FCA US Joins Michigan Businesses In Opposition Of Proposed Religious Freedom Bill

You don't hate people, you just want to be able to treat some of them as second-class citizens and get away with it.

@Pch101 You could not be more wrong. Quite the contrary.

@thelaine Too gutless to admit it. The passive-aggressive routine doesn't fool anyone who isn't in your hate club.

@Pch101 And you are just a name caller, unable to muster an argument. You are a flailing, wailing, lonely, sad little child. Master of all googleable topics, from fuel mixing valves to gay rights. Desperate to be recognized. Self righteous and smug. Distainful of others. You will make an excellent facist. You have still given absolutely no substantive response.

@Pch101 Yes, you are the poor nice victim because you can't get away with discrimination. You're like George Wallace with an internet service provider.

@Pch101 Have you ever noticed that you are compelled to: 1. Personally insult anyone who diagrees with one of your immaculate googlepinions? 2. Get the last word? You are still that socially rejected friendless 13 year old.

@Pch101 There's no reason to tolerate your bigotry. You have the right to be a bigot, but nobody has an obligation to congratulate you for it. If you don't care for your dumb ideas being rejected as they should be, then find a new hobby that causes you less angst. No reason to pad the corners of the world for a segregationist like you.

@Pch101 Goggle makes ugly little milquetoasts like you tall and strong. Unfortunately, that is the exact sort of person who is attracted to government power. You are a perfectly formed little emotiomal defective. The Party welcomes you.

@Pch101 You need to invest in a better set of cliches.

@Pch101 They only appear cliche to you because people have pointed it out to you so many times. You should listen.

@Pch101 It's odd that segregating gay people means so very much to you.

@Pch101 It's really everyone. Any issue. It has nothing to do with this topic, my opinion, or me. It's any person who expresses an opinion with which you disagooglegree. Why? What is it about your personal insecurities that compels you to personally attack anyone who does not fall in line? Isn't this a facistic tendency?

@Pch101 The real fascists singled out gay people for the death camps. Oh, the irony. If you don't like being criticized for saying dumb things, then start saying smart things, instead.

@Pch101 Disagreement equals dumb to you. Can't see that? It happens every day you post, if anyone dares venture a contrary opinion. As far as you are concerned, you have NEVER been wrong, even though you state opinions on a stunning variety of topics. This is because an insecure little gnome like you HAS to be right. BTW, news flash, you just compared wedding cakes to death camps. In spite of that, I think you are just a hysterical, spoiled 12 year old who can't get what he wants, not an idiot.

@Pch101 Bigots are dumb, yes. You must know this, since you work so hard to pretend that your segregationist views aren't bigoted. Your views are embarrassing even for you.

@Pch101 "The real fascists singled out gay people for the death camps." Let's be more accurate: The real leftists singled out gay people for death camps. "In 1936 the Commissar for Justice, Nikolai Krylenko, declared homosexuality a political crime against the Soviet state and the proletariat. It became an object of NKVD (later transformed into KGB) investigations, possibly with a view to recruiting new informers from among known homosexuals. In the mid-1930s gays flooded into Soviet camps in their thousands, and the influx apparently remained steady throughout the years article 121 was in force. Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it a 'sordid' bit of legislation. In the Gulag Archipelago, dedicated to 'all those who did not live long enough to tell the story', there isn't a word of sympathy for oppressed homosexuals. Just as there isn't in Varlaam Shalamov's Kolyma Tales. Most dissident authors, while exposing the inhumanity of life in the camps, hold on firmly to camp attitudes in their contemptuous dismissal of gays and of homosexuality in general. Until very recently the issue remained taboo. Even when revelations about Stalinist repressions began to emerge, not a single human rights activist, neither in the USSR nor abroad, was seriously prepared to tackle the problem. The fate of homosexuals in Soviet prisons and camps is unprecedented in the scope of its tragedy and brutality. Not only were the numbers vast, homosexual rape took place in every camp and prison without exception. Not only did the Soviet system fail to cure the 'foreign disease', it led to a dramatic growth in the numbers of homosexuals. Huge numbers of people who had not previously been gay became categorised as opushchennye (lit: crestfallen, degraded, downcast; also slang term for one who has been beaten up, raped and urinated upon)." http://slavamogutin.com/gay-in-the-gulag/

@Pch101 And everyone else whom you insult?

