published Friday, February 28th, 2014

People of faith need to watch their backs

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona religious liberty bill.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona religious liberty bill.
Photo by Associated Press /Chattanooga Times Free Press.

The deed is done, Gov. Jan Brewer's veto pen is stilled, but one question — one alarming question — should be swimming in the heads of all those who supported the actual religious liberty intent of Arizona bill SB1062:

What's next?

Will ministers opposed to same-sex marriages be forced to conduct them? Will doctors opposed to abortions be required to perform them? Will kosher delis have to offer non-kosher food? Will booksellers be required to sell what to them is pornography? Will drug store owners be required to carry abortifacients?

The veto of the bill, which would have protected the rights of Arizona business owners to reject service to customers on religious grounds, in effect says faith has no bearing on whom businesses serve.

Without the protection of faith, you can easily see legislation mandating any of the above.

The actual intent of the Arizona bill became so clouded in the run-up to the governor's decision that three supporters of it urged its veto because it had "been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance," as an attack on gay rights.

This is the world many people of faith in the United States find themselves in, an upside-down world in which white is black, black is white and what they've been taught in the name of their God -- that marriage is between one man and one woman, for instance -- is deemed not just wrong but hateful.

"We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that backed the legislation.

These people of faith are reeling. They feel as if they've been hit by an 18-wheeler. These are not zealots, either. These are average people who live their lives, do their jobs, attend their places of worship and don't have a hateful bone in their bodies.

With all the oxygen in the room taken up by those who would create the politically-correct issue of the day and their willing accomplices in the media -- and an Attorney General of the United States who declared earlier this week he wouldn't defend any law that in his mind was discriminatory -- they wonder if anyone speaks for them anymore.

Oh, the average person can understand Brewer's veto. She had political leaders of both parties, major corporations, and gay and lesbian activists breathing down her neck. She'd heard the threats of what really amounted to blackmail and didn't want the state to lose business. She also didn't want it to become the focus of late-night comedians as the state did in 2010 when it rightly tried to crack down on illegal immigration.

But she, like so many before her in the past five years or so, fell on the sword of expediency.

"The Arizona religious liberty bill was a good piece of public policy," Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation told Breitbart News. "But because of constant misrepresentation in the media, a bill that never mentioned gays, lesbians, marriage, or same-sex anything was labeled anti-gay Jim Crow legislation. In truth, the bill merely protected religious liberty and took nothing away from anyone.

"Everyone should be free to live and love as they choose," he said, "but no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationship. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty."

The vetoed bill, in fact, was similar to Arizona's existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act but clarified that business owners would be covered by the law if 1) "state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business" or 2) "when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion."

However, a photographer in neighboring New Mexico was sued for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony and a Colorado baker was given an ultimatum to offer services for a same-sex wedding or face fines, so Arizona lawmakers wanted to be sure.

And as 11 law professors from around the country --Democrats and Republicans -- assured Brewer in a signed letter, "SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reason."

But instead, people of faith will be wondering what's around the corner.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

A whole country held hostage by the poop chute brigade. Having their run of the place isn't enough. Shut up and call us normal!

February 28, 2014 at 1:23 a.m.

I pledge allegiance to the f#g and for the buttocks for which we bend over for, one nation under Satan, hedonistic, with perversions and deviancy for all.

February 28, 2014 at 1:37 a.m.


"(b) The legal union in matrimony of only one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be the only recognized marriage in this state. (c) Any policy, law or judicial interpretation that purports to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one (1) man and one (1) woman is contrary to the public policy of Tennessee"; Tenn. Code Ann. ' 36 3 113

Too many Liberal Democrats are Scofflaws and utilize sleazy deception and other evil tactics to push their immoral lifestyles onto society. This is an example of the Obama administration.


February 28, 2014 at 6:21 a.m.
LibDem said...

(zableedofisterix, I know your mama is proud of you.)

The idea that Christians should treat others with decency and humanity is pretty outrageous, I guess. Baking a cake or taking some pictures for a member of your community just violates that commandment: Be nasty when you've the opportunity.

