I wish. I’ve been hearing my entire adult life that* someday* the pendulum would swing back to the left, but it hasn’t*. America’s so far to the right that the Democrats get called “liberal”, despite basically being Reagan Republicans.
American politics in the modern era are a ratchet, not a pendulum; they only go right.
*With the sole exception of homosexual rights, which is why the exception is so noticeable; they stand out vividly in a otherwise relentless rightward political march.
Why should I give a shit? Again, you’re spinning this elaborate conspiracy theory where people have committed wrongdoings and covered it up, when the best analysis we have has come to the clear conclusion that there’s nothing shady or wrong going on here. I don’t have the time or energy to continue to deal with this stupid conspiracy theory.
That’s “petition”, not “position”. As far as typos go, a rather unfortunate one, I will admit.
I don’t know. I don’t particularly care. Again, the best analysis we have indicates that there was no politically motivated wrongdoing. Weave conspiracy theories, complain about bigotry all you want; I don’t care.
Maybe I don’t. That’s why, when it comes to this issue, I defer to expert analysis. Like, say, the government committee responsible for investigating the issue. Who came back with exactly the result I’m touting.
So… Just me then?
In most of the United States, actually, businesses are perfectly free to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and there is no sign that that will be changing any time soon.
Anti-discrimination laws are not part of the same-sex marriage package as some right-wingers seem to believe. I wish they were but they are not. They are an entirely separate fight that still has to be fought.
Didn’t the ACA happen? Maybe not well…but it is there.
I think the next left/right swing will happen in regards to big business spending versus populace spending. Just because we can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. I’ve been reading that Republicans are losing the popular vote. Which is why I’ve been saying the voting public. People have to become educated and vote to make a difference.
So you’re afraid that the “powers that be” will “shut you down” by forcing you to bake me a cake? Somehow you have become the minority whose rights need to be protected? The only right you’re referring to is your right to discriminate, the right to live your life without having to deal with gays, blacks, Jews, etc. You expect society to give you a guarantee that you’ll never be expected to accommodate anyone you don’t like, as if we, too, are minorities with rights. Well guess what: we should all have the same rights, even you. Because nobody has the right to discriminate against you either. We haven’t won the culture war, because there’s no culture war, and there never was one. There’s only the ongoing recognition that we all should have the same rights. If I refuse to sell you a cake because of your sexual orientation, there will be a law against that.
If he refuses to bake wedding cakes at all, you’re right. If he’ll bake a cake for a straight couple, but not for a gay couple, you’re wrong.
Hopefully nobody would seriously argue that refusing to bake a politically-oriented cake is remotely analogous to refusing to bake a wedding cake.
The correct analogy would be a baker who refuses to bake a pro-same-sex-marriage cake for a rally, something that says, “I support SSM across the nation.”
Do you lament Klan members that were forced to go out of business because they refused to let Catholics into their businesses?
Also, if someone thinks God doesn’t like race mixing, are you okay with the baker turning away an interracial couple?
Wait. jtgain makes a good point. If a baker is willing to bake a cake for Joe’s (who is gay) birthday (and for sake of argument, let’s say has overt cues like the rainbow flag), but not Joe’s wedding, it’s hard to argue that he is discriminating against a person’s sexual orientation. He’s discriminating against a particular act—SSM.
Why not? Do you think that one is more protected by the constitution than the other? If so, which one?
This brings up two interesting points. One is that there is a difference between actual religious doctrine and made up religious doctrine. The other is that it can be very difficult to draw a line between the two.
Well, all religious doctrine is made up. 
But the Christian Identity movement is a real thing, and as valid in the eyes of the law as general Christianity. It seems to me that allowing one to be racist on religious grounds would have an awful lot of people joining such religions.
Are you going to clarify this for us?
I think wedding cakes are different, from a business standpoint, than regular cakes – so refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay person (or a gay couple) sounds like discrimination based on sexual orientation alone.
You mean the system that Mitt Romney did first, in his state? You mean the system that Gingrich proposed as the Republican alternative to the healthcare reforms sought by Democrats in the 90’s? Is that really the “pendulum swinging left” to you?
I don’t think those really signify, since it was only a minority of Republicans who ever proposed ACA-like legislation (and it was basically just to have an alternative to Hilarycare). What’s more significant is that the lower house of Congress has attempted to repeal the ACA 4200 times.
It’s swung from *not *doing it, or even really intending to, to doing it. That’s leftward.
Yes, that’s the expected position. You haven’t addressed what I brought up, via jtgain. One can most definitely draw a line between homosexuality and SSM.
And what would that difference be?
One can draw that line, but refusing to bake a cake for same-sex marriages while baking cakes for opposite sex marriages is still discriminating against people because they are gay. “If you’re gay, I’ll bake you a cake, but I won’t bake you a wedding cake for your ceremony” is discrimination.
One can draw the line, and call it “opposition to an action, not an orientation”, but it’s still discrimination in practice. Just like it would be to refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings, or for Jewish weddings. Saying one is not opposed to Jews, just to Jewish weddings, doesn’t really fly as a defense for whether it’s discrimination based on religion or not.
Not a pastor, of course, but I presume this guy wasn’t making up his religious doctrine.
[QUOTE=Judge Leon Bazile]
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it’s ok for the government to force something to do or not do something that is part of their religious belief. Human sacrifice, jihad, statutory rape have all been part of some religious groups beliefs. Saying “it’s my religious belief” does not grant you a pass to break the law.
I agree with your point, but not your reasoning behind it. The government should not be able to tell you who you can and cannot serve in your business for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with race or religion or sexual preference. But by the same token, the government shouldn’t protect you if a store owners bigoted practices cause a backlash of economic forces and popular opinion that drives them out of business.