RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/15 10:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Arkansas is a terrible, backwards place. Nothing good has ever come from there.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13342



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/15 10:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:


Then it begs the question - exactly what does the new statute do to protect Freedom of Religion. Does it give a Muslim woman the right to wear a burqa (or even a hajib) for a driver's license photo (which defeats one of the main points of the photo)?

No I have not read the statute.


The Federal law in 1993 was enacted largely in response to the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith, which held that the state of Oregon could fire someone from state employment for using peyote as part of a legitimate religious ceremony of a legitimate Native American Church in which the person was a legitimate member. It would be like a state firing, or prosecuting, a Catholic for drinking sacramental wine at Mass. Scalia wrote that if a law was of general application, it had to be complied with even if it infringed on the free exercise of religion, and no compelling state interest needed to be shown. The federal RFRA was intended to reinstate the compelling state interest test for laws infringing the free exercise of religion. It passed the Senate by a 97-3 vote, and really it was targeted at protecting minority religions like in the peyote case.

Then in 1997, the Supreme Ct said the federal law didn't apply to states, so then states started passing their own laws, again, with the same types of motivations as the original.

The problem with the current round of RFRA laws pending in multiple states is that the motivation has changed. The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby case extended the federal law's coverage to closely held corporations, and applied it in the context of a social issue (there abortion/contraception).

That was the impetus for social conservatives who saw this as an alternative way to fight same sex marriage as the laws against such marriages were collapsing all around them by vote or judicial fiat. So a decent law written 20 years ago to fix a genuine problem became a weapon in the 21st century culture wars.

In reality the need for RFRA in the first place resulted from Scailia's typical foolishness. He simply tossed decades of established First Amendment precedent aside (as he is wont to do) and pulled a BS decision out of his ass. In a remarkable "Ode to Tyranny of the Majority" he basically said that if you're a small minority group, the Constitution doesn't protect you and you're screwed, which of course turns the very purpose of the Bill of Rights on its head. (He should read Madison's explanation for the Bill of Rights some time. Maybe he'd learn something.) Scalia wrote:

"It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs."

What? Justice O'Conner rightfully blasted him for that nonsense in her well-written concurrence, stating:

"Finally, the Court today suggests that the disfavoring of minority religions is an "unavoidable consequence" under our system of government, and that accommodation of such religions must be left to the political process. Ante at 890. In my view, however, the First Amendment was enacted precisely to protect the rights of those whose religious practices are not shared by the majority and may be viewed with hostility. The history of our free exercise doctrine amply demonstrates the harsh impact majoritarian rule has had on unpopular or emerging religious groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish. Indeed, the words of Justice Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (overruling Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)) are apt: [p903]

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

319 U.S. at 638. See also United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 87 (1944) ("The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of, the lack of any one religions creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views"). The compelling interest test reflects the First Amendment's mandate of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. For the Court to deem this command a "luxury," ante at 888, is to denigrate "[t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights."


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/15 11:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Arkansas is a terrible, backwards place. Nothing good has ever come from there.


Bill Clinton.

(....just couldn't resist your obvious setup! Razz )



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/15 1:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Arkansas is a terrible, backwards place. Nothing good has ever come from there.


Johnny Cash



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/15 5:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm going to do two things in this thread that are probably going to infuriate some of my friends here. One, I'm going to confess to not being up at all on what is happening here in this story. It's been a busy and somewhat exhausting few weeks.

Second I'm going to post a video that someone linked to on Facebook. Things aren't going all that well for gay rights with the homies on Facebook and my inclination is pretty much politically the opposite of theirs ... but I wanted to see what was up with their usually opposing viewpoint.

So I'm embedding it here to see what you guys have to say about it.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RgWIhYAtan4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/15 10:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That youtube video was so full of logical fallacies that I don't even know where to begin.

First off, the whole Muslim countries kill gay people argument is a red herring. Specifically it is a fallacy of relative privation (ie: the Starving Kids in Africa fallacy). Pointing out that there are places where it is worse, or where the problem is even more extreme, does not actually constitute a valid argument. Yes, it is awful that people can be killed for being gay in some parts of the world, and yes it is great that this country isn't one of those, but that doesn't mean discrimination is acceptable. The entire premise of this argument is "but we don't kill people, aren't we awesome? Where's my f-ing cookie?"...

Umm, congratulations?

And what was the point of the whole "Muslims refuse too" narrative? It doesn't matter who is discriminating or for what reasons. He seems to be arguing that the media makes a bigger deal out of the court cases against Christians. Straw man much? The debate is about the need to pass this "religious freedom" bill, not about how the media gives a pass to Muslims who discriminate. I mean, he does realize that the law as originally written would make it legal for Muslims too? Right?

He also makes some specious arguments about content. Yes, businesses have the right to refuse content. But if you would sell that content to a heterosexual couple, you must also sell it to a homosexual one (at least in any place that prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation). Making distinctions based solely upon who the people are, is absolutely discrimination. But the other problem here is that he is cherry picking his argument. The cases that he points to were not about making some specific "gay" cake, but rather selling to a same-sex couple who wanted it for their wedding. This was not content, but rather end usage. And these "religious freedom" laws would legalize this sort of discrimination, not just his cherry picked example.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/03/15 11:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Nicely stated, Justintyme.