February 28, 2014 at 6:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Of for Pete's sake, religious freedom is NOT under attack in this country. Just because people can't impose their beliefs on others does not mean they have lost their religious freedom. Folks need to get a grip. You want to be a Christian victim? Move to Pakistan or Egypt. Then you'll actually have a case.

February 28, 2014 at 7:44 a.m.
kkemerait said...

I just finished reading a fascinating book entitled "The MYTH of Persecution...How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom" by Candida Moss, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame University.

It seems like this is little more then an attempt at perpetuating the same notion, that Christians are under some type of "persecution" simply because others disagree with them. Poor pitiful me ... look how I'm persecuted.

It's an excellent book for those interested in the historical roots of the notion of persecution. ISBN 978-0-06-210452-6

February 28, 2014 at 8:15 a.m.
LibDem said...

The US is about 80% Christian (Tennessee about 110%). It's really a stretch for the majority to claim persecution. They have to beat themselves to make the case.

February 28, 2014 at 8:36 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

There is a long history of Christians being persecuted in America, right?

It seems ironic that the same fundamentalists who decry persecution ignore that their Bible is filled with God decreed instructions to rape, torture, kill, and pillage anyone who does not share their beliefs. They are supreme hypocrites.

February 28, 2014 at 9:31 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Orr, TX's ban on same-sex marriages was just found to be unconstitutional. If the ruling is upheld, how long do you think TN's is going to last?

I really wish Fister and KenOrr would just come out of the closet. They both go into heat when they see the topic is about homosexuality. They have to unleash their hidden gay tendencies and it gets graphic.

February 28, 2014 at 11:35 a.m.


Just goes to show how many folks in the U.S. Govt. are what Jesus Christ calls abominable in His sight. An abomination is an abomination...IS an abomination. Your Creator, Jesus Christ said that, not me...I, as a Jesus Follower only agree with The One Who said it.

Matthew 7:13-14 King James Version (KJV)

13 (Jesus Christ said) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

February 28, 2014 at 11:44 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

So Ken, why are you always so hung up on the gay thing? You are zoned in on one thing that you consider an "abomination", yet you never talk about any of the other "abominations" in the Bible. It's absurd. Either harp on the other things or let the gay issue go. It just makes you look like a fool.

February 28, 2014 at 1:01 p.m.

Oh, lib, don't be silly now. You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it?

How is that more offensive than teaching school kid that the anus is a genital? Which is done in California.

You don't get it, "gays" can do what they want, it's their life, but when they promote it to kids, and when they attack those that think it's not normal, then it's a completely different thing. Completely.

Do what you want, that's your business. This country is as accepting of their lifestyle as we can possibly be. They push the sexual aspect of it on everyone. Why is it when there's a "gay" pride parade it's always packed with marchers dressed in lewd outfits and acting in a sexual manner. I've seen that so often. Why not just march with regular clothes on, like you're just like everyone' usually would, why not blend in? Why should a very small minority bully everyone around, and why do they have such a massive influence in hollywood and the media.

February 28, 2014 at 1:16 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

OMG! Those poor persecuted Christian business owners being forced to serve gay couples! Why, it's every bit as bad as the days after the Civil Rights Act, when they were forced to serve black people. Let's not forget that those good Christian folks were quoting from their Bibles then, reminding us how God made them black for a reason, to be set apart from us blessed and chosen white folks. Why, if they had been meant to mingle with us white chosen ones they wouldn't have been born black! And if gays were meant to be served in the marketplace, then they should at least have the decency to stay in the closet!

I am weeping tears of sorrow for you, Christian business owners and persecuted Christians in general. How hard it must be for you, in all your holiness, to not only endure the sight of those sodomizing perverts but to have to serve them in your public establishments, just like regular folks. Of course, they are not engaging in sex or anything illegal while they are in your establishments, but that's not the point; it's just a matter of common decency, isn't it? I mean, they're, you know, GAY and all! That in itself is vile enough, and you have to draw a line somewhere. (But wait...just will you know if two women or two men together are gay and married? Will you ask each and every couple before you serve them? Oh well, just a thought. That's not the main point anyway, is it?) Yes, you poor, poor souls. How picked on, persecuted, and maligned you are! What's next? Why, they might try to make you serve a woman who's had a baby out of wedlock or someone who's committing adultery and cheating on their spouse! Oh, wait...

February 28, 2014 at 2:35 p.m.

BOscare's attempt to force religious organizations to do things against their faith is an attack on Christianity. Just because it's cloaked in this law, doesn't mean it's no less the attack. Why do gays and libs always attack Christians for their belief that homosexuality is immoral? Christians aren't stopping gays from doing what they want to do in their bedrooms. I suggest the gay movement in this country count their blessings, and be glad they don't live in Uganda, Nigeria, Iran, or some other place.

February 28, 2014 at 4:16 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

religious organizations are not being "forced to do things against their faith". They are simply not being allowed to force their doctrine on others. Plain and simple. Stop whining.

I think the Christian MAJORITY needs to count their blessings and be glad they don't live in a theocracy dominated by some other religion.

February 28, 2014 at 4:58 p.m.
Plato said...

The author seems to be confused. The bill is unconstitutional becasue it would allow businesses to pick and choose their customers based on "religion" which can be literally whatever you want it to be.

Will ministers opposed to same-sex marriages be forced to conduct them?

No because a church is not a business open to the public the law doesn't apply

Will doctors opposed to abortions be required to perform them?

No becasue doctors choose what services to provide. This law doesn't not require them or any other professional to perform a service they are not qualified or choose not to perform.

Will kosher delis have to offer non-kosher food?

Another silly question. A business can choose what products and services it wishes to sell. That has nothing to do with refusing to serve certain customers.

Will booksellers be required to sell what to them is pornography?

Same answer as above - do you not understand the difference between products and customers?

Will drug store owners be required to carry abortifacients?

sounds like a broken record. Strawman arguments are pretty easy to see through if you just take a little time to think through them.

February 28, 2014 at 6:34 p.m.
soakya said...

what in the constitution prohibits a individual to choose who it wants to serve? if that's the case you better shut the door on all companies. Basically every business discriminates every day. Their products and services are geared toward meeting a specific demographic. What about the steak house that serves $200 steaks, are they not discriminating against the poor, are the poor not oppressed. the constitution doesn't give groups rights, it gives individuals rights.

the constitution is not a document that grants individuals the right of anything from another person. the constitution is a document that limits the governments power and reach.

February 28, 2014 at 8:31 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

That is not the same thing, soakya. Offering services at a price that is appropriate to the cost of the service or merchandise does not discriminate. The constitution DOES guarantee equal protection. If a business offers a service or product, anyone should be able to buy that service or product if they can pay. A bank cannot tell a woman or a black person they can't open an account, a muslim-owned grocery cannot refuse to sell food to a Christian. You are welcome to offer an example of a company discriminating it its business practices. I bet you can't.

March 1, 2014 at 7:51 a.m.
conservative said...

I believe in the old adage "where there is a will, there is a way."

I could just charge an exorbitant fee for my service so as to be rejected.

I could preach to people who came to my place of business which would have the Homosexual/sodomite covering his ears as he headed for the door.

I could act incompetent.

I could actually take poor pictures in that one case cited above. I mean how could you correct that once the event was over? The word would get around to other Homosexuals/sodomites.

I could flat out tell them I didn't want their business and strongly convey to them they would not be satisfied with my work. Who would take the chance?

I could even suggest to them that I have had employees who might pull a Jesse Jackson concerning their cake.

I could play a tape of preaching on the gross sin of Homosexuality/sodomy. See them running for the door.

There really are a lot of options.

March 1, 2014 at 8:50 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

And you could also lose a large number of your regular customers and get sued for doing these things. Help yourself.

March 1, 2014 at 8:58 a.m.
conservative said...

A number of years ago Homosexuals/sodomites were picketing Cracker Barrel in Georgia.

I couldn't help but think what an endorsement of sorts that was and how that would draw normal people in to eat.

March 1, 2014 at 9:03 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

There will always be places where bigots are welcome, connie.

March 1, 2014 at 9:07 a.m.
Ki said...

This Bill was purposely so vaguely written that it would have included most anyone; fat people, short people, black people, hispanic people. A Baptist store owner could legally discriminate against a Methodis, Methodist against at Protestant. The bill was a pitiful joke. Meant to use gays as a springboard, then if the bill was signed into law it would likely have become broader.

No one's fooled that historically discrimination doesn't still take place on some leve. It's just not in your face and openly like it was in the 1960s and part of the 1970s. Last year a corporate manager for a well known nationaly restaurant chain was sent down from St. Louis to inspect and update training at one of their locally owned restaurants. Some of the workers is said to have invited him (African-American) out to a well known club before his return to St. Louis. The workers were white. When they got to the club, the workers were shocked that he was refused entry. He was dressed well in shirt, tie, vest an slacks. The door security's excuse for turning him away was because he didn't have on a suit-jacket or something that kind. The workers who invited him sai they'd never hear of such a policy at this business. But of course they were all white. So they would have had no problem getting in anyway. Well to make a long story short. It seems this establishment has an unwritten policy where they allow only so many blacks in on any given night. If anyone complained and called it discrimination, it wouldn't look like that on the surface. All they'd have to do is pull a few black Joe's who got in on that night and they'd say "I had no problem getting in. So this can't be true." What they would not immediately realize is they were within that range of numbers that woul have been allowed in. If they' been one number over, they wouldn't have gotten in either. Tricky, isn't it? Devlish and devious, right? An embarassment that this still takes place in 21ST century raceblind America? You betcha!

March 1, 2014 at 9:54 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

It's hard to believe that this is the 21st century and yet there are so many right-wing knuckle draggers proposing this sort of insane, draconian legislation, and so many like-minded sycophants supporting it. Whether you Christian fundamentalist blowhards want to accept it or not the vast majority of Americans do not want a theocracy, we want a clear separation of church and state, and it is going to stay that way. This is really a very simple issue of the church not having any damn business sticking its long pointy nose into the marketplace of commerce and it doesn't deserve the time spent on debating it. There IS no debate.

If a person decides to go into business for himself/herself then they must abide by the laws of the land and the laws of the land state that ALL people, regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference are to be treated fairly and equally. If a business owner wants to post Bible quotes or the Ten Commandments on the front windows or play gospel music over the PA system all day long or hand out religious tracts to every customer who walks in the door, he/she can do that. But you cannot deny service to anyone who is not otherwise disturbing the peace or breaking the law. If you want to turn homosexuals, married or not, away from your church, you can do that. If you want to turn them away from your house, you can do that. But in the business arena, you CANNOT do that. If you don't wish to abide by that particular law then you have no right being in the marketplace in the first place.

It is not you whining self-righteous Christians who are being persecuted or being discriminated against, it is YOU who are doing the persecuting and discriminating. So shut up and go pray to your jealous little sadistic god and go read your one or two verses in the Bible that fuel your hatred of gays (Oh pardon me... you "love the sinner but hate the sin," don't you? Rubbish!). Just shut up already about how "persecuted" you are. Your self-righteous arrogance knows no bounds.

March 1, 2014 at 11:41 a.m.
soakya said...

"That is not the same thing, soakya. Offering services at a price that is appropriate to the cost of the service or merchandise does not discriminate."-lkeithu. sure it does, it discriminates against the poor. are the poor not oppressed?

"The constitution DOES guarantee equal protection. If a business offers a service or product, anyone should be able to buy that service or product if they can pay. A bank cannot tell a woman or a black person they can't open an account, a muslim-owned grocery cannot refuse to sell food to a Christian. You are welcome to offer an example of a company discriminating it its business practices. I bet you can't." lktithu. you are welcome to point out in the constitution where this protection is given. you like most liberals do not even understand the constitution or its intent. so by all means point out in the constitution that says if I own a restaurant if I choose to serve only nutty liberals as yourself I can't do so.

