By on April 29, 2015

FCA US HQ

Joining the likes of Kellogg’s, Herman Miller and Steelcase, FCA US declared Tuesday its opposition to Michigan’s proposed religious freedom bill.

The Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, modelled upon the original federal legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, would bestow businesses and individual citizens exemptions from other state legislation that parties claim would infringe upon their religious beliefs, Allpar News reports. Governor Rick Synder stated he would veto the RFRA unless protections for LGBT Michiganders were expanded in conjunction, expansions FCA US stood behind in its statement regarding the bill:

FCA US LLC has a zero tolerance policy for discrimination of any kind. We are committed to diversity and inclusion, and as such, oppose any law that can result in discrimination. Accordingly, FCA US supports efforts to update Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) to expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Our commitment and policy extends to our employees and business partners.

The opposition toward the bill follows recent backlashes against similar legislation introduced in Indiana and Arkansas. The latter state’s government passed an addendum clarifying its intent behind its RFRA after Indiana sustained significant economic damages – travel bans, event cancellations, loss of new business opportunities et al – as a result of public scrutiny upon the its passage of similar legislation.

[Photo credit: FCA]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

198 Comments on “FCA US Joins Michigan Businesses In Opposition Of Proposed Religious Freedom Bill...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    It hasn’t gone over well in Indiana at all. I suspect Michigan is a more democrat oriented state than Indiana (notoriously very republican), so it’ll go down even less well there.

    Side note: I think FCA wins for the most “1980s Evil Corporationy Building HQ” like you’d see in a movie.

    In my mind, their big board room is behind the opaque Chrysler logo, and looks like this:
    http://www.archweek.com/2000/0830/images/11095_image_3.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      It looks like Omni Consumer Products relocated to the suburbs.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Honestly the tower was never to be there, and many were not happy when it was built. Just the ego of Bob Eaton at play when that was built.

      Sergio happily sits with the engineers somewhere within CTC—-which is not anywhere near the executive tower.

      That sign out front has been re-done so many times—-Chrysler, Daimler Chrysler, Chrysler (again), FCA (crappy looking and shown above), and FCA (not shown above).

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I didn’t know that. Don’t all automakers need a grand tower or some complex which looks nice in photos to represent themselves?

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Chrysler’s previous HQ in Highland Park, MI was significantly less glamerous.

          http://www.allpar.com/corporate/factories/highland-park.html

          Ford has Glass House as their HQs. It’s nothing terrifically grand, but I think it’s aged well. Minimalist buildings full of glass, that were built in the 50s, have seemed to age well overall. As a Detroiter, I find the Rouge Complex to be Ford’s tower of industry.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Boy you’re not kidding. Not much style there, and even the “styling dome” is very minimal and plain.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            “Styling Dome”

            Hahaha

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I agree on Glass House. It’s clean and simple, and there’s nothing wrong with it even today. The reflective blue glass adds some dynamic coloring.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Part of it is they built it at the right time. If it was built in 1976 or 1986 instead of 1956, it may have looked gross by now.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Lol the 80’s architecture. What brass. Such concretes.

            https://cdn4.sussexdirectories.com/build/build_photos/sized/21/11/1001121-105745-6_500x500.jpg?pu=1387638489

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          CTC was setup to bring everyone under one roof and departments closer together. You had truck and Jeep guys at Plymouth Road, and others at Highland Park, it was a mess no doubt. Granted it’s over the top but highly functional.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Michigan WAS solidly Democrat until recently. Now it has a Republican governor, a Republican majority in the state house of representatives(63-47), and a huge Republican majority in the state senate (27-11). Both US Senate seats are and have been held by Democrats for most of the last 30 years, and the parties seem to trade the governorship every 8 years. The state went Democrat for President in the last 6 elections, but went Republican the previous 5. This looks like a state that drives political experts nuts.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Michigan is more blue than red. The reason why we have so many Republican reps is gerrymandering, population shifts, and Detroit’s loss of population. The urban areas, besides GR, are solidly Democrat, and the farther out suburbs and rural areas are Republican.

        Oakland County is an excellent representation of the state as a whole. Synder (R) and Obama (D) won big in Oakland County, in 2014 and 2012, respectively.

  • avatar
    redav

    Honestly, I don’t know what is contained in the various religious freedom bills, so I can’t comment whether they are reasonable or dangerous.

    However, I find it curious that companies who stand for something are not satisfied simply having it be one of their business practices, but also require everyone else to do and think the same thing. (I guess I’m a sucker for free markets in this case and feel the best business practices will win over the market even in the absence of legislation.) I often feel that when people mention diversity, it is in regards to forcing others to do & think the same as them. I don’t mind legislating and enforcing doing what’s right, but let’s not claim that doing so promotes “diversity.”

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      In the case of the Indiana one, it’s dangerous. Allowing a business to refuse a service to someone because of perceived sexual orientation (because it could infringe on their religious beliefs) is not a good thing.

      And Mike Pence really shouldn’t be in office. Some of his views are really just absurd.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Companies want to recruit the best talent. Some of the best talent is gay or gay-friendly. If a state passes a law saying “businesses are free to discriminate against gay people,” then gay or gay-friendly talent is likely to avoid moving to that state. So companies try to ensure that such laws aren’t passed in places where they have headquarters or major operations.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    It’s Herman Miller, not Henry Miller.
    They are a large, international designer and manufacturer of furniture, including the Eames Lounge Chair (Frasier Crane famously had one in his apartment, the Noguchi table and those ‘winged’ plywood chairs that are so 50’s.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      Didn’t Henry Miller write “Death Of An Office Furniture Salesman?”

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        Good one! Henry wrote “Tropic of Cancer.”

        Or Arthur Miller, the nerdy intellectual who married Marilyn Monroe.

        No surprise that contract furniture industry leaders like Steelcase and Herman Miller would be against this. It’s a direct slap to their specifiers.

        The real fun is waiting for highdesertcat to go into his tiresome full panic mode against fudgepackers.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Some posters are worth scrolling past. You’ve mentioned one of them.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          I laugh at HDC because living in NM he certainly lives among many LGBTQ individuals. In this state (even with a Republican gov) many are out and proud.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Wow.

          My undergrad English lit professor would be embarrassed for me. I actually read ‘Death of a Salesman,’ too, even though he was far more into Thoreau, Hemingway & Emerson.

          Oh well. I’m old.

          • 0 avatar
            bomberpete

            And I thought you were being facetious, DW!

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Oh, I was!

            (Yeah, that’s it…I was being, how’d you put it?…facetious. Yeah, that’s the ticket).

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Among the rich, the catch phrase was, “Never complain, never explain.” Some people think that’s just dodging an apology, but with so many people online thinking just about any comment is sarcastic/witty/ironic/etc., why apologize? Just keep on keepin’ on.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Good eye, I didn’t read it that carefully. I’m sitting in a Herman Miller desk chair right now!

      They also have exclusive production rights on a lot of iconic furniture (which they did not actually design).

      I dream of a glass coated International style house filled with Eames stuff, a Noguchi table, and a couple of Barcelona sofas. The Wassily chairs can be in the foyer.

      Basically most of the stuff from the DWR website.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      HON office chairs FTW b!tches!

  • avatar
    TW5

    Humanity is just one tragedy after another.

    Religious fundamentalists deny service to same-sex couples. Same-sex couples hire lawyers to force religious fundamentalists to perform, though no preexisting contract was agreed and plenty of businesses would be happy to serve same-sex couples. Judges don’t follow the law, they pander to local public sentiment and their own personal feelings. Legislatures react by writing laws to prohibit judges from forcing people to perform. Corporations see a marketing opportunity so they don the cloak of “tolerance” to elevate brand equity and sell a few extra vehicles.

    We manufacturer cultural problems faster than a Chinese factory makes iPhones.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Before this bill had been introduced, Chrysler has long been an ally to the GLBTQ community, as well as Ford and General Motors. For the past 15 years they have provided domestic partner benefits and they’ve lobbied for updates to anti-discrimination laws in Michigan.

      Nothing new here folks.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Whatever you may think of the outcome, the debate over equal rights for gay folks is over. When companies as diverse as NASCAR and Apple are openly calling your proposed “religious freedom” laws discriminatory, then it probably a sign that the general public has moved on.

    Let’s talk about other stuff – you know, like jobs, education, healthcare and better roads with higher speed limits.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      And if you look at the questions the justices were asking in oral arguments about Gay Marriage, I predict it is all over for the intolerant except the wailing/shouting/aneurysms from Westboro Baptist.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        Even the Supreme Court right-wingers don’t want to put themselves out on this any more.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          This was a discussion last week at a business lunch I went to – not this particular topic, but liberal feelings in the US in general.

          There has been a paradigm shift to the left in the US, and the re-settled moderate is further left than it was (than let’s say even in the 90’s), and it’s not going back.

          • 0 avatar
            bomberpete

            I understand what you mean and agree, but I don’t know if terms like “left” and “liberal” even fit the paradigm shift you’re talking about.