And while I agree with the above, I also have an opinion to project here: In *my* world, I really cannot fathom going to a Muslim/Christian/Whatever Bakery for my wedding cake, if I knew they didn't want my business because of who or what I am.

Think about it: EVEN IF (maybe cuz of the legal pressure, etc.) one of these reluctant bakers might finally capitulate and make my cake....I wouldn't want it! For reasons that are obvious:
1. Who knows what they've put in it? Shocked
2. Why would I want to give them MY money, knowing they despise me.
3. There've GOTTA be gay bakers who can out-do the haters' work any day, and twice on Sunday! Razz

Really. I love the "sign/sticker" thing that some of IN's business people placed in their shop doors, stating "We Welcome Everyone". Make a public campaign of it, and even if you're not gay, you might just be inclined to pass by those businesses that don't advertise their acceptance.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 12:42 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
That youtube video was so full of logical fallacies that I don't even know where to begin.

First off, the whole Muslim countries kill gay people argument is a red herring. Specifically it is a fallacy of relative privation (ie: the Starving Kids in Africa fallacy). Pointing out that there are places where it is worse, or where the problem is even more extreme, does not actually constitute a valid argument. Yes, it is awful that people can be killed for being gay in some parts of the world, and yes it is great that this country isn't one of those, but that doesn't mean discrimination is acceptable. The entire premise of this argument is "but we don't kill people, aren't we awesome? Where's my f-ing cookie?"...

Umm, congratulations?

And what was the point of the whole "Muslims refuse too" narrative? It doesn't matter who is discriminating or for what reasons. He seems to be arguing that the media makes a bigger deal out of the court cases against Christians. Straw man much? The debate is about the need to pass this "religious freedom" bill, not about how the media gives a pass to Muslims who discriminate.


Uh no. This case has created outrage on the Left and in the national media. CNN has descended upon pizza shops. That outrage has created outrage on the other side. It's reality, not a controlled debate. He has every right to undermine the Left's and the national media's outrage firestorm by pointing out exactly how they react to any criticism of Islam with charges of Islamophobia. You don't get to say uh screw your outrage we're talking about something else here. This is a political shitstorm and this is all, IMO, fair game. And the questions it all raises REALLY matters to a lot of people.

Like I said, I haven't really been digging into the core of the law or what the ramifications are to businesses and religious rights. I'm an atheist and I certainly support gay rights and I don't believe religion should have laws that enable believers to discriminate against gays in many and probably most situations where interactions are inevitable. That said, if these laws force businesses to make a gay wedding cake or participate by catering etc. a gay wedding or reception or anything at all... I have a real problem with that. That's not freedom. People who believe in Jesus or Allah or whatever who also believe that homosexuality is a sin CAN not be forced to bake or decorate a wedding cake or create a floral arrangement or cater a gay wedding. That would be very fucked up and if that's what you guys are proposing, if that's what the outrage is, if that's what Anderson Vanderbilt is harassing counter help in Indiana over, then I'm not on your side.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 2:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Uh no. This case has created outrage on the Left and in the national media. CNN has descended upon pizza shops. That outrage has created outrage on the other side. It's reality, not a controlled debate. He has every right to undermine the Left's and the national media's outrage firestorm by pointing out exactly how they react to any criticism of Islam with charges of Islamophobia. You don't get to say uh screw your outrage we're talking about something else here. This is a political shitstorm and this is all, IMO, fair game. And the questions it all raises REALLY matters to a lot of people.

Logic is reality. In fact, it's about tossing out the rhetoric and actually arguing the merits of the law. What this guy is rambling about has little at all to do with the law, especially the parts about Islam.

First off, let's actually define "Islamophobia". Not all criticism of Islam is that. Rather most charges of it stem from people conflating moderate Islam with radical Islam and both of those in turn with terrorists who are attempting to validate their actions through Islam. When people assign the actions of one of those three groups to the actions of ALL Muslims, then you have Islamophobia. Anyone who uses that term to answer people with actual, proportionate, and accurate criticisms of Islam is doing it wrong.

In other words, it is not Islamophobia to hold businesses run by Muslims to anti-discrimination laws.

Why is all this important? Because he is creating a narrative that plays on this subject, and in so doing, refuting an argument that no one is making.

So when he says that there are Muslim countries that kill gay people, what is his point? I think we all agree that's disgusting. We all condemn it. We are all happy we live in a country that doesn't do that. But what does that have to do with the Indiana law? It is not a mutually exclusive situation. We are able to simultaneously condemn the atrocities committed against homosexuals abroad while working to stop discrimination at home. I noted that he was using the fallacy of relative privation. Just because it is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that we should allow bad things here. Yes children are starving in Africa, but that doesn't mean that our "first world" problems should be ignored.

But anyways, where is the argument here if all sides agree that it's bad?

The same goes for the Muslim shops discriminating. He is once again creating a narrative that doesn't actually exist, and is arguing against it. He seems to be suggesting that we feel it is okay for Muslim groups to discriminate, and only get upset when it is Christian groups. This is patently false. People who are against discrimination are against it no matter the source. They don't care if it is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Norse, or Olympian; discrimination is wrong no matter who does it.