March 1, 2014 at 2:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So you don't have an example. So typical of you. Businesses cannot discriminate. Not for religious reasons. Not for racial reasons. Not for gender reasons. A car company cannot refuse to sell to Hispanics. A drug store cannot refuse to sell to women. And a baker cannot refuse to sell to gays.

March 1, 2014 at 2:47 p.m.
soakya said...

"The constitution DOES guarantee equal protection."-lkeithu

so you can't point out in the constitution where this right is given that says every business must serve you.

most people who run businesses care about one thing and one color, money and that its green and don't discriminate based on the things you point out. the constitution doesn't give you the right to shop anywhere because it doesn't need to.

March 1, 2014 at 4:22 p.m.
Plato said...

^Soakya - The 14th Amendment to the Constitution AKA The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens.

The 14th Amendment was the basis of several Supreme Court Decisions in the 20th century that made Jim Crow Laws (similar to the Arizona Bill) illegal.

March 1, 2014 at 4:39 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

most people who run businesses care about one thing and one color, money and that its green and don't discriminate based on the things you point out. the constitution doesn't give you the right to shop anywhere because it doesn't need to.

Before the Civil Rights movement white owned businesses in the South didn't think Black's money was "green" enough. In some places in the US people didn't think Jewish money was "green" enough. No, businesses had to be forced to treat people equally. Gays, women, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Hispanics, Sikhs, and if you go back far enough, Catholics, Irish, Italians too.

March 1, 2014 at 4:45 p.m.
soakya said...

the 14th amendment forbids STATES from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

it forbid states from denying equal protection of the laws. what rights do whites have that no one else has?

March 1, 2014 at 5:08 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Gays are people.

March 1, 2014 at 5:42 p.m.
soakya said...

I'll say it a little s l o w e r this time for you and i'll keep it simple. what rights do whites have that no one else has?

I guess you are suggesting gays can't marry? sure they can, just the same as you and me. in most states you can't marry people of the same sex and neither can gays. in all states you and gays can marry any person of the opposite sex that might be willing to have you. how is that not equal protection under the law?

March 1, 2014 at 7:37 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

That doesn't even deserve a response. Your homophobia and ignorance is noted for the future.

Or maybe bigotry is the right word.

March 1, 2014 at 7:55 p.m.
soakya said...

typical. you can't answer the question(s)and you won't admit whites have no more protection under the law than anyone else so you resort to what progressives always do. the only bigots I see on this forum are people like you lkeithu. you are ate up with your life as a racist and you wish there was something you could do about it but there isn't, it is who you are, so you project your own racism on others hoping it will relieve your own conscience. the true racist have been revealed in the past 5 years and you know it.

March 1, 2014 at 8:14 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Blah blah blah. You were caught making claims you can't support, so you resort to insults. No matter-it's all here for everyone to see. You are busted.

March 1, 2014 at 8:33 p.m.

There is no homophobia in this country. There are plenty of accusations of homophobia tossed at those who believe it's not normal, or immoral, but there is no homophobia. This country is accepting of their behavior, nobody is stopping gays from doing what the want. In fact, quite the contrary. It's promoted and those that state their discomfort with it are condemned or branded as homophobes. Go to Uganda, Iran, Nigeria and so on, then you'll really encounter real homophobia. You can be jailed or executed in those countries for engaging in homosexual acts.

March 1, 2014 at 9:17 p.m.

How is believing that homosexual acts are not normal a phobia?

March 1, 2014 at 9:22 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Okay, homophobe does not describe you. My bad. You are a bigot.

March 2, 2014 at 7:12 a.m.
soakya said...

we get it, we get it. everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot and a homophobe.

March 2, 2014 at 8:26 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

No, your words make you a bigot or a homophobe (or both)

March 2, 2014 at 8:45 a.m.
jjmez said...

zableedofisterix said... How is believing that homosexual acts are not normal a phobia?

Because those acts are neither homosexual than they are heterosexual. As many heterosexual engage in those type acts too. Even christian rightwingers.

But will you be so kind as to explain to everyone your obsession with what others engage in the privacy of their own lives? You appear to have some kind of perverted hidden desires you're either too afraid to act upon or you have already but kept'em in the closet.

March 2, 2014 at 9 a.m.
soakya said...

by saying we all have the same rights makes me a homophobe. by saying groups don't have rights, individuals do. interesting. and you were an educator. sad. hopefully you did not distort too many minds.

March 2, 2014 at 9:19 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

And so your claim that businesses can discriminate against individuals, including gays, is wrong.

March 2, 2014 at 9:22 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

And I "distorted" as many minds as I was able, across thirty years. Every one of my students is in jail now, convicted murderers. Thanks for asking.

I don't think you are a homophobe, like Ken Orr. I think you are a hateful bigot.

March 2, 2014 at 9:24 a.m.
rick1 said...

Ike, soakya did not say anything that would make them a bigot.

Your comment "Businesses cannot discriminate. Not for religious reason," is false. The fact is Federal Law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

Federal Law and Private Businesses

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation -- and some have publicly done so.

March 2, 2014 at 11:41 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

"There is no homophobia in this country" - zableed

You are arguing over mere semantics. Homophobia is, by definition, the fear of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Most gay bashers don't admit hating or especially fearing homosexuals. But they simply hide behind certain lofty sounding words. Christians like to disguise or deny their bigotry by saying they "love the homosexual but hate the sin of homosexuality." But that is complete BS. Just because we aren't burning gays at the stake or locking them up or beheading them here in America doesn't mean that nobody is homophobic. Homophobia and bigotry are sill alive and well here in America. It's just that you slick imposters and liars either don't admit your own attitudes about it or you aren't even aware of how you really feel.

March 2, 2014 at 11:43 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

Oh for God's sake, the idea that Christians in this country are being "persecuted" for their beliefs is ludicrous on its face. Leonard Pitts Jr. summarized it best.

"This is America. Your right to follow religious conscience ends at someone else’s right to receive public service in public places. Do your darn job. Or quit and give it to somebody who will."

I heard these same arguments in the 60's when southerners were using states rights as a facade to maintain segregation. It was bilge water then as it is now.

March 2, 2014 at 12:31 p.m.
rick1 said...

Iker, I'm sorry I misspoke in my post at 11:41am when I responded to your comment about religion. The comment I meant to address was the one you made stating "And a baker cannot refuse to sell to gays." This is a false statement as I have posted the law above at 11:41am

March 2, 2014 at 12:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

But it is true. A business owner cannot offer services or products for sale, then deny them to someone for religious reasons. It would never stand up in court. If they don't sell to one party, it is because they don't offer the service. If a baker does not want to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, they should not sell wedding cakes at all. Can they claim religious opposition to a cake for a couple of divorcees that marry? An interracial couple? A Christian marrying a Jew? No.

March 2, 2014 at 4:02 p.m.
rick1 said...

Ike, you are wrong. A business owner can deny a sale to anyone as long as the reason they refused sale was not based on race, color, religion or national origin.

A baker can refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay person. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Federal Law is very clear on this.

March 2, 2014 at 4:33 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

This argument will never hold up against a court of law. You'll see soon. It is the Civil Right act that will be used, along with the 14th amendment. The Gov of AZ was wise to veto it.

March 2, 2014 at 7:07 p.m.
rick1 said...

Ike, the comment you made at this time is false under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why can't you admit that?

March 2, 2014 at 8:03 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

The Civil Rights Act does not mention Gays. But the premise of the Civil Rights Act can be used to apply to other groups. Why do you think the AZ gov vetoed the bill? You think she wants the inevitable law suits? The bill is wrong, and would not stand up to scrutiny.

March 3, 2014 at 7:29 a.m.
rick1 said...

Ike, it does not matter if you think the Civil Rights Bill is wrong or not. At this time it does not cover Gays as it is written and your comment is false.

It appears you are not going to admit it even though I have provided you the law.

March 3, 2014 at 9:38 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.