            To me, it’s a more pragmatic business approach. Otherwise-evil corporate citizens realize that discrimination is just plain bad business. Not only is being part of blatant bigotry and hatred wrong and stupid, it hurt employee loyalty, business relationships and customers. It leaves money on the table. SO, why do it?

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            According to the internet Europeans are still waiting for Americans to come back to the center, as you have been drifting more to the right since the 70’s.
            In real life, I think a lot of Americans are personally more socialistic and left-turned than they will ever admit (or have the political understanding to know), and Europeans themselves are growing more and more racist and religious with time. So far I think we are still politically further to the left, maybe…

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            @bomberpete

            Sorry, should have clarified – my comment was about the American public in general, not a business sense.

          • 0 avatar

            There’s a lot of conflicting trends. The GOP is now further to the right than it was. The Democrats are also more right leaning – from where I am sitting he seems moderately right of centre in the style of Bush Sr. Culturally there is more liberalism on social values; sociologists find that when asked about their wishes for a just society people’s views conflict with their electoral preferences (which are more conservative). And from an economic view the US we see is of greater inequality and reduces social mobility: the fewer rich have more and your parents’ status determines your own more than it used to from 1945 to 1980.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            @richard, Jeb Bush has openly told the GOP that the positions that will win the primary will not win the general election because the general electorate does not have enough people in it who care about the GOPs purity tests that they put candidates through.

            I tend to agree with him.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            CoreyDL – sounds like Americans are becoming……. dare I say……. more Canadian ;)

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Slowly but surely, we’ll become more liberal and more socialistic, yep. I don’t think we can have one without the other.

            However, even the most conservative Canadian I’ve met was still pretty liberal by US standards. But maybe I haven’t met very many conservative ones.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @bomberpete:
          “Even the Supreme Court right-wingers don’t want to put themselves out on this any more.”

          Oh, yes, they do. Watch how they vote on it.

          • 0 avatar
            bomberpete

            CoreyDL – understood and noted.

            FreedMike – I predict a 6-3 vote legalizing gay marriage. Kennedy & Roberts will join the “liberals.”

            Scalia and Alito will write the dissenting opinion. Thomas will use hand gestures to indicate “what he said.”

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          They never did want to deal with these issues. SCOTUS has had a habit of citing some procedural issue and handing cases back to lower courts, and refusing to consider the cases again. The problem is civil rights issues are constitutional issues. SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be ducking those.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Oh, the debate isn’t nearly over. The idiots won’t be able to shut up about it. Antebellum nostalgia lives on.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Antebellum is “before the war” so I’m wondering: “Which war?” (just teasing)

        I’d say some of the nostalgia I see fundamentalists espousing is practically antediluvian which is “before the time of Noah’s flood.” (Though if someone believes we were a bunch of hell raisers before God whipped out everyone but Noah & family… then my point is lost.)

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          As the world is only 6000 years old, the antediluvian period was rather brief.

          (Yes, I used the sarcasm font for that one.)

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        We’re different colors,
        And different creeds,
        And different people,
        Have different needs,
        It’s obvious you hate me,
        Though I’ve done nothing wrong,
        I’ve never even met you,
        What could I have done?

        People are people so why should it be?
        You and I shouldn’t get along.
        People are people so why should it be?
        You should hate me.

        You’re punching and kicking,
        And you’re shouting at me,
        I’m relying on your common decency,
        So far it hasn’t surfaced,
        But I’m sure it exists,
        It just takes a while to travel
        From your head to your fist.

        I can’t understand,
        What makes a man,
        Hate another man,
        Help me understand,

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Someone is a Depeche Mode fan.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            They’re meh.

            I like those lyrics (and message), but they’d sound better sung by Social Distortion or Fugazi.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I like Social D a lot more than Depeche Mode. They were before my time, but I feel like Social Distortion is a precursor to grunge. They also have a revolving door of talent like one of my favorite bands, Queens of the Stone Age. Mike Ness, liek Josh Homme, is always around though.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            They were slightly before my time, too, but I found them and loved them because they defined the nadir of the post-punk, pre-grunge (pop grunge, at any rate), rebellious college music scene, as did Sonic Youth, or far lesser knowns such as Jesus & Mary Chain or even Mudhoney.

  • avatar
    slow kills

    I was already accidentally boycotting FCA, but now it’s deliberate. I’m sick of the gay mafia trying to force everyone to make gay wedding cakes.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Fascism comes in many colors and flavors.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “Fascism comes in many colors and flavors.”

        Ironic you’d say that, since actual fascists – not “anyone I have a political disagreement with,” which is today’s definition – put gay folks in the same gas chambers as the Jews.

        I don’t see how baking a cake and that are even remotely comparable.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Apparently, killing gay people and requiring business owners to take their money is the same thing.

      • 0 avatar
        koshchei

        Would you prefer it if the gay marriage cake that you’re allegedly being forced to make featured men in jack boots and monocles instead?

    • 0 avatar
      bomberpete

      “FREEDOM!” – Yeah, whatever, just be careful that those guns of yours don’t blow up anybody but you.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Better be able to Boycott:

      Honda
      Toyota
      FCA
      Ford
      General Motors
      Nissan
      Tesla
      Subaru
      VW Group
      Mercedes
      Land Rover
      Jaguar
      BMW Group–including Mini
      Rolls Royce
      Bentley
      Aston Martin
      Volvo
      Porsche

      Better give up your cell phone and computer:

      Apple
      Microsoft
      Google

      Forget about flying:

      Boeing
      Airbus

  • avatar
    pdl2dmtl

    Click bait and here I am falling for it. Just to make my point though: I am curious how many comments will be at the end the day.
    Probably more than articles about actual car news.

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      It takes more important stuff than religion and sexuality to take our attention away from discussing old Hondas and the future of Acura…

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Or the wiping out, shrinking down, knocking down further of the middle and working class.

        But forget about that…BURN THE WITCH!

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          I once spent 6 hours in Salem Massachusetts, so I feel qualified to claim that burning of witches at the stake is largely an European practice. In Salem, hanging and drowning were preferred, though they occasionally dabbled in piling stones on them until they were crushed.

          Some of the logic employed then (and now) is breathtaking: the drowning was a test of innocence. If they popped up from the river or pond after being tied and weighted down, they were guilty and were hanged; if they drowned they were innocent. Apparently all the test determined was whether or not they were buried in the churchyard.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    I guess it matters for recruiting talent and what not, but the political views of the company typically don’t weigh on my vehicle purchase. This of course discounts something akin to a VW-Nazi connection back in the time of the war or something outlandish like that. I’d drive a Subaru through the Chic Fil A drive through. Sorry if that makes me a terrible person to some.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      The connection between German industry and the Nazis would bug me a lot more if the country hadn’t moved so decisively away from Nazism politically. It’s actually illegal to be a Nazi in Germany now. Extreme, but based on the fact that Nazism got Germany reduced to a steaming pile of rubble, with more than half of it subjugated under the one regime that even rivaled Nazism for pure barbarity (and maybe even exceeded it), I get it.

      Germany had a lot to live down, and their efforts to do so have been genuine…meanwhile, we have their old enemy, Russia, which seems hell bent on returning to militaristic authoritarianism.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Oh yes, I am in no way implying that it is a factor today. Just saying it would take a modern example of something akin to that to cause me to boycott a company most likely.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Good for Chrysler (golf clap).

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby is going to give its customers a 200-question sexuality morality test before being granted access to its stores.

    Praise jeebus!

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      @FreedMike How about some tartar sauce for that red herring you just dragged in? Hobby Lobby is not asserting a right to refuse to sell their goods and services to anyone based on their sexual orientation.

      They are seeking to be freed from the requirement to fund something that is against their beliefs. And they are not seeking to have that thing they oppose denied to all, they are only seeking to be free to follow the dictates of their own consciences.

      And in a world and time where there are ample service providers willing and able to cater and/or photograph gay unions, by whatever name you choose to call them, why is it necessary to force a small business, or even a sole proprietor, to participate in something that is against their sincerely held belief? For the most part, those individuals are not seeking to disrupt such ceremonies, and since their heart is not in it, why would anyone who is staging such a ceremony want their services provided by someone whose beliefs are so antithetical to their own?

      It seems to me that it hinges on the fact that for some LGBT persons, it is not enough that they are free to live as they choose, they feel that it is necessary to force ALL others to conduct themselves in accordance with their own personal beliefs.

      But let us for a moment imagine an LGBT person who is a photographer or a caterer, and who is Jewish, and has lost several family members over the last century to the extreme anti-Semitism. And let us suppose that the business agent of an American Nazi Party organization approaches that individual, demanding that they provide catering for their annual convention.

      Do you still feel that that individual, who is greatly aggrieved and rightly so, by the beliefs of that American Nazi party, should be forced to provide their services to said organization, against their personal beliefs?

      Because you can’t have it one way for yourself, and another way for others, or at least not and still expect to retain your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

      And as I believe it was Reinhold Niebuhr (and not Henry or Arthur) said: “When they came for the X (fill in the blank), I did nothng, because I was not X.” (Repeat several times, for various values of X).

      And then finally, “And then they came for me. And there was no one left to resist, and so they took me, too.”

      Where in the entire US has there been an LGBT couple that has been unable to find a wedding cake or a wedding photographer, solely because another individual has been opposed on the basis of religious beliefs, to being the individual providing those services?

      After all, with the exception of a few strong, oligopolistic organizations involved in the core industries (a la the movie Rollerball, a vastly under-rated classic)…with the exception of such industries as energy companies, mass communication companies, etc., … outside of those large corporate examples, what goods or services are not obtainable freely and easily, without the need to compel that minority of individuals who are opposed as a matter of faith and belief?

      Individual liberty is not something that can be partitioned off and rationed out only to the vocal or popular group of the moment, or if it is, it will be just a matter of time before that group too will find its rights, beliefs and liberties severely threatened for the convenience of those some power structures that permitted them to impose their beliefs on others, against the beliefs of those other people.

      “The revolution will not be televised.” In fact, it won’t even be recognized as a revolution, and it almost certainly will not end up being by the people, for the people and of the people.

      Liberal fascism, no matter how appealing in the moment, must inevitably end up as simple fascism, which, once firmly entrenched, will owe no more loyalty to liberals than to any other group that stands in the way of the will of those who eroded our individual liberties, one belief at a time.

      DO NOT BE SURPRISED to see such a similar idea expressed in the Supreme Court’s likely minority opinion in the case of the individuals not wanting to be forced to participate in LGBT ceremonies designed to celebrate the commitment of two such individuals to each other.

      And before some of you begin belaboring me with arguments concerning cases like those carefully selected by NPR as test cases, let me point out that although I am not in entire agreement with the beliefs of the principals on those cases, I fully support the attempt of the man (whose name escapes me) who is seeking to have his name listed as next of kin on the death certificate of his long term partner.

      And I am in favor of the lesbian couple who each adopted two children being granted parental survivorship rights over the two children adopted by their partner, in the event that their partner should die before the partner’s adopted children reach maturity.

      These are situations that are humane solutions for all of the primary participants, and which do not force anyone else to directly participate in anything against their will, except as necessary for them to carry out the impartial conduct of their official positions. And if that forces them to do something against their will, there are many other jobs which do not require them to e.g. certify an LGBT union for the purposes of death benefits certification or parental survivor rights regarding legally adopted children.

      But when you require a person who is not acting in an official governmental capacity to do something that is against their will, solely to enforce the idea that no one may act in accordance with their beliefs if those beliefs are odious to another person with a different set of beliefs, whom the courts would put, along with their beliefs, in a preferential position, relative to the beliefs of the caterer or photographer who is opposed to participating in an LGBT ceremony…when you make that preference, LGBT person’s beliefs as over-riding the supposedly free religious beliefs of another, you have opened the door to the trampling not only of the right of religious freedom for that person, but have set the stage for the courts to invalidate the sincerely held beliefs of ANY private citizen, for whatever reason might be politically expedient at the time.

      And the same ruling that could be used to force such participation today, could well be used, in a future society, to force today’s beneficiaries to have to do something against their will, such as perhaps develop an ad campaign against LBGT unions, under the same theory that the caterer or photographer was required to provide goods and services independent of their personal beliefs.

      Be careful where you choose to go, and to compel others to go…you may find that where today you are leading, tomorrow you will find yourself in the position of one led against your beliefs.

      If I were LGBT I wold think long and hard before I decided that I needed every photographer and caterer in this country to participate in LGBT ceremonies, being mindful of the fact that the same legal principle might be used to compel them to in the future participate in the development of materials supporting a position they are totally opposed to.

      Or in short: what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Or what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose. Or what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the gander. Or whatever…

      Mock or belittle the beliefs of others as much as you feel you can get away with, but be aware that the door you open and compel others to go through, may well be the same door that you will be compelled to go through, and the same path that you will be compelled to trod another day.

      And once personal liberties are lost, they are almost never re-won, and if they are, only after long and costly struggle to re-attain what was once freely enjoyed.

      Maybe you’d better learn to live and let live, before you find out you are forced to live as another would want to hire you to live, and act, and participate in and advocate.

      I know this is long, but this is a difficult subject, with many nuances…but also, at the heart of it is the most fundamental and straightforward principle of all…individual freedom of choice and conscience, or the loss thereof, due to judicial over-reaching as a matter of socio-political expediency.

      And if it were just a matter of majority rules, there might not now be a free LGBT movement at all, because there was a time when the majority opinion was that such individuals needed to be jailed and/or institutionalized and treated in order to “cure” them of the supposedly “mistaken” proclivities. That was wrong, and so will forcing others now to act against their personal beliefs and freedoms.

      Anything else but personal freedom of conscience over mandatory service to all, will be the inevitable loss of personal liberty for all, passing unnoticed amidst the shouts of joy for the “victory” of supposed “freedom to chose”. After all, this is not the same type of issue as the Jim Crow of the old South, where a black person could often neither find a place to eat or sleep. We live in a much more diverse society today, and I doubt that anyone will have their wedding-related business repeatedly turned away by all photographers or all cake bakers.

      As long as the flames are certain to come, I may as well zip up my Nomex argument and close with:

      “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” — John 8:32

      And note that in its original English translation it says MAKE you free, not set you free.

      You can call me a bigot or a troglodyte all you want, but I challenge you to address the issue and not hide behind witty comebacks. There is something fundamentally important about freedom in all of this, and it is not the issue of the freedom of everyone to have a cake baked by anyone who bakes cakes.

      If you can’t see that simple fact, perhaps you should look once more, before attacking the desire to retain religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Volando, thank you for this outstanding comment.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        But when you require a person who is not acting in an official governmental capacity to do something that is against their will, solely to enforce the idea that no one may act in accordance with their beliefs if those beliefs are odious to another person with a different set of beliefs, whom the courts would put, along with their beliefs, in a preferential position, relative to the beliefs of the caterer or photographer who is opposed to participating in an LGBT ceremony…when you make that preference, LGBT person’s beliefs as over-riding the supposedly free religious beliefs of another, you have opened the door to the trampling not only of the right of religious freedom for that person, but have set the stage for the courts to invalidate the sincerely held beliefs of ANY private citizen, for whatever reason might be politically expedient at the time.

        This is what has been missing from this discussion. Thank you for taking the time. Comment of the month.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          Thanks for your comments. Always good to know that irrational political correctness has not yet achieved 100% status.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        You must miss those whites only diners.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          Nice non sequitur…if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance (or even a rationally constructed argument to support your viewpoint), then baffle them (or try to muzzle them) with bullshit.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        “…but I challenge you to address the issue and not hide behind witty comebacks.”

        Your challenge has been declined, Volando, as expected. Snark and insults are all you will likely get.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        “…but I challenge you to address the issue and not hide behind witty comebacks.”

        Your challenge has been declined, Volando, as expected. Snark and insults are all you will likely get.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          If you want more than snark, then you’ll have to earn it.

          Type “public accommodation” into Google. If you can’t stomach the idea of accommodating the public, then the answer is simple — don’t work in a business that involves serving the public.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            I neither want, nor expect, to earn respect from someone who has nothing to contribute but emotionally charged non sequiturs.

            As to “public accommodation” please give a direct answer to at least this one question: “Should a halal Muslim butcher be required to roast a pig for a BBQ party at my house, and should a gay and/or atheist baker be required to bake a cake for me that quotes scripture condemning homosexuality?”

            After all, if I want something like that, I am a member of the public, and should have as much right to accommodation as you define it, as any one else.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        There is so much thought in this one post. Consider this:

        And they are not seeking to have that thing they oppose denied to all, they are only seeking to be free to follow the dictates of their own consciences.

        And in a world and time where there are ample service providers willing and able to cater and/or photograph gay unions, by whatever name you choose to call them, why is it necessary to force a small business, or even a sole proprietor, to participate in something that is against their sincerely held belief? For the most part, those individuals are not seeking to disrupt such ceremonies, and since their heart is not in it, why would anyone who is staging such a ceremony want their services provided by someone whose beliefs are so antithetical to their own?

        It seems to me that it hinges on the fact that for some LGBT persons, it is not enough that they are free to live as they choose, they feel that it is necessary to force ALL others to conduct themselves in accordance with their own personal beliefs.

        But let us for a moment imagine an LGBT person who is a photographer or a caterer, and who is Jewish, and has lost several family members over the last century to the extreme anti-Semitism. And let us suppose that the business agent of an American Nazi Party organization approaches that individual, demanding that they provide catering for their annual convention.

        Do you still feel that that individual, who is greatly aggrieved and rightly so, by the beliefs of that American Nazi party, should be forced to provide their services to said organization, against their personal beliefs?

        Because you can’t have it one way for yourself, and another way for others, or at least not and still expect to retain your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

        And as I believe it was Reinhold Niebuhr (and not Henry or Arthur) said: “When they came for the X (fill in the blank), I did nothng, because I was not X.” (Repeat several times, for various values of X).

        And then finally, “And then they came for me. And there was no one left to resist, and so they took me, too.”

        Be careful where you choose to go, and to compel others to go…you may find that where today you are leading, tomorrow you will find yourself in the position of one led against your beliefs.

        Liberal fascism, no matter how appealing in the moment, must inevitably end up as simple fascism, which, once firmly entrenched, will owe no more loyalty to liberals than to any other group that stands in the way of the will of those who eroded our individual liberties, one belief at a time.

        Really one of the best TTAC posts I have ever read.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Those among us who aren’t very clever easily confuse verbosity with wisdom.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            Those among us who are unable to debate a topic with a rationally constructed argument typically resort to a mindless phrase denigrating anything that is longer than the sentences that they can construct in rebuttal.

            It looks like the discussion, such as it might be, is going on all around you, totally unnoticed and uncomprehended by you, while you display your lack of intelligence while simultaneously patting yourself on the back for being a legend in your own mind.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Ha. Snark.

          This is so much better:

          But let us for a moment imagine an LGBT person who is a photographer or a caterer, and who is Jewish, and has lost several family members over the last century to the extreme anti-Semitism. And let us suppose that the business agent of an American Nazi Party organization approaches that individual, demanding that they provide catering for their annual convention.

          Do you still feel that that individual, who is greatly aggrieved and rightly so, by the beliefs of that American Nazi party, should be forced to provide their services to said organization, against their personal beliefs?

          Liberal fascism, no matter how appealing in the moment, must inevitably end up as simple fascism, which, once firmly entrenched, will owe no more loyalty to liberals than to any other group that stands in the way of the will of those who eroded our individual liberties, one belief at a time.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You guys suck at metaphors. Nazis aren’t in a protected class, so no comparison.

            Race, gender and disabilities place some groups of people into protected classes. The trend is moving quickly toward gay people receiving the same protections universally across the US.

            You may not like it, but you’ll need to get over it.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Ha. Standard pathetic racism allegations. Yawn.

          This is so much better:

          Anything else but personal freedom of conscience over mandatory service to all, will be the inevitable loss of personal liberty for all, passing unnoticed amidst the shouts of joy for the “victory” of supposed “freedom to chose”. After all, this is not the same type of issue as the Jim Crow of the old South, where a black person could often neither find a place to eat or sleep. We live in a much more diverse society today, and I doubt that anyone will have their wedding-related business repeatedly turned away by all photographers or all cake bakers.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            Hey @pch101 you suck at red herrings…you are conflating the German Nazi party of WWII with those individuals who are American citizens who advocate for such things as racial segregation. While I do not agree with their position, their speech is protected speech under the US Constitution, and you have unsuccessfully tried to dodge my point, and tried to ignore the question of whether or not other individuals are entitled to refuse service that is against their beliefs, even if their intended customer has a right to do what they are trying to do.

            You’re in over your depth…and I would continue this alleged battle of wits, except for the fact that I derive no satisfaction from fighting an unarmed man (or woman, or other self-defined gender for that matter).

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You confuse speech with discrimination. Not smart.

          • 0 avatar

            vb
            convaluted thinking at best, at worst i won’t even go there.

      • 0 avatar
        koshchei

        tl;dr.

        I got as far as: “I’m a bigot and it’s my right as a ‘Murkan to hate people who are different than I am because Jesus” before skipping to the end.

        You should have closed with “Arbeit Macht Frei” instead.

  • avatar
    Ron B.

    Who actually cares if a person is a homo? What interests me is that this law is actually meant to be used to prevent the discrimination of Muslims and in doing so,will allow the construction of mosques in areas where Christians might (will) object and/ or find the thought of the cultists setting up shop in their neighbourhood offensive.
    Detroit with it’s largely poor black population is ripe for the harvesting of lost souls by the cult followers and such a law looks to me,like a vote buying exercise.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    FCA’s stance on this issue has to be commended.

    There is no room in society for this attitude of isolation of groups of people due to their beliefs and paradigms.

    I’m a staunch supporter of freedom of expression, which is obvious at times. Without true freedoms, whether it is economic, political, religious, etc progress will be reduced.

    This is bad for the US, like any other barriers in our society.

    It is discrimination through the use of classification of individuals.

    What next? Allowing companies to use Star of David stitched onto the work clothing of the Jews. Or the use of other identifiers to single out individuals.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Perhaps these businesses can put up signs for whom they prefer as customers. Similar to pre-Civil Rights America. That works, right?

      My religion conflicts with Jews, so I will not make any lox. It also conflicts with the Muslim religion, so I won’t sell any cakes to women with veils on.

      Where’s it stop once this crap starts? Bad bad.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        No, @CoreyDL let’s NOT have any signs…let’s just follow your underlying “logic” and require all restaurants to serve lox. And pork. And pate de foie gras. And on, and on…because someone wants to buy them. Never mind that the owner is Jewish, or Muslim, or a vegan violently opposed to the process of producing foie gras…if they are in business, they are serving the public, and therefore they must accommodate the ENTIRE public…no having anyone have to feel less than because they can’t get exactly what they want, anywhere they want to go to.

        Once you start making people who own business accommodate the desires of those whose desires they don’t agree with, where does that crap stop once it starts.

        You think it’s bad now that certain bakers and photographers haven’t previously been forced to accommodate members of the public who want something they are opposed to on religious principles? Remember that even if people don’t have religious principles, many of them have moral principles. And once it is established that the desires of every member of the public takes precedence over any of the principles of a business owner, it will be so odious to many would be business owners, that there will be an exodus from such a Big Brother state that it will make your head spin.

        This country was built in large part by people who were willing to give up everything they had in order to have freedom. Do you think that people like that, who are the backbone of this country, will stay when their freedom is taken from them, in the name of “public accommodation of everything and anything” that any one wants.

        And I will assure you, if the politicians get the nose of this camel under the tent, they WILL be telling you what you must produce in your business, in exchange for the supposed right of the public to have their every desire accommodated by anybody who wishes to buy and sell.

        All that will be needed then will be a number for everyone who wishes to buy and sell, and a powerful ruler to make sure that everyone follows this “principle” of freedom to buy anything from from anyone who wants to sell..

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      Big Al from Oz says:

      It is discrimination through the use of classification of individuals.

      What next? Allowing companies to use Star of David stitched onto the work clothing of the Jews. Or the use of other identifiers to single out individuals.

      And Big Dog from the USA says

      This is discrimination against those who do not think or believe in accordance with what has been deemed politically correct.

      What next? The requirement that all people who serve the public stitch a rainbow onto their clothes, and display a rainbow in their window next to their credit card decals, to show that they do not discriminate against LGBT individuals?

      Or the use of other “forced norming” devices to stamp out any belief other than the one deemed socially acceptable?

      Is it not enought that LGBT individuals are becoming free to join together, and to shop for services for their ceremony within businesses that are in accord with their beliefs? There will surely be many, whether because of their beliefs or because of their pursuit of the $, without the need to force everyone to go along in support of the LGBT agenda.

      LGBT individuals are not the modern incarnation of blacks in the South, in danger of lynching, imprisonment for being who they are, and having NO place to acquire public services. This is not the modern frontier of the civil rights movement, it is the death of civil rights for some, in order to enforce not only the allowance, or even awareness of LGBT rights but the forced participation in LGBT activities, which is not civil rights, it is civil tyranny, the rights of the majority over the rights of the minority.

      And no matter how painful it may be for LGBT people to have to encounter the fact that not everyone fully supports them, others have the right to their position, just as much as LGBT individuals have the right to do what they wish, as long as they do not force others to participate in their activities against the will of that other person.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        I see it this way.

        The bill will allow more rights for the minorities, not the majorities.

        I’m not in anyway supportive of political correctness.

        I believe in freedom. But one person’s freedom can “imprison” another person’s freedom.

        This is when perceived freedom isn’t freedom.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          A person is Never totally free to do what ever they please if in the process of exercising their freedoms they impinge upon the freedoms of others.

          The debate centres around the argument of what freedom actually is and what does one do when there are “opposing” or “conflicting” freedoms……… in this case the freedom to live out one’s sexual identity unfettered by others versus the freedom to live out one’s religious beliefs unfettered by others.

          I agree with @VolandoBajo in as much as the courts and government tend to be very poor arbiters of conflicting rights. I also agree that there are those that need to be very careful because forcing others to act against their beliefs is a very slippery slope.

          These sorts of disputes need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @VolandoBajo,
        I had a good think about your response.

        I would like to point out some issues that you negated to consider.

        Firstly. There are also responsibilities you must become accountable for when you assume certain roles in society.

        If you decide to serve the public via business, you then have taken the responsibility of treating all with a equal standing. In my mind that is what not only the US, but many free countries have fought wars over. You can not single out religions and/or individuals and state “I don’t like their types” and I don’t have to deal with them.

        The only time you don’t deal with them is if it is illegal or they don’t fulfill a legit requirement for dealing with them.

        Basing dealings on religion, sexuality or any other irrational perceived difference shouldn’t be tolerated.

        Secondly. Michigan is a Right to Work State. This law could backfire and be used as a precedence that could affect Michigans Right to Work status. What if the unions pressure businesses to only accept union workers. Will we have closed shops again?

        Your comment sounds good initially. But after re-reading it I do think you view is flawed. It seems as if you consider what has been done to advance any cause so far is sufficient.

        I really do think of the modern wealthy nations globally the US shows poor leadership in the area of equal opportunities.

        Everything from income disparity to racial issues are amplified in the US due to poor relationships between the different groups in your society.

        The bills like this Religious Freedom Bill only highlights how far behind the US is.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          @Big Al from Oz – there is nothing in the Religious Freedom Bill that deprives any LGBT person of any right, except the right to demand that another produce what they want, whether the other person wants to produce it or not.

          They are not barred from buying a wedding cake from a baker willing to bake it, nor denied the right to have their wedding photographed by anyone willing to photograph it.

          They are not refused service at a bakery, nor would they be allowed to be refused, service even at a bakery that won’t bake them a wedding cake with a gay theme. If they want to buy donuts, or a plain cake, or a wedding cake with one of the decorations the baker offers, they can buy it…the owner will not refuse to serve them a product he is willing to make, just because they are LGB or T. THAT would be discrimination against a class of individuals. But refusing to make a product a person does not wish to make, just because they make similar products, is not discrimination…it is freedom, not only religious freedom, but freedom of principles, in fact, just simple freedom…freedom to sell what one wants, and to refuse to sell what one doesn’t want to sell. As long as their product offerings are made available to all people equally there is no discrimination.

          The Constitution grants conflicting minorities rights, but it does not require minorities to go out of their way to honor the rights of any other minority, just to not refuse to sell whatever they choose to sell, to anyone.

          And just because they choose to bake a cake doesn’t mean they have to bake every type or style of cake.

          And there are plenty of opportunities for LGB and/or T individuals to patronize bakers and photographers who want to support such weddings. I suspect few if any LGBT individuals would really want to patronize and support such a business…they just want to demand that everyone go along with their agenda…not simply permit them their right to marry, but be forced to acknowledge that they will go along with it.

          I do not have the right to deny another their rights, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says I must support their rights, or that I cannot exercise political speech to speak out against such a ruling by the courts.

          If you want freedom, you must grant to those who do not subscribe to the same philosophy as you do…if you do not, it will just be a matter of time before you fall from PC favor, and find that you too will have your rights abridged.

          Under your theory, for example, are you ready to require a bookstory catering to homosexuals to also offer books extolling the superiority of heterosexual marriage? After all, I might want to buy one, and I am a member of the public. Where is the difference?

          After all, I can buy any book the store sells, and I can buy any book they do not choose to sell from another boodstore. Why is it discrimatory to me that that bookstore will not sell me a book about heterosexual marriage? And if it is not, then why is discriminatory that a bakery that believes in heterosexual marriage refuses to sell products advocating and supporting something else? And what hinders a member of the public from obtaining what they want by going to a place that wants to cater to them?

          I still do not see how any one is harmed by not compelling store owners to cater to every potential customer, without any regard for the inclinations and beliefs of the store owner. If you do, please explain it to me.

          And @pch101 feel free to answer that question also, if you have anything inside your head besides ways to belittle what you don’t agree with. The jury is still out…cast your vote by your example.

          But remember, it is better to remain silent and have everyone think you are a fool, than to open your mouth, and have everyone know that you are a fool.

  • avatar
    turf3

    The words religious freedom need to be placed in inverted commas, as in “religious freedom”, in the headline.

    These are not religious freedom laws any more than French fries were freedom fries. These are laws trying to turn back the clock.

    I just reconnected with a male classmate who recently married a man. In their synagogue. As far as I am concerned, if it’s good enough for God Almighty, it’s good enough for me.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      There will always be a religious organization of some type, that will endorse just about anything, and another that will oppose it. To say that since a religious organization endorsed a concept, it is good enough for you to endorse it, is to be adrift at sea without a compass, while believing you are on a cruise.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    We Moderns are truly disgusting. We imagine ourselves so advanced and enlightened that we feel free to abandon, condemn and mock millennia of accomplishment, accumulated wisdom, observable biological fact and social experience in the name of silly, self-centered fads and fashionable insanities.

    We forget that religious freedom and freedom of conscience are extremely hard-won things which took centuries to achieve, after centuries of being only theorized about. They are crowning glories in man’s pantheon of accomplishment and some of the defining characteristics of the most advanced civilization to ever exist.

    And now we throw them away in the name of accommodating a very small but extremely militant group of angry, hateful, vicious malcontents who aren’t satisfied with the legal equality they already enjoy.

    They want special, preferential treatment based on their chosen lifestyle, and the sane majority doesn’t want to have a big fight over it, in part because we’ve “gotta get up and go to work in the morning.”

    To flippantly dispose of religious freedom and freedom of conscience like this would be directly analogous to finally developing a faster-than-light spacecraft and then cutting it up for scrap, simply because environmentalists claimed that the FTL drive damaged the spacetime continuum – somehow.

    In both cases, it would be throwing away historic, monumental achievements that benefit all mankind for exceptionally flimsy reasons – because a few arguably mentally-ill people felt put out by it.

    I don’t care what people want to do, as long as it’s not in my face. And homosexuals screaming at me that I have to applaud and celebrate their chosen lifestyle – OR ELSE – qualifies as getting in my face. Their rights end where mine begin, and vice-versa of course. But then, I’m not running around picking fights with them.

    If all they wanted was tolerance, well, they already have it. And I’d be okay with that. Not philosophically or morally of course, but as a practical matter. If they left me alone, I’d care not a whit what they did.

    Special, preferential treatment for homosexuals (which they call “equality”) and freedom of conscience are fundamentally incompatible, irreconcilable concepts. They cannot coexist – period. This reality is the one thing that both religious believers and the Tolerance Mob know instinctively and can agree on.

    In the end, though, they lose – because they’re fighting against biology and human nature. It is a war they cannot win – have no chance of winning. Their cause is ultimately doomed, but they’re gonna do a lot of damage to society before they finally go down.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I used to have a more anti gay marriage position, but then realized that:

      a) I’ve yet to hear of/read about a gay violently (or otherwise) raping a heterosexual (the movies portray it as common in prisons, though),

      b) For those into biblical scripture, “judge not,” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and non-biblical “don’t throw rocks if you live in a glass house.” etc.,

      c) Why not let gays get married and be as miserable as the 50%+ of straights who end up divorced?,

      d) If there’s a certain god with a certain position on this unfavorable to gay marriage, justice will be meted out,

      e) I used to think I’d be accosted visually an audibly by loud, colorful, militant gays on parade floats in places like San Francisco, but have yet to witness such gay militancy,

      f) I’m not proclaiming gay marriage as moral or immoral, even if in my more candid moments I tend to be inclined to at least admit it seems odd – but I also admit that I’ve witnessed truly odd behavior by straights,

      g) The world has seemed really out of whack and off kilter since about 2000 from my generational perspective, for many reasons, many of them very disturbing and structurally serious, involving things such as growing economic and social inequality, foreign wars of choice (and mass death of non-combatants), tribal violence, starvation, terrorism, devastating tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes, viral and bacterial epidemics, etc., and I’m not sure that a piece of paper in the form of a marriage certificate extended to gay couples spells the end of civilization, especially when weighed against other pressing issues.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @DeadWeight,
        This point you’ve made;
        “b) For those into biblical scripture, “judge not,” and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and non-biblical “don’t throw rocks if you live in a glass house.” etc.”

        How many stones has Caddy thrown your way. By the looks of it they aren’t stones, but boulders. Do boulders not count;)

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Ezekiel 25:17 frames my opinion regarding everything Cadillac today:

          “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men (and women; GM Executives/Management). Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness (blessed be him/her who steers the naive away from a purchase/lease of a Cadillac), for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers (let Cadillac take a permanent dirt nap this time – no bailout – if they can’t return to their essence). And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            DeadWeight – thanks for proving that a charismatic man with persuasive eloquence can use scripture to further their cause ;)

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DeadWeight,
            I love you.

            That would have to be one of your best pieces. Truly creative.

            Before you lose the comment you should print it onto an A4 sheet with coloured gilding and fancy stuff around the edges.

            Frame it and place it on your mantle or dresser. Hang it on the wall even.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction gets the credit despite my minor tweaks.

      • 0 avatar
        Jimal

        My conversion on the topic was much more simple. I have friends and family members who are gay.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Some folks take pleasure from discrimination for the sake of it. (The inferiority complexes that motivate such sentiments must be painful to live with.)

          In the old days, they would hide behind white hoods. Now, they hide behind handles on the internet.

    • 0 avatar
      Charliej

      OneAlpha, man are you full of shit. And full of hatred. I could almost feel sorry for you but I don’t. You are responsible for your total lack of empathy for those who you disdain. American has changed, people like you want to take it back to a time that never existed. A mythical golden age where black people knew their place and gays did not exist. I am old enough to have lived through that era, and it sucked. The county sheriff got arrested every Sunday. He also owned a grocery store that stayed open on Sunday, violating the blue laws of the time. A local minister would file a complaint with the city police, who would go and arrest the sheriff. Do I want to go back to a time like that? Hell no, I don’t. People whine about how things are going to hell in a handbasket, but things could be a lot worse. And will be worse, if we let idiot religions run our country into the ground. Remember, the religious folk are trying to bring on the end of the world. If they are unhappy with the world, go on to meet god on your own and leave me out of it.

      • 0 avatar
        OneAlpha

        I might point out that “idiot religions” like Christianity and Judaism, and their attendant moral systems, are the reason that the majority of the population of Western Civilization hasn’t simply DISPOSED of small, loud, inconvenient groups of malcontents.

        It is in those places which are officially antitheist, like the former Soviet Union and North Korea, where the greatest and most common assaults on the dignity and liberty of mankind occur.

        You say I’m hateful and full of shit. Wow, hell of a rebuttal argument you’ve got there. Tell me this – why are my stated ideas incorrect or invalid?

        Let’s look at what you did wrong here.

        One, you attacked me personally instead of telling me why my ideas are wrong.

        Two, you equated a legitimate ethnic minority (black people) with a group defined by its behavior and lifestyle (homosexuals).

        Three, you implied that it would be a good thing to force people to violate their consciences and deeply held beliefs, because they should, what – get with the times?

        Would it be an acceptable thing for the law to demand that a homosexual baker produce a cake for a Christian inscribed with Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”)?

        Of course it WOULDN’T be, because as much as I believe that verse, and as much as I disagree with the idea that homosexuality is either fixed or primarily genetic, the main point is that it would be forcing the baker to violate his conscience.

        That would be unacceptable.

        One more thing. Full disclosure – I’m white. But if I were black, I’d be offended that homosexuals keep equating themselves and their cause with my race. Being black, like being white, Hispanic, Asian or whatever race, in neither moral nor immoral – it simply is.

        Race is an immutable characteristic, ENTIRELY determined by genetics and completely unconnected to controllable things like behavior, attitude or lifestyle.

        But homosexuality, while partly emotional, is almost entirely behavioral and thus, not entitled to status as a legitimate minority. Legitimate minority status is limited to things that can’t be changed and aren’t subject to moral codes.

        “Don’t compare your sin to my skin” is how I’ve heard it said best. It’s a deliberately disingenuous tactic for the homosexualists to compare themselves to the civil rights fights of midcentury.

        The civil rights movement, at least, had a legitimate grievance and a point.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      OneAlpha – God does not force us or make us chose to love him or even believe in him……..Why?

      There is enough evidence that indicates that homosexuality isn’t a choice.

      What part of the Bible do you want to base your claims upon?

      The word Christian comes from the word Christ and denotes a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

      The vast majority of the alleged anti-gay stuff is from the Old Testament and some scholars argue that parts were most likely incorrectly translated.

      Does believing word for word in the Old Testament makes you a Christian?
      A believer in the Old Testament for all intents and purposes is not a Christian but a Jew.

      There are parts of the Old Testament that support slavery and unequal treatment of women.

      Do we need legislation that allows us to enslave or subjugate women?

      Do we support ISIL because they claim to literally follow the Koran?

      “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

      That statement does not mention gays or blacks or women. Unless perhaps one does not love themselves. That tends to be the root cause of many fears and anxiety about what we do not know or understand.

      • 0 avatar
        slow kills

        “There is enough evidence that indicates that homosexuality isn’t a choice.”
        Wanting to believe something does not make it true.
        There is no such science. Correlation is not causation. A damaged liver does not predispose one to alcoholism.

        Ask a homosexual about their first experience. Pederasty, not predisposition.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @slow kills

          There are physiological differences between gays and heterosexuals.

          Cambridge Journal of Psychological Medicine
          Volume 45 Issue 07

          “Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation”

          Genetics have an effect as well as social, and psychological factors.

          Have you asked a homosexual about their first sexual experience?

          My sons have a friend who has not yet become sexually active (13 years old) but has become sexually curious. He has never had a heterosexual thought process just like my son’s have NEVER had a homosexual thought process. Same can be said for a gay fellow I used to work with.

          Even IF homosexuality is a choice, why should my choice be derided,or labeled as wrong, or deviant, or immoral?

          You ask the “gay” side for evidence then please post your evidence to the contrary.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      When I noted that the idiots wouldn’t be able to shut up about it, this is what I was talking about.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      Very well put, @OneAlpha The way you write, and what you write about, and the opinions you express, show that you deserve the Alpha part of your title.

      Too bad we have to be encompassed all about by so many with such limited ability to see what precious freedoms we are giving away in order to go beyond freedom for a special interest group, at the expense of the freedoms of others.

      But I am encouraged to see that even among us gearheads, there are people capable of seeing beyond the political rhetoric.

  • avatar
    Sceptic

    Good to know. Most people would refuse to buy from a reactionary company that opposes freedom.

    Also, I think the Justice department must look into these company statements. This is a civil rights issue. This is an attempt to intimidate residents of Indiana, Arkansas and Michigan.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    In all honesty, if someone did not want to cook a cake or anything I plan on eating for any reason the last thing I would do is force them. Much spittle and other nasty stuff has ended up in many a meal throughout history. I’d take my business elsewhere for my own sake.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      And I would bet that the same people who want to force photographers and bakers to accommodate them against their wills, will also take their business elsewhere, except for the staging of test buys to ensure that no one who doesn’t agree with their agenda get to enjoy a freedom that doesn’t kowtow to their worldview.

      I also doubt that they will be traveling to any Muslim-owned bakeries asking for an “Adam and Steve” wedding cake. After all, under sharia, that would constitute a capital crime. And I suspect they might suspect that they would stand a chance of ending up being videotaped in the basement of that bakery, and I don’t mean a wedding.

      The attempts to defeat the Religious Freedom Bill are nothing more than an attempt to force those who oppose the homosexual agenda to publicly knuckle under to it.

      If it were not, the arguments against it would be fraught with examples of LGBT couples who tried and tried to buy a wedding cake all over, but couldn’t find ANYONE to accommodate them. It is not about their being prevented from buying such a cake, or having such a wedding album, it is about forced acceptance or at least the public appearance of acceptance of something opposed to someone else’s beliefs.

  • avatar
    50merc

    As thelaine predicted, mostly snarks and ad hominem arguments, with volando’s comment the shining exception. I think Rick Warren was right when he said, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

    Anyone else notice that the activists never ask muslim caterers to provide pork sandwiches, or hindu caterers to serve beef hamburgers?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Great job of missing the point.

      The issue isn’t with the product, but with the retailer denying service to particular groups of people for no particularly good reason.

      If the baker doesn’t like selling cakes, then that’s his business. But selling cakes to one group and not the other is classic discrimination.

      Enjoy your meal at the lunch counter.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        No @pch101 once again, it was YOU who missed the point…they are free to buy any cake the baker wants to make, just as much as any other customer. And a photographer shouldn’t have to be compelled to attend a ceremony he or she doesn’t approve of, any more than a doctor should be force to perform abortions just because abortions are permitted.

        The retailer isn’t denying service to particular groups for no particular reason…they are offering the services they choose to offer, to any and all who want to purchase them. And they are declining to offer other goods and services to anyone. Yet to anyone who wants services they don’t offer, they remain willing to offer the services they do offer: a different style of cake or pastry, in the case of a baker, or photographing someone’s college graduation. They are not refusing the customer because they are LGBT, they are not refusing to let such customer purchase anything they sell to anyone else. They are just refusing to produce a product or service that endorses something they personally are opposed to and have a right to be opposed to.

        They are doing NOTHING to prevent an LBGT customer from getting a cake, or getting their wedding photographed either…they are just refusingt to participate in it against their legitimately held beliefs, even though you might think their beliefs are wrong. It is still, in theory, a free country, and they still, at least until recently, held the right to their own beliefs and opinions, whether they offended someone else or not.

        And WTH was the comment about enjoying a meal at a lunch counter? Was that supposed to some SUPPOSEDLY clever attempt to imply that I dine at lunch counters where blacks are refused service, stuck in a fifties time warp? Because as far-fetched as that seems, nothing else makes even that much sense. Perhaps you will respond with logic at least when trying to explain your own words, though I won’t hold my breath.

        But just to show how ill-informed you are, I did a great deal for the civil rights movement in the sixties, though I also want to be clear to note that many others did even more. But I do not, and did not, endorse discrimination against individuals. Though I never picketed to force any vegetarian restaurants to serve BBQ pork sandwiches to show that they weren’t discriminating against blacks.

        But I did lose at least two friends to bigotry. It is in part to honor the memories of John P. and Jack D. that I continue to support freedom, for ALL people.

        And if you think there are any LGBT people out there who are deprived of wedding cakes or photographers, give me a zip code and I will find you a list of places they can go to purchase what they want, without having to force anyone to offer anything that is against their beliefs. I don’t promise to find them in the same zip code, but I challenge you that I will be able to find ones willing to provide nearby service to them.

        You know as well as I do that this isn’t about finding cakes and photographs for LGBT customers, this is about preventing anyone from openly disagreeing with their agenda. Regardless of how much or how little IQ you have, why don’t you do yourself a solid and at least admit that that is what you are really opposed to, people not agreeing with you, rather than being deprived of “Adam and Steve” figures on wedding cakes, or being deprived of photographs of them kissing.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Clueless and obsessed. Not a good combination.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @50merc – @thelaine conveniently hijacked the brilliant post made by @VolandoBajo.

      @VolandoBajo’s post is a warning about the dangers of using law to make others do something against their beliefs. It obviously plays both ways.

      I agree with @VolandoBajo in as much as the courts and government tend to be very poor arbiters of conflicting rights.

      I also agree that there are those that need to be very careful because forcing others to act against their beliefs is a very slippery slope.

      A person is Never totally free to do what ever they please if in the process of exercising their freedoms they impinge upon the freedoms of others.

      Freedom comes with responsibility. I have to exercise my freedoms in a way that does not impinge upon another person’s freedom.

      But what if there are equally important but conflicting beliefs?

      There are ethical frameworks for deciding such matters which have no resemblance to what occurs in a court of law.

      The debate centres around the argument of what freedom actually is and what does one do when there are “opposing” or “conflicting” freedoms……… in this case the freedom to live out one’s sexual identity unfettered by others versus the freedom to live out one’s religious beliefs unfettered by others.

      Traditional Conservatives use religion as a justification for anti-gay sentiments. Those same individuals claim that Biblical teachings are infallible but do not have an explanation for the fact that there are over 200 Christian denominations (read 200 different interpretations of Christianity).

      Why so many different interpretations?

      Humans are frail, finite and flawed.

      Our frail, finite, and flawed minds try to interprete Divinity.

      Christ’s teachings appear to be much more inclusive than that of the Old Testament.

      No snarks or ad hominem attacks in my posts.

      • 0 avatar
        Charliej

        Actually, if you look it up. thare moire than 33,800 different Christian denominations. Apart from Christianity, there are mant thousands of other religions. All claim to be the one and only true religion I find it more likely that there is no one true religion. All of them are equally false.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          *tips fedora*

          If you looked it up, you’d find not all of the 41,000 denominations of Christianity consider their branch the absolute only way.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Charliej and Drzhivago138 – 200 or 33,800 or 41,000…….

        point is the same.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @Lou_BC True there are many different denominations, and many do not agree on many things. But under the US Constitution, as written, ALL have the right to their beliefs.

        But you are right about Christ’s teachings…but also remember that he taught us (1) we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God; and (2) hate the sin but love the sinner.

        I have sympathy for those who struggle against sin, especially if they start with the beam in their own eye and not the moat or speck in another’s…but I also believe that I am compelled to speak out against anyone glorifying their participation in sinful behavior, and that includes me being opposed to things I sometimes do. “We do things which we ought not to do, and leave undone those things that we ought to have done.” Applies to me too…

        I once drank like a fish. And no one is more scorned or persecuted in society than a drunk or addict. But I did not use that scorn as an argument that others should participate in my drinking if they were selling liquids, even lemonade, to the public. I never thought “public accommodation” extended to the point that they must drink if I drank…they did not have to participate in my celebrations, such as they were.

        And if I believe LGBT sex is a sin, then they should not have the right to force me to participate in their activities, either. They are free to “do their thing”, and I don’t hate them, in fact I pity the lives of loneliness and despair so many of them live, but I do not think I can in any way help them by “accepting” or participating, even as a bystander, to their activities.

        Many different interpretations do not change the fact that many people feel that open LGBT conduct is wrong. And I believe that LGBT people should be free to practice what they want, without persecution, but I still feel that it is wrong, and refuse to endorse anything but their freedom to conduct themselves accordingly.

        I believe it is my responsibility to leave them alone until such time as they ask for my help for anything. But I also believe that it is their responsibility to allow me to not endorse their behavior, without being discriminated against or forced to endorse anything they do that I am opposed to.

        I am willing to let live, but I also expect others to let me live, too, even to live without supporting them or aiding them in doing what they choose to do.

        Anything else is tyranny, creeping or otherwise.

        And I choose to grant others freedom, but I also demand that they grant me mine, if they expect my support for theirs.

        And that includes their accepting that I accept their right to do as they please, but it does not include my having to openly endorse their behavior. I will tolerate their freedom, but I will not be compelled to act in a way that is against me belief in order to protect them from FEELING discriminated. Acceptance without participation is not discrimination, it is tolerance that deserves to be reciprocated.

        No snarks or ad hominem attacks in mine, either. (Though I can’t say the same for some others, of another “ilk”…such a lame attempt at deprecation.)3

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          VolandoBajo – thank you for your well thought out comments.

          Unfortunately we see those using current law to bully those with opposing beliefs. At one time those laws were used against blacks, women, or gays.
          I do believe that it is wrong for anyone on either side to force others to do something that is against their beliefs.
          That goes back to my point of dealing with equal but conflicting rights. They have to weighted case by case in an ethical fashion.
          It is rather stupid to use the courts or law to force a baker (for example) to do something that they feel is against their beliefs.
          I do agree that one should “hate the sin and not the sinner” but unfortunately as I have pointed out, humans are frail, finite and flawed. Our frail, finite, and flawed minds try to interpret Divinity. As you have stated we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

          So then the problem is who really and truly should be the one who decides what is a sin?
          Things like legal and illegal, even right or wrong tend to be human interpretations. Sin unfortunately can be one of those sorts of things that are interpreted by humans.

          I appreciate your comments and this is the kind of dialogue that should occur. Bashing one side or the other without an attempt to understand the other side leads to the stupid comments we’ve seen and bakers ending up in court.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @50merc – There’s a key difference between these and other similar examples you have used. The Muslim Butcher or the Hindu caterer are not discriminating; they simply are not offering these products to anyone. Treat everyone the same and your actions cannot be discriminatory. In the case of the businesses like bakeries and photographers, they are offering their products and services to some, but not all. That is discrimination. It would be the same as a racist baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, or a fudamentalist photographer who refuses to shoot at either an interfaith marriage or simply a wedding of faith that is different than his (muslim refuses to do a Jewish wedding, Christian refuses to do a Muslim one).

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Your explanation won’t help. These guys think that discrimination is awesome, and nothing that you say is going to change that.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      Well put @50Merc and not to change the subject, but early 50s Mercs, chopped and channeled, have always been one of my favorite types of rod.

      My current whip is a 97 Grand Marquis, an old geezer car that really isn’t an old geezer car.

      Thanks for the Rick Warren quote and the question about other caterers being compelled to do what is against their will, a/k/a their freedom, as Americans, a/k/a their religious freedom.

  • avatar
    50merc

    More proof thelaine was right. So now I’m a guy who wants segregated lunch counters. Darn, where’s the ax handle Lester Maddox loaned me?

    The point is that a product or service can be seen by a person of faith as an endorsement or involvement. For such people, a wedding cake is not simply a cake; it can connote acceptance or celebration of something wrongful. For example, asking an observant Jew to decorate a cake with “Heil Hitler”. This is not free speech, it is putting one person’s speech into another person’s mouth.

    The Supreme Court may not see it that way. But I would hope most of the Justices will give this complicated topic serious and fair deliberation, rather than simply dismissing one side as “idiots”.

    I’ll let PCH have the last word, because there’s no point in continuing a debate with someone who buys pixels by the barrel.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The concept of public accommodation is pretty straightforward. If the idea of being nice to gay folks or blacks or any other protected class is a problem for you, then the answer is simple: Don’t get into the business of serving the public.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @Pch101 If the concept of granting someone freedom of conscience is repugnant to you, the answer is simple, don’t patronize them.

        And I marvel at your continued reversion to the defense of the liberties of only “protected classes”. Do you honestly believe that the liberties of “protected classes” are such that they trump or negate the liberties of others?

        And if this was anything other than an attempt to force acceptance against another person’s conscience, why would you patronize that business and allow them to profit, perhaps at the expense of a business that might agree with you or condone your choices?

        It only makes sense if your desire to subjugate and humiliate those who do not believe as you do is stronger even than your desire to support those who would willingly support you.

        There, now we have it…the voice behind the curtain. Speak, oh enlightened one who is so above the rest of us in your awareness: why would you want to patronize those businesses? And, why wouldn’t you prefer to patronize a business that willingly supports your “protectedness”?

        Come on, speak up, the spotlight is on you, and we are all waiting for an answer. If you snark out on this one, you are admitting that it has nothing to do with making sure LGBT people get wedding cakes and photographs.

        Expose your true self to us, Pch101.

        • 0 avatar
          JD321

          I don’t know what you expect from a bratty Liberal parasite…Logic? Reason? Understanding of free association and the non-aggression principle?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        I should correct myself: The concept of public accommodation is pretty straightforward to those who have functioning brain stems. For an idiot, it might be confusing.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          @Pch101 So I guess you’re claiming to have a brain stem, which gives you your powers of reasoning.

          Must get mighty drafty up there in your old cranial cavity, without the other parts of a normal human being’s brain.

          Are you really a microcephalic (pinhead, in the vernacular)?

          I wouldn’t be surprised in the least.

          The one in Todd Browning’s Freaks was actually kind of cool…you should take lessons from him. He didn’t insult people who were different from him, he accepted them.

          Perhaps you won’t be so mean-spirited towards anyone who doesn’t agree with you about anything if we tell you:

          “We accept you; we accept you. Gooble Gobble, Gooble Gobble, we accept you.”

          Can I get a witness?

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    The US Constitution is dead. Most people are too ignorant to know what we lost or how it will affect them. The rule of law probably won’t be restored without the sort of massive loss of life that statists always cause when left unchecked.

  • avatar
    VolandoBajo

    @CJinSD I hope you are wrong, but I fear that you might be right.

    After all, that is what had to happen even in places like Cambodia and China, and even then, the restoration was only partial. Ditto Russia, post-Stalin.

    I fear for the future of this country. The repeated dumbing down of education has led to the point where it is so easy to dupe the majority of the public that the electorate can probably be led anywhere, depending on who manages to wrest control of the levers of government.

    And the worst part is that it isn’t so much a matter of which party…it is a matter of the permanent government, that cares more for power and more power, wealth and more wealth, and damn the people.

    Yet I still have some hope that awareness of the Constitution might somehow take hold as a basis for a renewal of our freedoms as individuals and as a country.

    Just don’t ask me to make a strong case for it…it is all I can do to see the possibility.

  • avatar
    JD321

    The counterfeit money racket known as “Central Banking” combined with the political violence of parasitic socialism Democracy killed the American constitutional republic. No doubt the political terrorists will finally have their 1000-year Reich…and at least another billion people are going to be murdered in order to maintain it. But who cares? At least their will be wedding cake for all and the trains will run on time.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      Very astute. But don’t forget the other leg of that stool…the insurance industry was granted a one year exemption from antitrust and price collusion laws at the end of WW II. It was intended to be one year, and in court cases, legislators who voted for it testified that that was their clear intent…one year ONLY.

      But the insurance industry had its lawyers tie that case up in the courts for decades, all the while free to continue colluding and fixing prices.

      Right there is the root cause of high insurance premiums, as well as the high cost of healthcare. There are several countries around the world that have healthcare systems that deliver results as good as ours, but at typically about a third of the cost. See the excellent data analyses done for TED conferences by Hans Rozick (sp?).

      As a result, control of capital flowed from investment banking firms to ultimately the coffers of insurance companies, who always get paid up front, and only pay afterwards, and then are guaranteed to receive enough money to not only meet their obligations, but to guarantee them a return on insurance activities.

      But get this…their profitability is never regulated on the basis of their total returns, just their underwriting. And meanwhile they grow much richer in the stock market, as they are using your money to invest and gain.

      Follow the money…and you will understand why politicians do not do the will of the people, and why people have come to despair of anything meaningful in the way of reform coming out of Washington or the statehouses.

      And if you try to speak out against such abuses, you will be slandered, ridiculed, arbitrarily investigated and denied the tax relief that other political organizations enjoy, and so on, as witness the Tea Party. Whether you like their politics or not, theirs is a cautionary tale of what happens to any and all who dare to threaten the status quo and dare to call for meaningful structural changes in things like insurance and health care, not to mention the military industrial procurement process, which Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address. JFK represented a threat to the military industrial money making game, and you know your history.

      Also read the speech “War is a Racket” by USMC General Smedley Butler, one of the greatest Marines of all time, wherein he calls out all those who profit from war while letting others suffer from the deficient but profitable supplies that the manufacturers made during WW I.

      History is like what Kaiser Wilhelm once said, as the German Constitution was being written: “Those who like the law or sausages, shouldn’t watch either one being made.”

      And the beat goes on…

      But the revolution will not be televised, because it is already over, it was conducted from the top down, and it is already over. There will be no NEW World Order…this is the world order, so, to paraphrase the Last Poets “Wake up, N*****s, or you’re all through!”

      Not until people wake up to the truth, stop believing what the media tell them about reform candidates, and vote for people of principle en masse, will this country have a chance at restoring the freedom and prosperity we once enjoyed.

      But for now, the ballot box is a fragmented tool of little to no effect, as incumbents keep getting re-elected to office at a much greater than ninety per cent rate. What else would you expect from a picture like that?

      When and if this country starts voting out at least one quarter of all incumbents at every election, I will begin to have hope for this country again. Until then, we are something better than tyranny, but less than freedom, and from where we are, freedom is a distant, and possibly unattainable, dream.

      I hope I am wrong, but I wouldn’t bet the ranch…

      In the meantime, I had a good birthday weekend with my wife and son, ate a lot of good food at a quality all you can eat joint, polished the chrome wheel covers on my dinosaur V8 (I’ll see your Prius and raise you a Buick), watched the Clippers win round one with my son, and saw Pacquio put up a valiant fight, which I thought was at least a lot closer than it was scored.

      The big things are depressing to me, but the important things, the people and things I love, make it all worth the while.

      But damn, I sure do wish this was the country they taught me about in school.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Volando, I am very grateful for your contribution. I do not hate people. Facism is terrifying and we are seeing it right here in America. People are being branded with the ugliest epithets and having their lives upended because will not conform to the new orthodoxy. I personally could not care less about gay marriage, but I am frightened of facism. Your elequent posts have clarified the argumens for me and struck the demagogues mute. Much obliged.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      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.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        You could not be more wrong. Quite the contrary.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

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

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            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.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            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.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You need to invest in a better set of cliches.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

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

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s odd that segregating gay people means so very much to you.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            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?

          • 0 avatar
            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.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            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.

          • 0 avatar
            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.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “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/

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            And everyone else whom you insult?

          • 0 avatar
            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.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            “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?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There’s no end to CJ’s collection of bizarro analogies.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            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

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “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.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            But the nation’s fate depends upon denying them wedding cake and pizza.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            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.

          • 0 avatar
            VolandoBajo

            Hey, Pch101 flip back a few pages from Public Accommodation to Projection, then take a close look in the mirror and then tell me if you managed to see anything.

            I’d like to get a rough idea of the limits of your brain stem, so I can determine what level I can address you at that you would be able to comprehend.

            @Thelaine has your number, buddy-roll.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @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?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        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.

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @ 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.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            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.

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        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.

  • avatar
    MrGreenMan

    You know, Bertel Schmitt or Jack Baruth would have cooled off this conversation already. This isn’t something that’s going to be resolved on an auto site.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I agree.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

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

      • 0 avatar
        Kevin Jaeger

        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.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

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

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Pch101 – and on cue you have made Kevin Jaeger’s point.

            If you have something to contribute then do it without bashing.

          • 0 avatar
            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.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @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.

          • 0 avatar
            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.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          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.”

    • 0 avatar

      My primary job isn’t to moderate conversation; it’s to manage the editorial and news content. Additionally, the comment system makes it *incredibly* hard to moderate comments without reading Every. Single. Post.

      To be absolutely frank, I have been working 12-16 hour days without actively moderating comments. My job, and that of the writers, is not to moderate discussion as a primary function. We do it when we can.

      If there is a discussion way outside the accepted level of discourse requiring attention, let us know. There’s a Contact Form here: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/contact/

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    All of this is pointless. An interesting dialogue has been hijacked with Swinging Johnson-waving by Internet tough guys Both sides have turned me off completely. Do any of you think that a) the insults and name-calling are genuine debate? or that b) you can change your opponent’s mind?

    That’s it, I’m out

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      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 .

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        @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.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    VolandoBajo – I looked it up. Great speech.
    We human beings think that we have evolved especially with all of our technological superiority but we still huddle in our primitive tribal caves with our clubs clenched tightly fearful of anyone or anything that is not of our clan.
    We say we search for the truth but we really only search for validation of our beliefs. We need to move beyond that. One may not believe in God but Jesus was all about moving beyond our primal self. To love our fellow man as ourselves. As human beings we all have the right to dignity and respect and if both sides of this debate or any debate were to approach it from that point we’d be in a much better place.
    I tend to be more surprised by altruistic behavior than that of selfishness, hatred and contempt. Rays of hope do appear and I’d have to say that our dialogue happens to be one of them.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • poltergeist: Nice try, but the 1.8L in the 2006-2011 Civic uses a timing chain.
  • akear: If things go well maybe they will sell 5,000 of these a year. The truth is nobody really asked for an electric...
  • akear: Tesla can count its blessing that their domestic competition is poor. The Bolt’s main claim to fame,...
  • akear: I find it tragic that Italian and Australian companies are designing US battleships. When I read that I was...
  • akear: To appease the stockholder’s Barra and GM jumped into EV’s hook line and stinker. However, they...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber