shoot weddings or religious services that they believe are immoral, the assumption is that we are sometimes legally bound to participate in certain kinds of speech, and the state becomes the arbiter of what that speech is in specific instances.
When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it welcomes the erosion of free association. When the state can deem codes of conduct or membership statements to be irrational prejudice, it diminishes the ability of citizens to associate or to organize for a cause.
@George Wells:
Ah, my, the old dog eared “bigot” card. News flash; a medical power of attorney is NOT a contract. It is an assignment of authority. I told you long ago that you wasted your money on what ever lawyer you hired for that erroneous piece of legal advise. You told me that it was given pro bono at a dinner party. Hope the lawyer picked up the tab for dinner because he sure doesn’t seem (from your description) like a reliable source of legal advise.
Well, it damn sure doesn’t mean that you can only assign as the agent, of your medical power of attorney, someone you are legally married to. That would prevent a mother from assigning her son, daughter as agent. It would mean that single people could not assign that power to a family member or friend that was not a spouse. (and exactly what are you contracting for by assigning an agent on a medical power of attorney?)
Now, maybe you can convince someone of that bullshit, but I ain’t one of them.
@George Wells:
Ooooh, sour grapes, Just because you got “outed’ as being made a fool of and not even knowing it, now you want to share some of the embarrassment, sorry Sweet Pea, but that doesn’t work, you were the one made a fool of, can’t nobody bite off any of that for you.
I know. You didn’t even know that you had the right to put whoever you desired on your hospital forms. You let some gay activist lawyer that wanted to make a buck sell you and yours a big bill of goods and you bought it. You got zero bang for the buck. You have precisely and exactly the same rights in a hospital today as you had in 2005, not more, not less. You didn’t ‘get it’ you already had it. Here’s your Sign.
@retire05 #51:
No, less-than-brilliant one, I’m not asking you what it DOESN’T mean.
I’m asking you what it DOES mean.
Haven’t got a clue?
That’s a good enough reason for the courts to throw it out, wouldn’t you think?
Notice how I’m not “demanding” anything?
I’m just asking questions, and you can’t even deal with that.
@George Wells:
Oh you silly goose, you’re kidding, right? let’s say that it actually does ‘ban contractual arrangements that convey marriage-like rights’. The problem is, the example you’ve been using for your illustration and example is hospital rights, which were not covered in that ‘contractual arrangement that convey marriage-like right’. So whilst you probably really did get some rights that you didn’t have, those that you’ve been claiming that meant so much to you, were not even involved. You already had those rights. You, dear boy, were buffaloed. You were the goat in three card monte. Here’s your Sign.
@George Wells:
One thing for damn sure, you can’t ‘answer’ any question. You start the whole scenario that your lover (girl,boy, it) couldn’t go in the hospital with you because you weren’t married, then you find out it doesn’t even have to be a spouse and that no legal document is required to prove who the person is or what relation, if any, they are to you, then you want to claim that some legal contractual marrige-like arrangement was necessary for someone to be that hospital companion. But then you are shown a form from 2005 and 2015 and the requirements are identical, but you still want to claim that you now have some right you didn’t have before. And you think you’re ‘brilliant’. So is ‘illusion’ another symptom of SBS? Here’s your Sign.
@George Wells:
It means what it said. It doesn’t eliminate the ability for one to assign an agent with medical powers of attorney. It doesn’t mean that unless you are legally married you will be denied the right to enforce your “assignment” to an agent.
Funny, the gay movement got their Hanes all in a wad over what (to quote you) it doesn’t mean.
Sure you are. You are demanding rights be applied to you that you are not entitled to. You got those in Virginia, via (once again) judicial fiat, not because you convinced a majority of the population to support your perverted choices.
Sure I can. It is you, George, that seems to want to run from direct questions.
Time to give up, George. You’ve been outed for the phony you are.
@Redteam:
Now that’s funny.
I can’t address Virginia, as I have never practiced there.
In Washington, Texas, and Indiana, medical privacy laws prevent doctors from sharing any medical information on a patient without that patient’s express approval UNLESS that patient is unconscious AND the person is a “family member”, or has a medical power of attorney. This includes medical decision making for the patient. State law regarding homosexual unions can affect how physicians act, given that violations of medical privacy laws carry up to $25,000 for each violation. Theoretically, in a state that does not give legal status to homosexual unions, a physician would be between a rock and a hard place if an unconscious homosexual was brought in and there was no medical power of attorney designating the homosexual partner as the patient’s medical decision maker. That doesn’t mean the physician is a “homophobic bigot”, simply because a state’s laws prevent him or her from releasing medical information to the homosexual partner.