If the media is giving the Muslim groups who are discriminating a free pass and focusing on the Christian groups, it would be more than fair to criticize the media. But that belongs in a debate about media practice and their ethical obligations. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not these "religious freedom" laws and the discrimination they allow should be acceptable.

But again, that is the media. The people who are against this law are against the discrimination, no matter the source. So pointing out other people that might legally be able to discriminate should these laws pass in no way supports his conclusion that the laws should exist. Contrarily, his little excursion demonstrates quite clearly why it is so important that people not be allowed to discriminate based upon "religious beliefs".

Quote:
That said, if these laws force businesses to make a gay wedding cake or participate by catering etc. a gay wedding or reception or anything at all... I have a real problem with that. That's not freedom. People who believe in Jesus or Allah or whatever who also believe that homosexuality is a sin CAN not be forced to bake or decorate a wedding cake or create a floral arrangement or cater a gay wedding.

If these people/businesses provide a service, that service must be provided to everyone regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. And in any municipality that has expanded anti-discrimination protections to sexual orientation that service requirement is also extended. That means that, yes, if you provide the service of catering weddings or baking cakes, you must provide that service to homosexuals.

Put it this way, if I am a member of the Aryan Nation and I sell wedding cakes, I cannot refuse to sell to someone just because they are non-white. Or just because they are involved in an interracial marriage. Even if I honestly believe that my religion sees such things as sin. The same must also be true for sexual orientation, even if I strongly believe that homosexuality is a sin.

The reason for this is that the exchange of goods and services is a public need. No person should be made to feel lesser for who they inherently are as they participate in this fundamental activity of our society. Think about how it made African-Americans feel as they walked by diner after diner with the sign "White's Only" displayed on the window. How much that must have hurt. The same feeling must exist for someone to be told "we won't serve you here, my God hates what you are".



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 3:58 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:


The same goes for the Muslim shops discriminating. He is once again creating a narrative that doesn't actually exist, and is arguing against it. He seems to be suggesting that we feel it is okay for Muslim groups to discriminate, and only get upset when it is Christian groups. This is patently false. People who are against discrimination are against it no matter the source. They don't care if it is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Norse, or Olympian; discrimination is wrong no matter who does it.


I'm sorry. He's bringing it up to demonstrate the selective outrage at work here because the Left has traditionally, or at least in the wake of 9/11, taken a defensive stance on Muslims in America. It's a protected minority in the hearts and minds of people on the Left because Muslims have been targets of Right wing hostility and subsequently there's a real um... reticence... for anyone on the Left, progressives, etc. to attack Muslims here in the US for their beliefs. Maybe there's a coalition that exists in the minds of progressives of the many groups who are outside the majority of white Christians. I don't know why I'm saying maybe. Gays and Muslims together all under one rainbow. Rolling Eyes

justintyme wrote:
If the media is giving the Muslim groups who are discriminating a free pass and focusing on the Christian groups, it would be more than fair to criticize the media. But that belongs in a debate about media practice and their ethical obligations. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not these "religious freedom" laws and the discrimination they allow should be acceptable.


Again you're trying to organize or police what is clearly a political shitstorm into a nice orderly debate wherein you're making and enforcing the rules. You can't do that. As I said in my first response, the person who made this video is attempting to undermine the political factions who are attacking the Indiana law by pointing out how selective is their outrage and oh by the way note how protective they traditionally are of people who would take an even more hardline against homosexuality if the law allowed them to and the proof is back in their own Muslim theocracies around the world where homosexuality is often punishable by death.

justintyme wrote:
But again, that is the media. The people who are against this law are against the discrimination, no matter the source. So pointing out other people that might legally be able to discriminate should these laws pass in no way supports his conclusion that the laws should exist. Contrarily, his little excursion demonstrates quite clearly why it is so important that people not be allowed to discriminate based upon "religious beliefs".


Really? So you're saying that that little Muslim guy and the business he either works for or owns should be compelled by the law to decorate a cake with words celebrating a gay marriage and wedding when the employee, the shop, and its owners, are all Muslims who are religiously opposed to homosexuality? You people all really believe that? If that's the case I clearly should not be the admin of your message board community anymore. That these religious people have to by law write down on a cake expressions and celebratory exclamations of homosexuality? You have GOT to be kidding me. Wow. I just don't think gays, the Left, progressives, the media, and, apparently, a good number of professors, have any idea what kind of a hornet's nest they're fucking with now. You have to allow people to opt out of participating in things that violate their religious beliefs. If you don't you're going to unify all religions to get behind laws protecting their ability to do that. You can't win. You never will.

justintyme wrote:

If these people/businesses provide a service, that service must be provided to everyone regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. And in any municipality that has expanded anti-discrimination protections to sexual orientation that service requirement is also extended. That means that, yes, if you provide the service of catering weddings or baking cakes, you must provide that service to homosexuals.