@Pch101 Er, I'm not a fan of the Soviet Union, either. If some conservatives on this website are going to abuse the word "fascist" as they do, then they ought to know that the fascists also wanted to segregate gay people. In the death camps, homosexuals had to wear pink stars in order to identify what allegedly made them worth killing. That the Soviets did the same thing should make it obvious that hating gay folks is not something that decent people should do. Hating gay people for sport isn't.

@Pch101 "That the Soviets did the same thing should make it obvious that hating gay folks is not something that decent people should do." So just like rejecting God then?

@Pch101 There's no end to CJ's collection of bizarro analogies.

@Pch101 In the Twentieth Century the Bolshevik Soviet government, the NSDAP Third Reich, and the Communist Party of China have all engaged in serious acts of genocide against who they perceived to be social or political enemies. All three governments share another hallmark, that of totalitarianism. When any government drifts into totalitarianism of either side of the false right/left dichotomy, it is a safe assumption they will pursue a policy of genocide in one form or another. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/i-was-sentenced-to-life-in-a-chinese-labour-camp-this-is-my-story-1790465.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/china/deaths1.html

@Pch101 "Bigots are dumb, yes." Especially on this topic. Don't bigots realize that gayness *prevents* decaying neighborhoods, overwhelmed social systems and rioting "youths"? That's why Dog makes gays; a safety valve to check the breeders.

@Pch101 But the nation's fate depends upon denying them wedding cake and pizza.

@Volando and @thelaine et. al : a few points/questions: 1.) are you admitting that your point of view is discriminatory and arguing that you have the right to discriminate, or are you trying to suggest you are not discriminating? 2.) My contention is that you are supporting a discriminatory viewpoint. As I suggested above, there is a fundamental difference between a Jewish Deli refusing to prepare non kosher meals and a Christian bakery refusing to make a same sex wedding cake. The Jewish Deli is not discriminating because it won't prepare a non kosher meal for anyone, no matter their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Everyone is treated equally. The baker is discriminating because they are refusing to provide a product or service that they would otherwise provide to another person based on that individuals sexual orientation; ie they are being treated differently and therefore discriminated against. 3.) Next question is where do you draw the line at allowing discrimination? As asked earlier, what about interracial marriage? There are those that find that to be morally wrong. Can they refuse to serve an interracial wedding? Other examples: The Catholic Church requires that it's members marry in the Catholic Church and agree to raise their children as Catholic or else the marriage isn't recognized as legitimate. My Catholic mother married my baptist father in a non denominational church and made no commitment to raise their children Catholic. Could a devout Catholic DJ have refused to MC their reception? Fundamentalist Muslims view those that leave the faith as apostates. Could a Muslim wedding photographer refuse to work the wedding of a former Muslim who converts to Catholicism so they and their fiance can have the church wedding? What about divorces? Ironically, Jesus condemns divorce far more forcefully and in clear terms whereas he never directly addresses homosexuality. So can service to the wedding of two divorced people be refused? Ironically, the pizza parlor owner was asked that very question by the media, and didn't have an answer, admitting that in fact he was divorced. 4.) Final hypothetical involves employees. If the protection of the right to these religious beliefs are so important, would you extend the same protection to employees? What if a catering company who supported marriage equality agreed to cater a same sex wedding, but a server they sent to work it objected on religious grounds? Could that person be fired by their employer for insubordination?

@Pch101 - the name calling and insults don't do the side you support any favours. It is no different than the "fudgepacker" comments that surfaced on the last thread. Idiots exist on both sides of the debate and so do haters and the intolerant.

