Summations Only

Not between consenting adults, no.

That's a good answer. Glad you aren't in favor of NAMBLA.

I've never understood why people think there is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality. One is not the other. If you support the right of a man and a women to marry, should I also assume that you support a 40 year old man marrying a 10 year old girl?To be fair, you have not equated the two, but I have seen a lot of people claim that if you are for gay rights then you must also be for pedophile rights. Never understood that one.

I seem to have the old fashioned idea, that a baker's job is to make excellent cakes and pastries, not to make moral judgments of his customers.The baker is not being asked to approve the marriage. He is not being asked to perform the marriage. He is only being asked to bake a cake.If baking a cake is against his strong moral conviction, he should get out of the bakery business.

The obtuseness to the moral issue here is truly amazing. However, although you don't get it , again, let's leave it to the people who DO have a conscience against baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple because to them it's like condoning gay marriage which they believe violates the Law of God. Who are you or the state to dictate to a person's conscience? But again, if you, as a good citizen of the USSA, want to force it on Christians, I can only hope Christians will have the backbone to choose God over all these forces of bigotry against them no matter what the consequences.

No, there's nothing obtuse about it at all. No, baking a cake is not condoning anything, except perhaps the baking of cakes. No, nothing is being forced on Christians, except that if they offer a public service to bake cakes, they are expected to bake cakes for their customers.This is about recognizing that a bunch of pseudo-Christians are having a ridiculous tantrum, and pretending that their religion requires them to behave in an anti-Christian way.

No, it does not imply that as there are plenty of other possibilities.First, there is no excuse for not reading the bill. Second, AZ voters have gone for discriminatory laws time and time again. Plenty of voters love this crap and people like you apparently have no problem with it.The problem for those AZ senators is that the business people who fork out the money they need to campaign did not like the bill and were vocal in their displeasure. Thoughts of losing out on the Super bowl danced before their eyes.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you can not, in good conscience, bake cakes for the public in accordance with laws, THEN DON'T BE IN THE CAKE BUSINESS. It is a really simple concept. No one is dictating what a person's conscience should be. The state is not forcing you to be in the cake business or wedding photography business, as two examples. If you operate those businesses, you are doing so of your own free will, and in doing so you take on the rules that the state sets out for those businesses. The bigots are the ones who want businesses to treat everyone equally, and not discriminate? Really?Were the bigots the ones who desegregated the South against the conscience of white Southerners?

And you know what else people believe violates the Law of God?

Actually Faith, you do have this wrong, mainly because you are unaware of the laws that currently exist in my home state. That is not your fault as I am sure I am unaware of many laws in your home state as well. The interesting aspect that one should focus on is what classes of citizens are considered protected in the state of Arizona. According to Arizona law the protected classes of citizens include based on Sex, Race, Color, Genetic Information, Religion, Disability, National Origin, Citizenship Status and Age. Notice how one class of citizens is noticably missing from that list, sexual orientation. It is fully legal already in this state to discriminate based on sexual orientation, as long as it does not apply to Federal items. This is obviously a terrible thing, but the law they tried to implement would have allowed basic refusal of service and created an even more second class of citizen. A photographer can already deny services to a commitment ceremony in Arizona, which would not even matter since any form of same sex union is banned in our state with our moronic Marriage Protection Act. We can't fix this problem until we can literally change our state constitution, unless the Supreme Court gets off its ass and declares these types of bans unconstitutional, a decision that is definitely looming. However, by choosing to do business with the public, you should be required to offer your services to all members of the public, without endorsing what you serve for. A photographer is not required to sign an affadavit declaring same sex okay by him or her to photograph the event. There is no consent given by the photographer, they are merely a recording device and nothing more. The conscience of the businessperson should not be affected in anyway to give a service they willingly chose to offer in the public square. In fact, by refusing the service for nothing but discriminatory reasons the businessperson has knowingly lied about the service they purported to offer to everyone.All the protections guaranteed for religion are covered under the Bill of Rights and no further laws need to be enacted to protect religion from anything. There is a great article about whether or not someone is infringing upon your religion and it talks about how wanting your religion to be surperior in the public sector is not protected, which is what these religious legislators tried for. Otherwise, would you be okay with a business that refused managerial employment to qualified women because of Timothy 2:12? Please, let me her your answer to that question, as it would be protected under the Religious Protection attempt made in Arizona.Good job, Jan Brewer for vetoing the bill and not only claiming that it was because of business threats, but also because it was a stupid law that should not have been passed.

Your "Freedom of Conscience," Faith, allows you to believe as you wish, keep your own circle of friends and vote with your voice, your feet and your dollars.What it does not allow you, Faith, is to usurp this freedom from others and actively bar their humanity by denial of common rights. If you openly engage in business to the public that mean ALL of the public, Faith. If you cannot abide by that out of your own immoral religious views then you have the freedom of conscience to quit your business.

Yes, and they had historical references to show that the NFL is not afraid to move the Super Bowl out of a city that does not adhere to the NFL's policies. The example set was seen in 1990 when the voters of Arizona did not approve Martin Luther King Jr. day as a State Holiday. The 1993 Super Bowl was supposed to be in Arizona, but the NFL moved it quickly to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

If the shoe fits, wear it.People don't have to accuse Fundamentalist Christians of anything, or right wing fanatics..They accuse themselves.. by the fruit they bear.

Faith asks: WTF are "Yelp" reviews???

NoNukes notes that: ^ This.