Uh. So says you. 'Must be' is the phrase you're using. This would be in an imaginary country of laws made by you? lol. I'm just sayin'. My understanding is that the actual law that was passed in Indiana says otherwise? And 20 states have similar laws? I've got to tell you folks, this is a loser. Justin, you are so much better than comparing this to the struggle for civil rights for African Americans in this country. This is so not that.

I predict before this little horror show is over there will be even more of these laws and a strengthening of them wherever they exist. It's going to wake up black Christians who have a low tolerance to gays, Muslims, Catholics, the Christian Right. It's pretty scary really. You don't want to try to ram participation in gay anything down the throats of many large parts of this country.

You can be gay. You can have businesses that cater to supporting and servicing gay special events like weddings etc. No one should be able to stop you from doing that. That's freedom. But you can't force by law a religious person or a business that is clearly owned, staffed, and sufficiently geared toward a recognized religion to participate in your gay special event by using their talents, people, and equipment to create cakes, banners, floral arrangements, signs, etc. that celebrate your gay special event. That is NOT freedom and it's wrong.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 4:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://wane.com/2015/04/02/pizzeria-closes-following-owners-rfra-comments/

$740.000!

284 comments!

Shocked


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 5:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

This article in yesterday's WaPo does a good job of tracking the motivations behind the law and the backpedalling and duplicity by the politicians that's happening. I would focus on the true reasons and forces behind a law that is now only two weeks old and maybe consider that there is a trending concern in this country that social media, the Internet, and governor's sons all be damned is going to shape events on this point for years if not decades to come.

Christian activists: Indiana law tried to shield companies against gay marriage


SANDHYA SOMASHEKHAR
APRIL 3, 2015

Amid the backlash over the controversial religious-liberties law in Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence and other state officials insisted the measure was never intended to permit business owners to deny service to gays and lesbians.

But that is not entirely true.

For the socially conservative organizations that proposed the measure, protecting the right of Christians to opt out of any involvement in gay marriage ceremonies was a primary goal. And they underscored that fact two weeks ago, immediately after Pence (R) signed the measure into law.

VIDEO

View Video: Owners of a pizza parlor in Walkerton, Ind., say they support the states new religious freedom law and refuse to cater any gay weddings.

VICTORY AT THE STATEHOUSE! proclaimed a news release from Advance America, a conservative group whose leader, Eric Miller, was invited to join Pence at a private signing ceremony at the statehouse. Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!

This week, lawmakers tweaked the law, adding language to clarify that it cannot be used by businesses, landlords and others to turn away gay customers. After an outcry by major companies, sports organizations and entertainers as well as gay activists lawmakers in Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina amended similar measures or abandoned them.

[Governors in Indiana and Arkansas sign amended laws on religious freedom ]

Gay rights groups hailed the developments as a significant victory. But they said Republican politicians rapid retreat should not be allowed to obfuscate what had been at the heart of the measures: The desire to put a firewall around people who want nothing to do with gay weddings.

All of this was in reaction to same-sex marriage, said Jane Henegar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Unions Indiana chapter. That is the context of this bill, what was told to proponents about why they need this bill. For them to back away and say this wasnt true, I dont know how they can justify that.

In Indiana, amendments to the law signed by Pence on Thursday do, indeed, eliminate any protections for business owners who deny gay customers any service, including those related to marriage. However, a new Arkansas law signed by Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) on Thursday leaves an opening for courts to uphold such a right, gay rights supporters said.

Proponents of the religious-freedom measures do not deny that protecting business owners was one of their primary motivations. But they draw a distinction between turning away individual customers because they are gay and refusing to participate in a gay wedding particularly for vendors whose services involve a level of creativity.

Cooking a rack of lamb and putting it on a table in front of somebody is not endorsing anything that you may find in violation of your beliefs and therefore not something that ought to be protected behavior, said Greg Scott, a spokesman for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal nonprofit group that advised Indiana lawmakers.

But if youre a wedding singer and somebody says, I want you to lead all the ceremonies for my wedding, thats really a different story, because you are expressing yourself in support and coerced into the celebration of something you dont believe in.

An Indiana pizzeria owner who was widely criticized this week for claiming a right not to serve at gay weddings made the same point in an interview on the Fox Business Network.

Gays are welcome in the store. Anyone is welcome in the store, said Crystal OConnor, co-owner of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Ind. It is a sin, though, if we condone if we cater their wedding. We feel we are participating. Were putting a stamp of approval on their wedding, and we cannot do that.

[A call for sanity in the case of Memories Pizza v. the Internet]

In recent years, as more states have legalized same-sex marriage, Christian wedding vendors say they have felt under siege. Several have been sued or punished by local governments for refusing to violate a deeply held conviction that homosexuality is wrong.

In Oregon, the owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa was fined in February for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple. Last spring, a Colorado judge found that the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to bake a cake for their wedding reception.

And in the case that led the push to pass state-level religious-freedom laws, Elane Photography in New Mexico was sanctioned in 2007 for refusing to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony.

Most recently, 70-year-old florist Barronelle Stutzman was fined $1,000 last week for violating Washington states nondiscrimination law by refusing to create arrangements for the wedding of a longtime customer, a man she has said she considered a friend. A judge also directed her to provide services for same-sex weddings in the future.

The case is now on appeal. Stutzman who could be forced to pay more than a $1 million in legal fees if she loses, according to her attorney said she has no intention of backing down.

Its about my freedom to be able to work according to my conscience without fear of punishment from the government, she said in an interview. Theyre trying to bully me into accepting this, and its against my faith.

Some mainstream scholars agree with the premise that the religious beliefs of vendors like Stutzman should be respected under the law.

Daniel O. Conkle is a law professor at Indiana University who supports gay rights and same-sex marriage as well as Indianas religious-liberties measure. During a hearing in March, Conkle testified that courts likely would not interpret the law to protect a religious objector who refuses to serve African Americans, for example, or . . . gays or lesbians, simply because of who the people are.

But in narrow circumstances, the result conceivably could be different, he said, citing as a hypothetical example a Christian photographer. For some religious people, this sort of participation in a same-sex wedding celebration would violate their deepest sense of religious conviction and conscience.

Critics of the laws say Conkle is splitting hairs. Refusing any type of service amounts to discrimination, they say, and should not be permitted.

During legislative debate, the Indiana lawmakers who sponsored the measure did not raise the plight of Christian wedding vendors. Instead, they cited last years Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case, which gave businesses the right to refuse to provide certain contraceptives to their workers through company health plans. That case, they said, demonstrated the need to strengthen protections for religious liberties generally.

Asked multiple times by journalists if the law as originally written would give a florist legal grounds to refuse to serve a gay couple, Pence said no. And House Speaker Brian C. Bosma (R) said the original law had been misinterpreted not just by critics but also by supporters.

Both the opponents and proponents were indicating they felt that the language allowed a denial of services to gay Hoosiers, Bosma said. That definitely wasnt the intent. Nor do I believe was it the effect.

Henegar, of the Indiana ACLU, said the politicians have been disingenuous.

She noted that the plight of Christian wedding vendors was raised repeatedly during legislative debate prior to the laws passage.

Asked at the time to add provisions to make certain that discrimination of all kinds would be strictly prohibited, Henegar said, Indiana lawmakers refused.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 6:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
That said, if these laws force businesses to make a gay wedding cake or participate by catering etc. a gay wedding or reception or anything at all... I have a real problem with that. That's not freedom.



Exactly what is a "gay wedding cake?" If you are in the business of catering receptions, there should not be classes of people you will cater for and other classes you won't. Just as you have the right to do certain things in the privacy of your home but not in public, the exercise of your individual liberty should have some constraints in public commerce.

My other question jammer - why is this one distinction so prevalent? Can the baker refuse to make a Jewish cake? An atheist cake? A Catholic cake? A cake for couples who have been living together in sin? Can a sole proprietor greet his customers naked 'cause he owns the place and that's his individual freedom? I would guess laws on public decency would apply to his locally licensed store.

At what point does an exercise of individual freedom impinge upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others? When we get to the public square, some individual liberties need to be checked at the door.

I do have a question in my mind though. I do believe that individual business owners should have the right to NOT provide a specific product or service for any reason - like the pharmacist that refused to carry the abortion pill. But what if a Christian baker was asked to provide a cake for an openly gay couple, and agreed to do everything to the best of his professional ability. But in good conscious, could not put a same sex topper on the cake (which I suppose makes it a "gay cake"). What if the bakery carried only pre-molded male and female (molded together as one) toppers in the store?




Last edited by TonyL222 on 04/04/15 10:33 am; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 9:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/

Quote:
I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patronswhich would certainly prompt me to boycottand declining to cater a gay wedding.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 10:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/

Quote:
I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patronswhich would certainly prompt me to boycottand declining to cater a gay wedding.


Again, do you cater other weddings? The distinction is they don't want to serve a class of people (and the class is very arbitrary) - not that they don't want to provide a certain product or service to anyone.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 10:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/

Quote:
I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patronswhich would certainly prompt me to boycottand declining to cater a gay wedding.

I don't disagree that the vitriol directed towards this pizzeria is over the top. And some of the responses are much worse than the original offense. Burn the place down? I mean...really?

But that being said, it is not the public's fault that their business was "destroyed". The public has the right to determine what sort of establishments they wish to patronize, and if a business makes their politics known, that is likely going to factor into the equation.

Ultimately, the onus lies upon this business whose owners thought it would be a good idea to announce to the world that they would refuse their service. They didn't have to answer this question. They could have easily given a non-answer like, "well, we don't really cater weddings at all". In fact, if they have never catered a wedding, they likely would not have any sort of obligation to cater a same-sex one. That would only be required if they actually offer a wedding catering service. But, for whatever reason, they decided to answer this question that they had to know was highly politically charged.

There is a reason why the term "protect the brand" exists in business. There are few things more important. And that is represented by the number of laws out there designed to help a business do just that (eg: Trademark Infringement, etc). Taking an action that is detrimental to that brand is simply a failure of business, just as if they would have hired bad workers and provided cruddy service. If they made other poor business choices, would we blame the public at large for their failure?