@Pch101 The world already has enough sycophants. There is no debate here. Either you get the concept of civil rights or you don't. This is a group that is predisposed to prejudice, and nothing on the internet is going to fix that. The best thing to do is to mock them, giving them the disrespect that they deserve.

tjh8402 - coming to a decision as to what is acceptable morally, or ethically or even divine is very difficult. Writing laws to cover every eventuality is impossible and unfortunately people do get hurt. The pendulum has swung to the "left" end of the spectrum and unfortunately it has become "correct" to allow bashing of those with convictions that are seen to be on the "right". Christianity has become a prime and easy target. Human nature is such that one will try to protect members of their own tribe. It is a basic survival mechanism. We have gone from the right being dominant to the left being dominant. The left needs to accept those with strong religious convictions as long as those convictions aren't harming others. Is there harm in not baking a cake? I find it odd that I need to keep repeating this: With rights come responsibility. We cannot fully exercise our right to be free to do as we feel/believe if it impedes or restricts someone else's rights. The left doesn't do a very good job of understanding the right and vice versa. Open dialogue absent of ad hominem attacks and ridicule directed towards one beliefs is a start. That applies equally to both sides of the debate.

@ Lou_BC - To the best of my ability, I have avoided ad hominen attacks here. I did not have the opportunity to read through everything that has been said here, so without having all the info, I am not going to judge or label Volando or the thelaine as bigots. I'm not suggesting they do or do not support discrimination (again, I am not going to read through and parse all the words written above and below). It is entirely possible that they are simply arguing for the right to discriminate. The ACLU supported the right of neo Nazis to march through Skokie and the right of militantly anti gay Westboro Baptist to picket soldiers funerals, despite not sharing or agreeing with their views. One can offer a principled defense of those that they disagree with. Despite being a gay atheist, I would adamantly support the right of a priest/pastor to refuse to officiate at a same sex wedding. That is a clear establishment clause violation since we're talking about ordering a church and its clergy (as opposed to a business) to do something. The primary contention I offer in this discussion is that the denials of service to same sex couples discussed are discrimination, and it is discrimination on grounds that ought not be legally protected. both sides need to use discretion in the use of words like "fascist". For Christians to claim persecution over baking a cake is to disrespect their brethren having their heads hacked off by ISIS savages as we speak, just as the my LGBTQ should remember our brethren being beaten, flogged, and strung up by cranes and left to die in Iran before we say George W Bush is evil. Dietrich Bonhoeffer died in a Nazi concentration camp alongside those wearing a pink star, just as Christians and gays did in Stalin's Gulags. Lets agree both sides have and suffered tremendous persecution over the ages, its a persecution that continues to this day, and that we are all incredibly fortunate to live in such an awesome country where the biggest things we have to fear from our disagreements are internet forum name calling, not torture, imprisonment, and death. I present my points in outline form to both to help me better organize my thoughts, and to hopefully make debate of the ideas themselves easier by giving those that disagree specific points to identify and address. I still invite a rebuttal to any of what I said. That being said, I'll try to identify and speak to what I see as the two main points of disagreement you and I have. I. "The left needs to accept those with strong religious convictions as long as those convictions aren’t harming others. Is there harm in not baking a cake?" A. "The left needs to accept those with strong religious convictions as long as those convictions aren’t harming others." 1. I agree with this in principal. You have the right to believe what you want as long as it doesn’t harm someone else. 2. For the record, I could make an argument about the harm strong conservative religious beliefs can cause others, in particular, in light of the suicide rate, LGBTQ youth, but that’s another discussion. For now, I will grant that those convictions in and of themselves are harmless. B. “Is there harm in not baking a cake?” 1. Here’s where we disagree. I argue yes, there is. It is discrimination against a class of people on no other basis than who they are, and therefore is no different or justified than discrimination on race (or religion). 2. In this discrimination, you exclude a class of people from participation in the marketplace for goods and services that forms the very basis of our society. You make them second-class and unequal citizens. This is harmful. II. “With rights come responsibility. We cannot fully exercise our right to be free to do as we feel/believe if it impedes or restricts someone else’s rights.” A. Here again we will agree in principle but disagree in implementation. I know that you are arguing that my right to get married comes with the responsibility not to impede on your right to object to it. B. I can just as easily turn that statement around. With your right to practice your religion comes the responsibility not to use it to impede on my right to be a full participating member of society as a consumer of goods and services afforded to everyone else. C. The question is who is creating the greater, more unreasonable imposition? Which creates more harm? My contention obviously is that denial of service to LGTBQ individuals is far more harmful than asking a business to provide services it already offers to the non LGBTQ population. D. If a Christian bakery wishes to post Bible verses in their store, they are welcome to. They can even post ones that condemn homosexuality. That is free speech and the free exercise of their religion that ultimately does me no harm and is protected. The moment they translate that speech into action by denying me services because I’m gay, then they have crossed a line and begun to “impede” or “restrict” (your words) my rights.

@tjh8402 People are free to think like bigots. We should absolutely defend their right to think like bigots, as dumb and as contemptuous as they are. But they are not free to **act** like bigots in the public sphere, including workplaces and areas of public accommodation. Hate the minorities if you wish, but you had better damn well serve them if they want service.

@tjh8402 No one should be fired, either, for exercising their beliefs. Although I disagree with some of your beliefs, I too defend your right to do as you see fit, as long as you are not harming another. And I respect the fact that you can see that not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so out of hatred. And no, although I defend the right of people to associate with whoever they want, I do not believe in discrimination. But I do not believe that you should force people to make a show of liking something that they sincerely do not, either. And your cake example is interesting, but let me reply with a comment and question. Many Christian bakers would refuse to bake a cake with two men on top of it, or two women, and would refuse to bake that kind of cake, just as a kosher deli would refuse to make a non-kosher meal, for anyone, not just homosexuals. Not just for gay people but for anyone, because it is not that they hate the person, but that they do not wish to produce something that supports a position which they believe is wrong. (And are entitled to believe is wrong, whether you agree or not.) So if they won't make a gay-themed wedding cake for ANYONE, and not just for gays, why is that any different from a kosher deli not making nonkosher food for anyone? But you are a person of intelligence, reason, and a sense of fairness, so let me ask you the question that really bothers me...why would it be necessary for a gay couple to patronize a baker or photographer who does not agree with their lifestyle, instead of patronizing someone who does, and who, by many indications, could well use the business, especially if they are so discriminated against (and I do believe that many gay bakers and photographers are discriminated against...I do not agree with this, but I have grown up in a world where I have seen this accepted as normal and correct. And just to scramble your, and many other people's, minds, when I used to live and work in NYC, one of my best friends was a gay playwright, director and actor, who was a very good friend, although I was a straight male, and he was not. I accepted him for who he was, as who he was, was much more than just a gay male. And he likewise accepted me, even though I did not live in his lifestyle. But we had friends in common (how we first met), and many values and ideas in common, which is why we bonded as friends. And the kicker, out of left field...one of his hobbies was collecting figures used to decorate wedding cakes. He had a collection of literally hundreds of them...many "straight", not as many, but still many, years before gay weddings and unions were common, that were not straight couples. And neither extremely campy straight figures, nor ordinary gay couples, were anywhere near the strangest wedding cake decorations he had collected from all around the world. It is a shame he never published a photo journal of all of them. Tom is no longer with us, but I am sure he would be appalled at the idea of a gay man skipping over an opportunity to order from a gay bakery in order to try to get some straight Christian baker to bake a cake for something he didn't agree with. He saw no reason to manufacture confrontations...he felt, as do I, that there were enough unavoidable opportunities for confrontation in this world, without going out of his or my way to create yet another one. Also, he was doubtless one of the most sincere and down to earth Buddhists I have ever known, and I have known a few in my life. So why isn't manufacturing a confrontation with a Christian bakery seen as being in the same hateful, pointless spirit, as the actions of the Westboro "Baptist" Church? Both seek to confront, force opinions, and heap shame on others they don't agree with, it seems. What ever happened to live and let live? Not every bakery that won't bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding seeks to deny homosexuals their freedom. And I also suspect that they would sell the products they do offer equally to homosexuals as to straights, just as a Jewish deli would sell either meat or dairy to a non-Jewish person (though not at the same meal, I found out after I moved to NYC.) You ask some good questions, but I believe you may be missing the point for the actions of some of the people who do not follow the same path of fairness that you do. Try to understand that it isn't always about hatred, or a desire not to offer their products or services to you. Sure, it may be in some cases, but surely it isn't in all cases, and why would you want them to have to endorse something they don't believe in, any more than you would want to have to pretend you are straight to keep a job, for example. Yes, it has happened that way, and it is wrong, but making others toe the line you believe in will not be punishing those who wronged you, and it can, and often will, harm people who harbor no ill will towards you, they only wish to be able to respect their beliefs, whether you understand them or not. That is what freedom of religion is all about, and that is one of the main reasons this country was formed, because people did not enjoy this in the Old World, so they came here. And part of that freedom of religion is the freedom to declare your belief in atheism, if you wish. If you destroy religious freedom and the ability to follow one's religious principles, eventually you may end up destroying that freedom for everyone, and not just Christian bakers and photographers. Let's not destroy that freedom just to make a political point. After all, who knows what will be destroyed next, once you destroy freedom of conscience. And destroyed for you, just as easily as for someone else. Beware the slippery slope that appears to be a path paved to an inevitable conclusion.

I agree.

Is it a coincidence that those are the two guys VerticalScope doesn't want in charge here?

@CJinSD I think you guys are trying to have a conversation with a troll-bot that's running trying to make it look like the site has more activity than it really does. While most of us have jobs, family and a variety of interests that take up our time the pch-bot is constantly churning away with formulaic responses composed of an insult, some vaguely topical googled-up buzzwords and some random opinion yanked out of a thread on Democratic-Underground. A real person couldn't possibly spend so much of his worthless existence doing that for so long - unless they've given the Unabomber internet access for some reason.

@Kevin Jaeger Your unintentional irony and lack of self-awareness are something to behold.

Pch101 - and on cue you have made Kevin Jaeger's point. If you have something to contribute then do it without bashing.

@Pch101 The sycophant routine is not impressive. Not all positions are of equal value. Those who have contempt for civil rights do not deserve any respect. Coddling the prejudiced only encourages them. Denigrating minorities should not be a pleasant, breezy experience. Your efforts to legitimize it are tedious.

@Pch101 - "Not all positions are of equal value." That is unfortunately open to debate and is the true focus of this debate. Where do we find a middle ground? Your approach is to bash and ridicule those on the other side of the debate. That does not move anyone to a point of being able to understand the opposing view point. It just entrenches both sides. "What is the best way for people to live?" and “What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?” Those are ethical questions. Let's apply those two questions to your preferred response pattern. Your support of civil rights and gay rights may be ethically right but your preferred response pattern definitely isn't.

@Pch101 You're trying to equate Rosa Parks with those who would have her sit at the back of the bus. Parks didn't need to have a "debate." She deserved to sit wherever she pleased, and to disregard the intolerance of those who would oppress her. In your hapless effort to sound open minded, you're only establishing yourself as being spineless and unobservant. Either you get civil rights or you don't, and you clearly don't.

@Kevin Jaeger See pch101's comment about people having or not having a brain stem capable of grasping certain things. It is finally clear, and he has revealed himself for who he is. Note that he considers the brain stem to be the center of higher thought, and gives no notice of the cerebrum, the cerebellum, the medulla oblongata, the prefrontal cortex, or any of the other higher parts of a human brain. And I believe that the reason this is so is that pch101 does not possess any brain tissue other than a stem. Hence, he suffers from that unfortunate disorder known as microcephaly, or in common parlance, being a pinhead. And since this is true, pch101, I apologize for failing to recognize your severe mental deficiency, and apologize for denigrating you inability to formulate any points, but rather to only sling insults at anyone who makes any point you disagree with or do not understand. While it is hard for me to find in in my heart to truly pity, rather than reject with disgust, the empty drivel of hatred of all things foreign to him, which are many, still I must beg all of you to recognize that this meaningless endless discourse, if you can call it that, which flows from the keyboard of pch101, is the inevitable result of a severe mental and biological deficiency. Recognizing this, I encourage all of the rest of you to just ignore him and allow him to babble to himself off in the corner of a playground of his own. We cannot play at his level and he cannot play at ours. It is sad, but leave him to professionals who make it their life's work to deal with such severely deranged and deficient individuals. Some of you may think I am being sarcastic, but contrary to so much of what is said about all Christians being hateful, when I realize what an empty wasteland devoid of ideas and filled only with fear and hatred of all he cannot understand or accept, that he lives in day in and day out, I really do feel sorry for him. Sort of like the concept of hating the sin (mindless rejection of all ideas not of one's own liking), while still at least trying to love the sinner. I have been blessed by God as I understand him with the ability to form ideas, opinions and arguments in favor of, or in opposition to, various ideas, and I must not forget that not all can do this. And certainly, pch101, being a self-revealed microcephalic, clearly cannot do this. I can only hope that even though pch101 may have a point, that if he combs his hair the right way, it won't show. I wouldn't belabor my dog if he barked every time I tried to discuss politics with another human being, nor, if the dog were someone else's, would I try to silence the dog...I would just ignore him. And that is what those of us who can write as much as three or four sentences with actual ideas of any kind, and not just hatred and an ill-founded sense of moral superiority, must do from now on with the microcephalic pch101, who cannot help acting in accordance with his mental handicap. Ignore him, his is a tale of sound and fury, signifying nothing. As Cantinflas says at the end of the speech I alluded to above: "He dicho." -- "I have spoken." Sayonara to all those of you who have given me faith in the ability of some people to discuss matters intelligently, whether I agree with you or not. It helps me to remember that the world is not populated only by a bunch of microcephalics, whether their deformity is visible or not. And as Jack Baruth said in his farewell to being on this site fulltime, which he "borrowed" from another good source, "Thanks for all the fish."

@VolandoBajo That was so bad that it was actually funny.

bomberpete - valid point but I'm not engaged in the debate or (more appropriately) discussion to change anyone's mind. I'm expressing my views and in turn am very happy to hear the views of others. I don't need to win or convert anyone to come out ahead in this discussion, the very fact that I am learning where other's are coming from is a win/win for me. Mutual understanding is how one can heal the wounds that exist in a country. You don't start the healing process from the premise that one's side of the discussion is the only valid side .

@Lou_BC Very well put. I wish I had said that, and am glad that you did. For you, and anyone else here who can do more than deliberately insult anyone they disagree with (Hey, I'm talking to YOU, @pche101!), I have a reference to something I think you will find both enlightening and enjoyable. The late Mexican comedian Cantinflas made a movie in which he played an ambassador to a UN like organization. And it turned out that he was left to cast the deciding vote. So he makes a speech to all those there. This closing speech can be found on youtube, both with and without English language subtitles. It brought both hope and sadness to my heart when I first saw it, and still does to this day. The man was so much more than merely a comedian. Check it out for yourselves. If anyone who can articulate any viewpoint, whether I agree with it or not, cannot find this clip, post back here and I will find and post the link. Believe me it is worth the trouble to find and view it. It is about ten minutes or so long, and one of the best speeches I have ever heard about politics. I wish the man could have run for president of this country.