The doctors I have worked with, as well as myself, do everything reasonable to accomodate such couples without violating HIPAA laws, because when you have a patient in front of you, politics don’t matter…only caring for the patient via coordinating what is medically relevant – in conjunction with the patient’s wishes as much as possible – have any place in providing medical care. We can have our philosophical differences about things AFTER the patient has recovered.
George Wells Said::
retire05:
I’m not buying George’s BS on this either. My family and my wife’s family have been involved multiple times with: Living Wills, Guardianship, and Medical Power of Attorney(s), regarding the emergency room, terminally ill, comatose and hospice (with none of those assigned as Agent having been the spouse) and thus I reject George’s claim that the hospital ignored the legal standing of his “Certified” Medical Power of Attorney. Nor do I buy into his claim that the hospital ignored these legal documents due to George and his agent identifying themselves to be gay. No way, no how. With a valid Medical Power of Attorney, any capable adult, ANY, can be assigned as the Agent and so long as the patient is incapable of response, the healthcare provider MUST accept it with only the following caveates.
Ie. If you or your Agent are making ignorant medical decisions, the medical staff is not required to follow your ill chosen decisions. This is related only to the patient or Agent’s being ignorant of the practice of medicine, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the “relationship” between the patient and Agent.
@Pete and Ditto;
Thank you BOTH for your explanations. They agree fairly well with my understanding of the law covering this matter in general.
I continue to have a specific question regarding the wording of Virginia’s now voided constitutional amendment, which among other things specifically “bans recognition of any legal status “approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”
It was taken by some legal counsel (variously advising hospitals, doctors and patients) that this “recognition ban” disallowed hospitals and/or doctors from accepting medical powers of attorney covering both homosexual partners AND ANY OTHER UNWED PARTNERS precisely because such powers of attorney did in fact mimic (i.e. “approximate”) the power-of-attorney-like right that one spouse automatically receives upon marriage to the other spouse.
Retire05 has gone to great pains to explain what this provision of the Virginia Constitutional Amendment does NOT mean, but has failed to address what she thinks that it DOES mean, other than to beg the question by stating that “it means what it says.” Her double-speak answered nothing.
If either of you are sufficiently conversant in medical legalese, I invite you to speculate on what such a vaguely written provision actually means, PARTICULARLY if you think it doesn’t mean what the counsels suggested above.
Note that this provision was never challenged in court, in all likelihood because hospitals and doctors had the ACLU at DEFCON-4 waiting to take a test case all the way to the SCOTUS. The more clearly-worded anti-gay-marriage provision of the amendment proved to be a much lower-hanging fruit for the amendment’s challengers, and it was on the “merits” of that part that the whole amendment was tossed.
In retrospect, it would have been interesting to learn what the litigants’ counsels thought that the actual legal meaning of the phrase in question really was, and I imagine that you might have difficulty figuring it out, too. But I seriously doubt that the court’s answer to the question would have been “It means what it says.”
@George Wells:
It says, since you can’t seem to comprehend, that it bans recognition in all instances where people would present themselves, for any benefit, that would apply to only those legally married. You know, like filing your state income tax returns, claiming surviving spousal benefits, etc.
And exactly who would those “legal counsels” be? Provide some names.
I did a Google search on that particular amendment. The first THREE pages were nothing but gay groups, not legal groups, except for one report on a debate between a supporter on the amendment and someone against it, all moderated by Slate Magazine.
Of course. The ACLU, started by a self proclaimed Socialist, hasn’t strayed far from its roots.
@retire05 #61:
The amendment didn’t say “ONLY.”
If it did, I’d happily agree with your analysis. But in the absence of the word “only,” and exactly where YOU put it, the legal interpretation has to be that it applies to “ANY” legal status (the exact wording) that “approximates” ANY (implied by the absence of the word “ONLY”) effect of marriage, regardless of whether or not such benefits might otherwise be obtained.
AGAIN:
Without the word “only” used as you suggest, the amendment’s application was broad enough to skewer loads of innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the original intent of the Marshall- Newman Amendment, which was to punish gays.
Delegate Bob Marshall has a long history of opposing gay rights at every opportunity, and this amendment was the crowning achievement of his career. It was a blessing that his precious few lines of statutory bigotry got tossed by a brilliant Black Female FEDERAL judge, and another blessing that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond – the titular seat of the erstwhile Confederacy and a place not often credited with having the capacity for progressive thought – upheld her decision.
@George Wells:
I cannot answer any legal questions specific to Virginia, as I am not a lawyer, and have never practiced medicine in that state. Sorry, but I know the limits of my knowledge and expertise, so anything I would say would be purely speculative.
All I can say is along the lines of what I have said before. Regardless of my personal and religious beliefs regarding the concept of “homosexual marriage”, when I have a patient under my care, I really couldn’t care less who they are sleeping with unless it medically impacts their condition. My job…my calling, if you will forgive the dramatic tone…is to provide the very best medical care within my ability for them, just as the Hippocratic Oath calls for. We can engage in political debate AFTER the patient has recovered.
I have never experienced any interactions with any physician in 20 years who refused to treat a patient because they were gay. I am not saying it has never happened, but I have no knowledge of such a thing ever happening in my experience as a physician. The mindset required to become a physician, frankly, would find such witholding of medical care to be abhorrent, Mengele, Emmanuel, and Kevorkian notwithstanding. Personally, that such individuals were able to earn a medical degree is a stain on the profession.
@George Wells:
For someone who before was claiming to know nothing about legal issues, you’ve all of a sudden turned into a legal guru with words like “only”? Really, George? How far are you willing to stretch reality? Did you recently purchase How To Write Legislation For Dummies?
So what? He was obviously elected by those who supported him. I’m sure that sticks in your craw.
Why did you feel the need to point out that the federal judge was both female AND black? Does that make her intellect superior to say a white male federal judge? I guess you thought playing the double minority card allows you to lend credibility to her decision. Was she queer as well? I would say that any federal judge that claims the phrase “All men are created equal” was in the U.S. Constitution isn’t all that bright.
Progressivism is the bane of our society. No surprise you support it.
@retire05 #64:
“For someone who before was claiming to know nothing about legal issues, you’ve all of a sudden turned into a legal guru with words like “only”?”
That’s a laugh!
It doesn’t tale a “legal guru” to notice your insertion of the word “only” and to appreciate its significance.
Exclusivity not specified cannot be assumed.
“We’re open for business” means all customers are welcome.
“No dogs allowed” means you can’t bring dogs in.
“Approximating rights gained in marriage” doesn’t mean “Approximating rights gained ONLY in marriage.”
Not all rights gained in marriage are rights gained ONLY in marriage.
I’ll graciously acknowledge that in your original answer to my question you did not INTENTIONALLY alter the meaning of the amendment, and that your incorrect assessment of the amendment’s effect was the consequence of that UNINTENDED error.
By the way, I meant to thank you for finally acknowledging your misstatement regarding “no referendum has ever supported gay marriage.” (Simplified – not a direct quote.)
I will make every effort to extend to you the same courtesy that you show me.
@retire05 #64:
“Progressivism is the bane of our society. No surprise you support it.”
Wouldn’t want to disappoint you.
I view “progressive” as something that makes PROGRESS, as in “advances” or “moves forward.”
The absence of “progress” is “stagnation,” and the opposite of progress is loss or surrender of – or retreat from – ground previously gained; MOVING BACKWARD, or reversion to more primitive methods.
I support movement in a positive direction, optimistic about the future
I do NOT support movement in a negative direction, taking three steps backward at every opportunity.
No surprise that you long for the past.
@George Wells:
Um, …actually no. Our posts do not at all support the claims you have so far posted. Pete makes it pretty clear that he believes that it is highly doubtful that a patient would be refused treatment because he was gay or in a gay relationship. Pete makes no statement whatsoever regarding legal arguments about Medical Powers of Attorney and assigned Agents and medical establishments. My post only points out that medical practitioners may not go along with the medical decisions of an Agent holding a Medical Power of Attorney (or the patient themselves for that matter,) IF the medical staff considers that the judgment of the patient and/or Agent is not in the best interests of the patient. It instead indicates that in most cases practitioners will try to honor a Medical Power of Attorney. Our posts do not at all support your claim that the medical staff would completely ignore a Medical Power of Attorney. However, you have windmills to battle, so you will continue to make believe that things are not as they are, but as you think they are to justify your quixotic crusade.
Cite proof of this. I don’t buy your claims any more because you speculate far too much and argue that your speculations are fact without providing a damn thing to back them up. Show us the court decisions. Don’t give us this nonsense that there aren’t any. Such wide ranging refusal to accept Medical Powers of Attorney is something that would have been taken to the courts. If such theoretical decisions by hospitals were true as you claim, it would have been applied in other cases where the “Agent” in the Medical Power of Attorney was of the “same sex” as the patient. Your claim again, assumes GAYDAR for the practicioners to be able to detect that the Agent and Patient are not only gay, but are lovers. Not buying it George. Absurdest paranoia and anti-gay conspiracy theories appear to be running rampant in your mind .
@Ditto:
I think my own experience with my son’s death supports your posts on medical powers of attorney and decision making. When I got to his hospital room where he was intubated and comatose, with no chance at recovery, I tried to get his physician -who knew I was his father and a critical care physician – to withdraw care as my son had clearly told me and his siblings he wanted in such a situation. My son, who was 19, had signed a power of attorney for his adult sister to be his medical decision maker, since she was living and caring for him for the last 3 months of his life. My son’s doctor would only accept medical decisions from my daughter, precisely because of my son’s medical power of attorney. That is the law in all three states where I have practiced, and I have a hard time believing it is any different in any other state – though I say again I am not an attorney and would defer to someone with legal expertise on the matter.
@George Wells:
Not true, and what makes you think you are now an expert on legal terminology when earlier you seems to know so little about the law?
Nope. A business most certainly has the right to refuse business, even though the sign says “Open for business.” A business can refuse to serve a drunk and disorderly customer, a naked customer, a customer not of legal age to purchase an alcoholic product.
Whoops, wrong again. Many states have laws that require the allowance of service dogs be they seeing-eye dogs, military service dogs, et al.
Show me how the term “only” would have been required. Provide a legal requirement that such wording was required to make the bill still acknowledge “assignment” rights. And what rights gained in marriage are extended without marriage? That statement makes absolutely no sense as does most of your claims.
Great. So now I will wait to see how long it takes you to admit that by changing what Redteam and I said in previous threads you lied about what we said. Let’s see how far your efforts really go.
Progress is an abstract term. All progress is not good. Hitler made progress in eliminating the Jewish population of Europe. The Turks made progress in their goal to exterminate the Armenians. The Frankfurt Marxist professors made great progress in furthering their cultural Marxism theory. In each of those cases, an agenda was advanced and moved forward, i.e. progress was made.
That windmill seems to continue to be out of your reach.
@retire05:
“Progress is an abstract term. All progress is not good.”
Correct.
Neither is all progress bad.
Since I am an optimist, and see a glass half-full, I view “progress” in it’s most favorable context, particularly where I see movement in a direction of which I approve.
Since you are a pessimist, and see a glass half-empty, It comes as no surprise that you would consider “progressives” to have nothing to do with “progress,” and a “bane” on the country.
I find it almost comical that we speak the same language.
@George Wells:
Of course. The glass has been “half-empty” since the days of Woodrow Wilson.
The error you make (which are standard fare for you) is that you are trying to equate progress, a generic term, with Progressives, a political philosophy. They are not one and the same, and a generic term cannot be equated to a political philosophy.
We don’t speak the same language. You come from a point of being agenda driven, I come from a point of Constitutionally guaranteed freedom and individualism; i.e. traditionalism.
@retire05 #69:
“Show me how the term “only” would have been required. Provide a legal requirement that such wording was required to make the bill still acknowledge “assignment” rights. And what rights gained in marriage are extended without marriage?”
Since you are evidently having problem with this concept, I’m glad you asked this question.
The “Amendment” (do I need to copy it here yet again”) consisted of two distinct parts.
The first part specified that marriages in the Commonwealth could ONLY be composed of one man and one woman. This is the part that logically excluded same-sex marriages.
The second part went FURTHER. It forbade recognition of legal instruments designed to mimic or approximate the legal effects of marriage.
The authors of the “amendment” were not the victims of excessive verbosity, having wasted precious few words in the couple of sentences that composed the “amendment,” and they certainly did not bother to say the same thing two different ways.
They forbade two different things: The first forbidden thing was “gay marriage”. The second forbidden thing was ANYTHING ELSE that would, in the absence of marriage, approximate a benefit of marriage.
Now, put on your thinking hat, Dear Heart.
Why would the “amendment’s” authors bother to specify the second prohibition if it dealt ONLY with rights that were ALREADY forbidden by the first prohibition?
OK. That question is too hard for you. Let’s make it simpler:
The “Amendment” in the first instance voided gay marriages. When it voided gay marriages, the amendment also voided any of the direct consequences of the marriages that were voided in the first instance.
The “Amendment” in the second instance voided nothing that was already voided in the first part. The second part voided OTHER legal instruments that “approximated” the effects of marriage.
I explained before: Approximating rights gained in marriage” doesn’t mean “Approximating rights gained ONLY in marriage.”
Not all rights gained in marriage are rights gained ONLY in marriage.
I don’t need to secure for you a certified legal opinion to prove this point. It is logically self-evident to anyone with a third-grade education..
“And what rights gained in marriage are extended without marriage?”
Powers-of-attorney convey automatically from one spouse to the other upon marriage.
However, marriage is not the only way that powers-of-attorney may be “assigned,” or “extended,” or “conveyed.” Before our marriage, Paul and I had legal “powers-of-attorney” done for us by counsel. Once we were married AND the marriage was accepted by the State of Virginia, those powers-of-attorney were no longer necessary. Helpful in some instances where our marriage was not already on file, probably. But our hospital system recorded our marriage certificate, and explained that with that on file, the other documents were no longer needed.
@Pete:
Please accept our most profound sympathies on the loss of your son.
@retire05:
Exactly correct. Socialist-progressives are well known by their revisionist tactics to try to create new, often twisted definitions for words, phrases etc. that can be contradictory to their original intent. They also often rely on oxymoronic linguistic inventions to further complicate. Using words, constitutions and representative government against itself. Their hallmark is the “free lunch” concept, which is a common selling point for their socialist programs, ignoring the truth that what they offer is not “free” but always comes with a cost. Usually in forcibly by “law” taking from one and giving to another, often resulting in a loss of freedoms and making more people servant to and dependent on the State. That is the hidden evil that lurks in the shadow of political Progressivism.
Progressive + aggressive + oppressive = regressive.
@George Wells:
That is a bold faced lie.
I have just finished reading multiple sources on Virginia’s laws on powers of attorney, including those from not only law firms but the State of Virginia as well, and no where does it say that powers of attorney convey automatically from one spouse to another upon marriage. NOWHERE.
“The Agent
“
It is a good idea to name more than one agent in case your agent is unable to assist you when the time comes. You can name co-agents or a successor agent. You can appoint an agent who lives outside Virginia; however, it may be more convenient if your agent lives near you.”
http://www.virginianavigator.org/vn/power-of-attorney/article-464.aspx”
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/virginia-law/virginia-durable-power-of-attorney-laws.html
http://www.vda.virginia.gov/pdfdocs/powerofattorney.doc
Another lie.
I doubt the validity in that. But then, you are not known for honesty.
@George Wells:
The word ‘progressive’ as used in politics only means advancing the liberal, socialist agenda. It has nothing to do with Progress of civilization.
Once again, I catch George in a lie:
“E. Powers of Attorney
You may desire to give your spouse the power to act on your behalf in the event that you become incapable of handling your own affairs due to accident, sickness or distant travel. Without a power of attorney, your spouse may be powerless to make decisions on your behalf. A power of attorney can avoid the need to petition the court for the appointment of a guardian for the disabled spouse.
Powers of attorney can be designed to be effective only when certain specified conditions exist. The person granting a power of attorney can revoke the power at any time, so long as he or she is mentally competent. You should consult your attorney to determine whether a power of attorney would be appropriate in your case, and if so, what the scope of such power should be.”
http://www.vsb.org/site/publications/marriage-in-virginia/
@Ditto:
Your entire response to George was excellent. George is really backtracking on this issue. It started out that the hospital refused to allow his gay lover to accompany him, then they refused to allow or acknowledge his medical power of Attorney because they didn’t have a certified copy of their marriage certificate, then he found out the person named doesn’t have to be married, doesn’t have to be related, doesn’t have to be of the opposite sex, but he’s now claiming case was special because some unknown, unwise counsel had incorrectly advised the hospital to not allow gays their rights. I think the whole damn story was ‘made up’ by George for illustration purposes but then he found out he’s not dealing with people with SBS, so he’s having to try to make it up and to make it fit his orig scenario, but it still doesn’t fit. He didn’t count on the little facts, such as a 2005 Virginia Advance Rights form being exactly the same as thier 2015 form, which according to him had to be changed because some amendment got overturned. Strange that it didn’t require any changes in the form, at all, none. George is pushing his agenda beyond the truth.
@Redteam:
Now, George doubles down saying:
Oooops.
@Redteam:
Ya’ think? Someone needs to take the shovel out of his hand.
@retire05: George has so many lies and outright fabrications in this thread it is almost impossible to know where to begin to point them out.
Let’s deal first with his essay about his excursion to a hospital. First, he was fully conscious and didn’t ‘need’ a power of attorney, he was fully capable of making any decision necessary. Then, he wasn’t married, so he couldn’t claim anyone to act as his spouse, if he didn’t have a spouse, so that first part of the amendment was moot. But then the person listed to act on his behalf, is not even required to be related to him. Not his spouse, nor his mother, nor father, nor son, nor daughter. No relationship at all. File Certificate of marriage with hospital. BS. They wouldn’t even know what to do with his Cert of Marriage. I’ve been married almost 55 years and I have had to produce my marriage Certificate exactly one time. At the Social Security office to prove we are married. That’s it. Never before that or since then.
George’s claim that
What a joke. No P of A ever conveys ‘automatically’. Never. Now there may be a provision written into the P of A that states some conditions where it might transfer ‘automatically’ but then, that’s not actually ‘automatically’ that’s actually according to Direction contained within the P of A. If my mother had written a Pof A that gave me the right to act on her behalf, prior to my getting married, George is actually stating that the Pof A would automatically extend to my wife upon our marriage. LOL, what a joke. I think Pete shut George up on that story tho when he told of his son’s death. Even tho Pete was the father, no Pof A given to his daughter could be exercised by Pete instead. That’s the way all P of A work, otherwise they would be meaningless. As I said, George made up a story to get sympathy for gays by telling his false tale of woe occuring in the hospital. It didn’t work Georgie, you got outed, not the ‘outing’ you were hoping for, I suspect.
@Redteam:
Of course, because you see, George is really a liberal for all his protestations that he is really a closet conservative except for just one little issue. And the problem with all liberals is they think they can fabricate any wild tale, call it fact, and stupid conservatives will just accept it as truth.
You noticed how quickly he ditched the other thread when I showed how he had falsified what I said on it. Now, he will come back with some other fabrication about how he didn’t lie on this thread and he really is right and has been all along. And I have some ocean front property in Lubbock to sell to anyone who believes him.
@retire05: Well, I just can’t believe he is really dumb enough to think anyone would buy his story that his girl/boy/it friend went to the hospital with him, is on his Virginia Advance rights sheet to act for him and they wouldn’t even let ‘he,she,it’ in the hospital, much less speak for him, though he was fully functional and didn’t really need anyone to speak for him. How unfortunate for Sweet Pea that a copy of the 2005 form showed up and is identical to the one ‘they changed’ in 2012 (or whenever). Yes, I think George is playing to the gay agenda and we’re ‘so dumb’ we’re supposed to just swallow his story and feel sorry for him. Cold day in Hell deal I guess.
@Redteam:
Seems our resident fabricator has abandoned another thread.
@retire05: Maybe he thinks we’ll forget his stories.
A Michigan business owner, Brian Klawiter, said, ”I still won’t tolerate certain behavior in my shop. And that’s never going to change.”
He was writing (on Facebook) about openly nasty gay behavior.
And, legally, he has a right to refuse service to such disorderly people.
They, if they wish, can clean up their act, come back to his shop and get service.
But look what has happened to him:
His shop was attacked by rocks through windows, spray painted with nasty remarks, and even had a gathering of ”protestors” out in front.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/22/michigan-business-owner-gay-facebook-vandalism/26174937/
Even Yelp has been co-opted by gays against this shop.
All this despite the fact that he’s not anti-gay, or anti-gay weddings.
All he wants is for his customers to behave with a modicum of decency while he does business with them.
@Nanny G:
What you describe is indeed a problem.
Partly an enforcement problem, as social media is like the Wild West when it comes to lawful control.
And partly a problem that our society has lost its Christian sense of compassion, grace, dignity and consideration for our fellow human beings.
But I don’t confuse this loss of decorum – this failure to behave with lawful restraint and decency – with something that should cause an entire group of people (gays) to have their basic civil rights curtailed. There are bad apples in every barrel.
This sort of knee-jerk, reactionary excess is pervasive in the World today. I have some theories about the causes, but suffice it to say that this isn’t exclusively a gays-versus-religious-freedom problem. And I really don’t see anything on the horizon that will change it, short of the “End-of-Days,” and I don’t see that coming, either.