What makes me shake my head though is this concept that it's unfair to business owners that the government make them provide their service to everyone equally. People choose to go into business, to provide specific goods and services to the public at large. They don't have to do this. They can remain a private organization, selling their goods out of their homes to the people they choose to. With the rise of things like Ebay, Etsy, and Craigslist this is easier than ever. However, people choose to accept the many benefits the government offers to help them. They are able to limit their liability, get beneficial tax breaks, set up shop in specifically coded districts, and many other advantages. In return, one of the things the government asks/demands is that their business be non-discriminatory. This is not an unfair burden.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 11:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
That said, if these laws force businesses to make a gay wedding cake or participate by catering etc. a gay wedding or reception or anything at all... I have a real problem with that. That's not freedom.



Exactly what is a "gay wedding cake?" If you are in the business of catering receptions, there should not be classes of people you will cater for and other classes you won't. Just as you have the right to do certain things in the privacy of your home but not in public, the exercise of your individual liberty should have some constraints in public commerce.

My other question jammer - why is this one distinction so prevalent? Can the baker refuse to make a Jewish cake? An atheist cake? A Catholic cake? A cake for couples who have been living together in sin? Can a sole proprietor greet his customers naked 'cause he owns the place and that's his individual freedom? I would guess laws on public decency would apply to his locally licensed store.

At what point does an exercise of individual freedom impinge upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others? When we get to the public square, some individual liberties need to be checked at the door.

I do have a question in my mind though. I do believe that individual business owners should have the right to NOT provide a specific product or service for any reason - like the pharmacist that refused to carry the abortion pill. But what if a Christian baker was asked to provide a cake for an openly gay couple, and agreed to do everything to the best of his professional ability. But in good conscious, could not put a same sex topper on the cake (which I suppose makes it a "gay cake"). What if the bakery carried only pre-molded male and female (molded together as one) toppers in the store?


This is why I try to avoid as many discussions as I possibly can here. You guys have a serious inclination to go off on the what ifs and hypotheticals and at what points. The WaPo article makes clear why this law came to be precisely now in 2015 and that is to 'protect' religious individuals from having to participate in gay special events and celebrations by having them use their efforts, time, talents, and equipment to create their products for those celebrations or events.

What is a gay wedding cake (or banner, sign, or floral arrangement)? One that might call for writing that says, for instance, "Bob and Ken! Gay and Married! Finally! Whew Hoo!!!" If you try to compell religious anybody or anything by law to participate in gay special events to that extent the backlash is going to be politically catastrophic. That's why there's a two week old law in Indiana NOT doing that but attempting to do the opposite.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 12:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Nicely stated, Justintyme.

And while I agree with the above, I also have an opinion to project here: In *my* world, I really cannot fathom going to a Muslim/Christian/Whatever Bakery for my wedding cake, if I knew they didn't want my business because of who or what I am.

Think about it: EVEN IF (maybe cuz of the legal pressure, etc.) one of these reluctant bakers might finally capitulate and make my cake....I wouldn't want it! For reasons that are obvious:
1. Who knows what they've put in it? Shocked
2. Why would I want to give them MY money, knowing they despise me.
3. There've GOTTA be gay bakers who can out-do the haters' work any day, and twice on Sunday! Razz


Why do you say they despise you? And why are you calling them (as if its some kind of established fact) haters? Seems you're close to suggesting or painting their beliefs as hate speech or a hate crime? I agree in a practical sense with pretty much everything else you're saying, by the way. But you can't say that someone despises you or that they're haters or, as some people are calling them, bigots, because their religion (and we're talking about Christianity and Islam, not something someone cooked up in the 1940s) has condemned homosexuality for 2000 years.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 1:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
The WaPo article makes clear why this law came to be precisely now in 2015 and that is to 'protect' religious individuals from having to participate in gay special events and celebrations by having them use their efforts, time, talents, and equipment to create their products for those celebrations or events.

Yes. Exactly. This is why we oppose the law. If your business provides said service to heterosexual people (ie: you cater heterosexual weddings, provide flowers, etc) then you must also (based upon anti-discrimination law) provide these same services to homosexual ones. Even if that means having to use your time, talents, and equipment for these celebrations. Not discriminating means not drawing a distinction between the people you serve based upon sexual orientation. If you sell your goods to be used at a straight wedding you must also sell them to be used at a same-sex one.

We believe that the right of individuals to not be discriminated against in public commerce outweighs the business's right to "religious freedom". That is the way the courts have held in all these cases. Individuals have the right to their own religious beliefs, even when these beliefs are socially repugnant. However, when these beliefs conflict head on with the rights of others, they must naturally give way.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19934



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 2:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Individuals have the right to their own religious beliefs, even when these beliefs are socially repugnant. However, when these beliefs conflict head on with the rights of others, they must naturally give way.


Wait. You're saying, as if it is an accepted established fact in all quarters, that the religious beliefs of these individuals ARE socially repugnant? Period. lol. WE find them to be! REPUGNANT! You are repugnant in your religious beliefs! Come on, justintyme. If someone here was saying that so and so's homosexuality is repugnant you'd be calling that person a bigot. But you can go ahead and use the royal 'we' about all this stuff and then make pronouncements about religious beliefs being socially repugnant? Did you not see just the opposite become the law a few weeks ago in Indiana? Do you not see the forces that were aligned to pass a danged law and what will be lined up against forcing people to participate in gay wedding celebrations in these United States? This superior 'we' and 'must' and all these little perspective flourishes you're employing remind me of the people who built the Titanic and declared it as if by some royal decree to be unsinkable. A law passed two weeks ago in Indiana should be seen as just the tip of an iceberg.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 3:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Individuals have the right to their own religious beliefs, even when these beliefs are socially repugnant. However, when these beliefs conflict head on with the rights of others, they must naturally give way.


Wait. You're saying, as if it is an accepted established fact in all quarters, that the religious beliefs of these individuals ARE socially repugnant? Period. lol. WE find them to be! REPUGNANT! You are repugnant in your religious beliefs! Come on, justintyme. If someone here was saying that so and so's homosexuality is repugnant you'd be calling that person a bigot. But you can go ahead and use the royal 'we' about all this stuff and then make pronouncements about religious beliefs being socially repugnant? Did you not see just the opposite become the law a few weeks ago in Indiana? Do you not see the forces that were aligned to pass a danged law and what will be lined up against forcing people to participate in gay wedding celebrations in these United States? This superior 'we' and 'must' and all these little perspective flourishes you're employing remind me of the people who built the Titanic and declared it as if by some royal decree to be unsinkable. A law passed two weeks ago in Indiana should be seen as just the tip of an iceberg.


It's the same old double standard as it always is jammer. People who talk tolerance want to be tolerated, they don't want to tolerate others. Howee's hypothetical sign maker who won't put "God Hates XXXX" on a sign is OK because he won't do that for anyone but a wedding cake baker who won't put two grooms on top of a cake for anyone is the devil and must be put out of business. It's OK for Grindr to cater to gays only but we can't have eharmony catering to straights only, that's grounds for a lawsuit.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 3:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Individuals have the right to their own religious beliefs, even when these beliefs are socially repugnant. However, when these beliefs conflict head on with the rights of others, they must naturally give way.


Wait. You're saying, as if it is an accepted established fact in all quarters, that the religious beliefs of these individuals ARE socially repugnant? Period. lol. WE find them to be! REPUGNANT! You are repugnant in your religious beliefs! Come on, justintyme. If someone here was saying that so and so's homosexuality is repugnant you'd be calling that person a bigot.

There are no such things as universal moral truths in this world. All there are, are personal truths filtered through our culture and our ideology. Thus it is impossible to assign an inherent value statement to a certain behavior. When someone says they find certain religious beliefs to be repugnant, they are speaking for a personal truth based upon their own set of moral and ethical criteria.

So yes, I do find certain beliefs, when they are used to promote bigotry, to be repugnant. If that makes me a bigot against bigots, so be it (but surely you see the ridiculousness of that sort of a statement? It is a clear case of a false equivalence. Being intolerant of bigotry is in no way the equal of racism or homophobia--even if those are couched in a person's religious beliefs.)

But as I noted, people are free to hold such beliefs just as I am free to choose to no associate with people who do. My statement also was referring to specific beliefs, not the entire religion. But surely you are not saying that if someone uses religion to justify their actions, and that action/belief has been around for millennia we must accept whatever it is and avoid any sort of condemnation lest we become bigots ourselves? Because let me tell you, there are some repugnant beliefs out there. For an extreme example, look to Female Genital Mutilation. I feel comfortable calling that ages old religious tradition repugnant. So if that is acceptable, where is it that we draw the line in condemnation? Personally, I see a belief that denounces an entire class of people as "abominations" as a repugnant belief. Others may not.

Quote:
But you can go ahead and use the royal 'we' about all this stuff and then make pronouncements about religious beliefs being socially repugnant? Did you not see just the opposite become the law a few weeks ago in Indiana? Do you not see the forces that were aligned to pass a danged law and what will be lined up against forcing people to
participate in gay wedding celebrations in these United States?


Did you not see what just happened to that law? It was completely gutted. In fact, the "clarification" legislation that was passed specifically stated that this discriminatory behavior was excluded from the legislation. That is why I used the "we", because I am clearly not alone in the belief that "religious freedom" must give way when it is used to infringe upon the rights of others in public commerce. And yes, I use "must" because I see it as both a moral imperative, and one that has been backed up by judicial precedent.

Quote:
A law passed two weeks ago in Indiana should be seen as just the tip of an iceberg.

Not at all, I see it as the last gasps of a desperate group trying to be able to cling to their bigotry in the face of a culture that is moving forward. I see the aftermath of the passing of this bill as a clear statement from society that they will not accept it any more.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 4:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Individuals have the right to their own religious beliefs, even when these beliefs are socially repugnant. However, when these beliefs conflict head on with the rights of others, they must naturally give way.


Wait. You're saying, as if it is an accepted established fact in all quarters, that the religious beliefs of these individuals ARE socially repugnant? Period. lol. WE find them to be! REPUGNANT! You are repugnant in your religious beliefs! Come on, justintyme. If someone here was saying that so and so's homosexuality is repugnant you'd be calling that person a bigot. But you can go ahead and use the royal 'we' about all this stuff and then make pronouncements about religious beliefs being socially repugnant? Did you not see just the opposite become the law a few weeks ago in Indiana? Do you not see the forces that were aligned to pass a danged law and what will be lined up against forcing people to participate in gay wedding celebrations in these United States? This superior 'we' and 'must' and all these little perspective flourishes you're employing remind me of the people who built the Titanic and declared it as if by some royal decree to be unsinkable. A law passed two weeks ago in Indiana should be seen as just the tip of an iceberg.


It's the same old double standard as it always is jammer. People who talk tolerance want to be tolerated, they don't want to tolerate others. Howee's hypothetical sign maker who won't put "God Hates XXXX" on a sign is OK because he won't do that for anyone but a wedding cake baker who won't put two grooms on top of a cake for anyone is the devil and must be put out of business. It's OK for Grindr to cater to gays only but we can't have eharmony catering to straights only, that's grounds for a lawsuit.

There are clear differences between these two things. One is an action of exclusion and the other is an action of inclusion. Just because both involve people not tolerating a certain action does not make these forms of "intolerance" equal. If I refuse to put "God Hates XXXX" on a cake I am doing it because I refuse to do harm to another human being by making them feel lesser. If I refuse to put two grooms on a cake I am now actively harming another person through exclusion.

In all ethical/moral debates the first step is to define what the goal is that we wish to accomplish. By what standard do we judge behavior as ethical or not? Once we have established that, we can look at things in terms of ethical or unethical behavior. Does bigotry help us to achieve our social goals? Is it ethical or unethical behavior? I would argue it is counter to our social goals, and is thus unethical. So then what does it mean to be intolerant of bigotry? It would mean we are not accepting unethical behavior and, in so doing, are moving our social goals forward. Thus this form of intolerance is actually a social positive versus bigotry which is a social negative.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 4:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Individuals have the right to their own religious beliefs, even when these beliefs are socially repugnant. However, when these beliefs conflict head on with the rights of others, they must naturally give way.


Wait. You're saying, as if it is an accepted established fact in all quarters, that the religious beliefs of these individuals ARE socially repugnant? Period. lol. WE find them to be! REPUGNANT! You are repugnant in your religious beliefs! Come on, justintyme. If someone here was saying that so and so's homosexuality is repugnant you'd be calling that person a bigot. But you can go ahead and use the royal 'we' about all this stuff and then make pronouncements about religious beliefs being socially repugnant? Did you not see just the opposite become the law a few weeks ago in Indiana? Do you not see the forces that were aligned to pass a danged law and what will be lined up against forcing people to participate in gay wedding celebrations in these United States? This superior 'we' and 'must' and all these little perspective flourishes you're employing remind me of the people who built the Titanic and declared it as if by some royal decree to be unsinkable. A law passed two weeks ago in Indiana should be seen as just the tip of an iceberg.


It's the same old double standard as it always is jammer. People who talk tolerance want to be tolerated, they don't want to tolerate others. Howee's hypothetical sign maker who won't put "God Hates XXXX" on a sign is OK because he won't do that for anyone but a wedding cake baker who won't put two grooms on top of a cake for anyone is the devil and must be put out of business. It's OK for Grindr to cater to gays only but we can't have eharmony catering to straights only, that's grounds for a lawsuit.

There are clear differences between these two things. One is an action of exclusion and the other is an action of inclusion. Just because both involve people not tolerating a certain action does not make these forms of "intolerance" equal. If I refuse to put "God Hates XXXX" on a cake I am doing it because I refuse to do harm to another human being by making them feel lesser. If I refuse to put two grooms on a cake I am now actively harming another person through exclusion.


Both are acts of exclusion based on the vendor's discomfort with the activities of the person wanting their service. You've switched from a legal argument to a moral one, as you suggest in the next paragraph. I don't see how these situations differ under the law.

What about the other example?

Quote:
In all ethical/moral debates the first step is to define what the goal is that we wish to accomplish. By what standard do we judge behavior as ethical or not? Once we have established that, we can look at things in terms of ethical or unethical behavior. Does bigotry help us to achieve our social goals? Is it ethical or unethical behavior? I would argue it is counter to our social goals, and is thus unethical. So then what does it mean to be intolerant of bigotry? It would mean we are not accepting unethical behavior and, in so doing, are moving our social goals forward. Thus this form of intolerance is actually a social positive versus bigotry which is a social negative.


This is the crux of the issue. Not everyone agrees on the goal. There are plenty of people who would be pleased as punch for the USA to be a theocratic nation.

Quote:
I see it as the last gasps of a desperate group trying to be able to cling to their bigotry in the face of a culture that is moving forward. I see the aftermath of the passing of this bill as a clear statement from society that they will not accept it any more.


I agree entirely. They're trying to institute laws justifying what they view as right & wrong when the process always works the other way around. I tried to explain this to Howee three years ago when he wanted Obama to push for same sex marriage laws before they had popular support. It's played out pretty much like I expected, proponents have been making the moral and social case in favor of same sex marriage and laws are changing to reflect it.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15768
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/04/15 7:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Arkansas is a terrible, backwards place. Nothing good has ever come from there.


Excuse me, you forgot Shameka Christon.



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin