Wildmon: By electing Trump we avoided criminalizing Christianity

Posted by | November 29, 2016 16:33 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics Religion

American Family Association Tim Wildmon was thisclose to becoming a criminal if Clinton had won.

Speaking with his son Walker and AFA’s executive vice president Ed Vitagliano, Wildmon asserted that had Clinton won the presidential election, “the attacks on the Christian community would have gotten more intense.” Vitagliano agreed, saying that “President Hillary Clinton would have fully weaponized the federal government to come after Christians.”

“The secular progressive movement,” Wildmon said, “they have a contempt for especially conservative Christians and I think with the election of Donald Trump, we avoided catastrophe … I think that the secular progressive movement and the power of the federal government, especially the executive branch, was ready to really penalize and criminalize, who knows, Christianity in America, and we avoided that.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

1,460 responses to Wildmon: By electing Trump we avoided criminalizing Christianity

  1. whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 16:46

    you’re trying to criminalize Islam and that’s ok right? hypocrite much? by the way, tRump is no Christian and neither are any of these asshats.

  2. Charlie Seivard November 29th, 2016 at 17:03

    By electing Trumps we destroyed anything moral or even loosely Christian about our country

    • whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 17:28

      better believe it.

    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:24

      No. It is likely that the Freedom of Religion Restoration Act will be preserved.

      • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:04

        That is a misnamed pile of religious interference crap. What it really is, is the Restoration of Christian Privilege Act.

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:27

          No, it is not that at all. It is just that atheist haters focus their animus and vitriol on Christians, of course.

          • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:58

            Nope, it is a blatant attempt to give Christians special privilege. Of course atheist “haters” are against bigotry and the use of lies, hate and fear-mongering which is the mainstay of religious extremists. The Christians you are speaking of are extremists and want their perverted of Christianity to be dominate and make everyone bow to their “laws”. That’s why there is so much animus against them, they are basically evil and damaging to our democracy.

            • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:14

              Our very heritage is Christian. It is apodictic.

              Look at the upcoming holiday, and the one that just passed last week. Hey, they ain’t Buddhist or Muslim!

              • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:38

                Yeah, the vast majority of Americans call themselves Christian, although over 20% of the population don’t follow any religion. The % of Christians is irrelevant. The Constitution was written to deliberately create a secular government where no religious group can legally dominate another. Christians should never had the privilege they have exercised over the year, just because they created the privilege for themselves doesn’t make it right.
                The relation of Christmas to Christians is tenuous at best. It was banned, by Christians, in many places. It was illegal to celebrate Christmas in Scotland for nearly 400 years, the Massachusetts’ Puritans forbade the celebration of Christmas. Most of the trappings, the tree, the presents, the time of year, even Santa himself have their roots in pagan cultures. The Catholic Church simply co-opted the existing winter solstice celebrations and made in a mass to celebrate their Christ. Of course his alleged birth couldn’t have been in the depths of winter, shepherds don’t sit out in the fields with their sheep in the dead of winter.
                Hell, the Bible even forbids cutting down trees and bringing them into the house.
                You need to get a real education.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:17

                  The founders absolutely – repeat, absolutely – did NOT get together to create a SECULAR government. Not true, not in the least.

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 02:00

                    They absolutely did. You have been reading the false history of the right. You firmly believe in lies.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:42

                      Nope. You show me where the Founders made any such reference – “we want to have a secular government” in the convention. In fact, it is EASY to prove you are wrong!

                      One simple proof is that the Founders created many state constitutions. I hope you know that.

                      Most of those state constitutions – that were NOT changed when our national constitution was ratified – have specific requirements that one had to be a CHRISTIAN to hold public office.

                      Another: Some of the states had ESTABLISHED CHURCHES, and there was no conflict with the national constitution. They kept them!

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:06

                      This is waht happens when you have a juvenile mind. We have a secular nation because the framers deliberately left out ANY damn reference to any god. Article 6 contains the “no religious test” clause. I no it’s hard for you, but see if you can imagine that it means no religion needed to be in the government. The 1st Amendment directs government to stay out of religion and vice versa. Since, by design, our government is NOT religious, it must be secular. QED.
                      The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and made them the law in all states. After that none of the religious crap in the states constitution was valid. Eventually, all the states dropped the meaningless crap.
                      You really need to read some real history, not the fake history the right sells.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:19

                      You are wrong. The statement was that a SECULAR government was set up. The Founders did not have that in mind. You are not using logic here. If one is not promoting religion, it does not mean that they then ARE promoting “secularism!”

                      And answer the other questions about state constitutions and established churches. Why won’t you answer?

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:14

                      RightThinkingOne: The 14th Amendment invalidated state level religious preference by applying The Establishment Clause and Religious Freedom Clause to all levels of government.

                    • William December 1st, 2016 at 01:09

                      You know when the rube has lost the debate when his argument is knowing what the so called “founders”, who have been dead for two centuries were “thinking”.

                  • Meepestos November 30th, 2016 at 02:53

                    Do you think they intended a theocratic-like government or something more like a secular society like that envisioned by the person that invented the term secularism?; also know as soft secularism – a society that recognizes the light and guidance from other religions even those without gods. But only the light and guidance (not only from the religious) that promotes good government and a social order separate from religious influences such as sharia law and halacha to name a few.

                    Secularism in most Western nations manages to promote religious faith and worship without having to actively dismiss or criticize it. Most have generous tax breaks for religious institutions and have constitutions that protect worship like the US’s First Amendment and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example; both secular in nature.

                    Western secularism ideally recognizes that the religious and non-religious elements of society are required (including those that are not Christian) to accomplish a secular pluralistic society, but not elements that justify discriminatory and draconian laws derived from the use of biblical or other religious interpretations as we see in places like El Salvador, some countries in Africa and less extreme in some countries in Europe.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:48

                      I am waiting for you to show me some statements from the Constitutional Convention where the Founders actually referenced creating a “secular” government.

                      Next, account for their creating state constitutions that had, as a requirement of holding any public office, one must be a Christian.

                      Next, please account for the FACT that when the 13 states became our nation, some had established churches, and not a SINGLE THING was mentioned about the ending of that being some kind of requirement to be a state!

                      I eagerly await your SPECIFIC response to each!

                    • Meepestos November 30th, 2016 at 23:31

                      What’s with the deflecting?

                      Do you think they intended a theocratic-like government or something more like a secular society like that envisioned by the person that invented the term secularism? Yes or no would suffice.

                      Also anything to refute regarding my assertions on Western secularism?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:13

                      You are not reading what is written. It is a distortion to even put it in those terms. It is completely absurd – for anyone who reads even a bit about the founding era – to think that such a thing even BEGAN to enter their minds. The founders did not discuss whether the society and government should be “secular” or “religious.”

                      READ SOME HISTORY. Certain things were simply taken for granted!

                    • Meepestos December 1st, 2016 at 00:38

                      “It is completely absurd – for anyone who reads even a bit about the founding era – to think that such a thing even BEGAN to enter their minds”

                      For you perhaps. Not for anyone that knows the founders were educated and familiar with Roman and Greek philosophers and that secularism drew its intellectual roots from them. After all, the US Constitution and US law was modelled after Roman law (which is it as three branches of government with the executive corresponding to consuls, and legislative with the senate being similar to the Roman, and the House of Representatives paralleling the Centuriate and Tribal Assemblies and a Judicial branch equivalent to the Praetors), right down to our citizenship laws; to think that secularism never entered their minds would be absurd.

                      Google: “Roman Greek influence on the US founders” as will Richard, Carl J., The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1995. This article seems very much on point, Garrett Lysford; 2013; Cicero and Adams: Architects of the Founding; Sunoikisis Undergraduate Research Journal. You might also find Aatif Rashid ;In What Ways Did Baron de Montesquieu Influence the Constitution of the United States?”; Demand Media helpful in connecting the French influence to their Greek and Roman roots.

                      You will notice that the US ended up as a Republic established on Roman lines.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:13

                      No, not for me. I challenge you to find such a discussion in the Constitutional Convention. You cannot. I have been asking a dozen atheists here who made the same assertion, and not a single one can find any such discussion. Nada.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:14

                      Actually, the source of our Constitution is largely from COMPACTS and COVENANTS.

                    • Meepestos December 3rd, 2016 at 00:43

                      Thanks for elaborating further down the thread.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:52

                      Yes. I see the atheist Left denying the truth of our origins. The big question is – the one that they refuse to really consider or discuss – WHY are they so adamantly determined to create this new mythical history of our nation?

                      I think I know the reason, but would like to get one of them to be honest. But that is not possible. These Leftist atheists hide behind lies and subterfuge.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:18

                      It appears that I am going to get bounced because of my consistent disagreement with the establishment here.

                    • Meepestos December 3rd, 2016 at 00:38

                      I hope not.

                    • Obewon November 30th, 2016 at 23:58

                      Here is founder George Washington’s ratified treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by POTUS2 John Adams -my late relative who I am descended from. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55a3b46ca2f6c599aba7381a694aae43138c70093785c67e532e5dfd4dbe0338.jpg

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:16

                      Glad you put that up. It shows how atheist haters distort. The “Treaty of Tripoli” is misused to imply that it actually means some kind of denial of religious belief or “secularism” per se.

                      First of all, nobody ever said, as in that treaty, that America “founded on the Christian religion.” That is accurate. There is a huge and complete difference between being founded on something, and being culturally something and being influenced and guided by something. Our national government was not founded on any religion, otherwise we could be called a Theocracy, and would have a national church, laws requiring attendance, membership, taxes in support, etc.

                      The Muslims were suspicious of Christians – because of the Crusades and centuries of religious war.

                      That statement was written to assure them that there would be no religious war waged against them; the same paragraph of the “founding” statement ends with: “[I]t is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:18

                      But another treaty was signed with the same group when Jefferson was the president. It was referred to as The Treaty of Peace and Amity: Jefferson deliberately removed the word which said America was not a Christian nation!!!!
                      The treaties; READ IT!
                      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp

                    • Obewon December 1st, 2016 at 00:50

                      Compos mentis? This was no longer the founders 1787-9 congress you’ve been pretending to relish e.g. Presidential term: March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05c0eb3f467504cd0f0fcd5d276353b84f363ae9b89b2306353e29acc2e7258f.jpg

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:22

                      Yes. Two Liberals, one Marxist Left-winger, and two neo-cons.

                  • rubellapox2 November 30th, 2016 at 11:47

                    Then why did they not mention Christ or any god in the constitution? I mean if you’re creating a nation based on christianity, why not spell it out from the get?
                    No rightthinking, this is most definitely a secular country with a secular government and secular laws which apply to everyone, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or non religious…what you’re complaining about is Christian privilege and sense of entitlement, which has gone on for too long..
                    Heck, I don’t even consider evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons religions anymore.. they’ve evolved into political parties…and as such should have their tax exempt statuses revoked… pay like the rest of us.. infrastructure and all the services such as police, firemen, and public roads that people use to get to church are not free and shouldn’t be put on the backs of citizens who don’t subscribe to your point of view…

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:04

                      The nation was not created on Christianity. That is not what I wrote. I wrote many other posts proving that the Founders did NOT get together to create a “secular” government.

                      Please refer to them and generate some responses.

                      Thank you.

                    • rubellapox2 December 1st, 2016 at 05:56

                      Well, if they did not create a secular government, this would be a Theocracy right? And what is the official government religion?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:40

                      No, that is not logical. Put your assertion into a syllogism, and you will see how it is not logical.

                    • rubellapox2 December 2nd, 2016 at 03:57

                      Not logical? Ok then, if this is not a secular government, what is it?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:53

                      You are putting something into a rubric that is not logical.

                    • rubellapox2 December 4th, 2016 at 20:15

                      I’m sorry but what the hell are you talking about?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:21

                      It is not logical. Please get someone to look at it, and to explain how.

                    • rubellapox2 December 5th, 2016 at 05:31

                      You explain it…..

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:24

                      No, please get someone.

                      Let me know and get back. Thank you.

                  • Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:38

                    The law of the land says specifically that this nation was NOT founded on the christian religion.
                    ergo: secular. That, BTW, was ratified by Congress and signed by the President. Adams, IIRC.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:08

                      It absolutely does not. But you show me where the founders – in the Constitution or the Convention – said that.

                  • George T November 30th, 2016 at 20:38

                    RightThinkingOne: Inaccurate assertion. Repeating your inaccurate assertion doesn’t make it true.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:21

                      No, it is accurate. You cannot show what you claim. You cannot. You only negate what you do not like.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:58

                      RightThinkingOne: I can. It’s clear in The US Constitution that no religion is given favored status or any special privilege. There are actually prohibitions against such actions. That *IS* the model for a secular governmental structure.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:09

                      No favored status for reasons that I should not have to explain. And RESPOND to the other points, the other questions! You cannot. And neither can anyone else on this thread!

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:14

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      No favored status for reasons that I should not have to explain.

                      I’ve already explained why Christianity doesn’t get a favored status.

                      And RESPOND to the other points, the other questions! You cannot. And neither can anyone else on this thread!

                      What other points? Please enumerate what you’d like addressed. I’d be happy to help you to better understand (^_^)

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:20

                      Christianity DID get a favored status. It was particular sects that did not – at the national level. I shouldn’t have to tell you that.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:51

                      RightThinkingOne: Yes, for a time states were allowed to favor one religion or another. That option was rescinded by The 14th Amendment, which applies all government prohibitions in The Constitution and Bill of Rights to all levels of government.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:05

                      No, it was not. Read history.

                      And you did not answer it at all! We are referring to the Founding and the Constitution. Again (FIFTH! REPETITION!): Most states had requirements for one to be specifically a CHRISTIAN to hold public office, and the Founders participated in writing them! The Constitution did not forbid that – NOT A BIT. It did not forbid established churches in the states, either!

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:17

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      No, it was not. Read history.

                      Incorrect. The 14th Amendment did modify these state and federal level issues.

                      Most states had requirements for one to be specifically a CHRISTIAN to hold public office

                      I’ve indicated the operative word. Also, only *some* specified Christianity. Most indicate a religious/theistic belief of some kind.

                      and the Founders participated in writing them!

                      Pointedly rejecting them on a national level, as expressed in The Constitution.

                      The Constitution did not forbid that – NOT A BIT.

                      Incorrect. The *No Religious Test Clause* and *Establishment Clause* do address this, a bit.

                      It did not forbid established churches in the states, either!

                      Correct! Until The 14th Amendment invalidated that, states were permitted to endorse a religion. That’s no longer the case.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:26

                      Incorrect. Read history. Check when the states – on their own accord – did something about these things.

                      And you are dishonest, or not reading. I was clear. You changed the subject. Read.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:37

                      RightThinkingOne: This quality of state independence within the nation was rescinded by The 14th Amendment. I’ve been clear on this point. Read history. If you think I’ve changed the subject, then you’re either ignorant or being obtuse.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:11

                      Read the sequence of posts. You are wrong.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:16

                      RightThinkingOne: I just did. I have consistently stated correct information.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:21

                      I did enumerate them. About 3 times to you.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:50

                      RightThinkingOne: I don’t see them in the comments above. Can you please go back and copy them from whatever post you’re thinking of.

              • Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:05

                Christmas is as much a secular holiday as it is religious. Non-Christians, including Jews and atheists, celebrate Christmas. And it’s a federal holiday. No other day with a religious connection is a federal holiday.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:56

                  Yes. Non-Christians celebrate it. It is a federal holiday.

                  Thanks for proving my point that our heritage is Christian.

                  • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:55

                    RightThinkingOne: You have inferred details that were not stated.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:08

                      It is a CHRISTIAN holiday, not a Buddhist, and we do not celebrate Muslim holidays or Hindu ones, either. There is an Easter break for most public schools, too. And that ain’t no Shinto holiday! LOL

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:11

                      RightThinkingOne: Actually it’s a holiday for multiple religions generally occurring in December.

                      Easter break? Are you referring to spring break?

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:17

                      Christmas: Birth of Jesus celebrated.
                      Easter: Celebrates the resurrection of Jesus from the dead

                      Christian holidays. Cannot be denied.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:48

                      RightThinkingOne: Other things can also be celebrated on December 25th that have no inherent Christian quality. Festivus for example. That day and month are not somehow reserved exclusively for one religion.

                      Again, Easter is in Spring. If you want to celebrate something religious during that time, you can worship Jesus or Eostre (the pagan goddess that Easter is named after).

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:02

                      It is Christmas. A Christmas holiday. It is so patently obvious. Sure, people can worship Satan on that holiday if they wish, but it is immature and lame to suggest that it is not based on Christianity.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:10

                      RightThinkingOne: It is so patently obvious that you’re assuming Christians are exclusively given privilege to reference December 25th as property of their religion. It has no inherent Christian quality or history, instead adopted to undermine Pagan rituals performed at the time to celebrate the winter solstice.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:24

                      No, I am not. READ! Simple language: The designating of that as a holiday came from a CHRISTIAN ORIGIN AND TRADITION! It cannot be denied by any rational adult!

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:34

                      RightThinkingOne: December 25th is a federal holiday with no specified religious connotations.

                      Christmas is a Christian holiday intended to subvert pagan celebrations of the day.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:11

                      You cannot deny what is patently obvious. It is childish, vapid, unreasonable and irrational to claim that there was not a religious source. Please do not respond to me any more.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:32

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      It is childish, vapid, unreasonable and irrational to claim that there was not a religious source.

                      I’ve never denied the pagan religious source of the December Christian holiday.

                      Please do not respond to me any more.

                      I dismiss your plea. If you don’t want me to respond, then stop posting erroneous information and biased opinion.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:18

                      Yes, a Christian holiday, and set by the national government.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:08

                      RightThinkingOne: That’s one of the holidays recognized by national government during that time, but not the only one.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:30

                      That changes NOTHING. You are not logical: You are implying – somehow – that since there are other non-Christian based holidays, it means that the Christian basis of Christmas is somehow invalidated.

                      Makes no sense.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:38

                      RightThinkingOne: Like many Christians, you are ignoring the other holidays. The federal government is not on record as having set up this holiday exclusively for Christianity.

                      It makes sense that you would argue for that though. You’re hoping to use that erroneous point to justify some other logical leap or assumption of Christian privilege.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:40

                      I am not. I am focusing on Christmas. READ.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:53

                      RightThinkingOne: So what are you claiming is the significance of December 25th in the Christian tradition? …other than supplanting pagan holidays.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:40

                      {The federal government is not on record as having set up this holiday exclusively for Christianity.}

                      Not what I wrote. READ. R..e..a..d!

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:51

                      RightThinkingOne: Which part do you want me to read?

                      The part where you incorrectly claim that the holidays origin is Christian, when the real origin is pagan? Examples being the worship of an evergreen and the holiday coinciding with the winter solstice, which was a holiday in many pagan traditions.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:01

                      You are denying what cannot be denied. I already went over this five times. Last time: It does not matter what the supposed “origins” were. It was a CHRISTIAN holiday, even (as I said 3 times) if Dec 25 was not when Jesus was born, etc. It was based on it being CHRISTIAN, even if the “origins” were pagan.

                      It was the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. It cannot be denied. A rational adult cannot deny that.

                      Please do not respond.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:49

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Last time: It does not matter what the supposed “origins” were. It was a
                      CHRISTIAN holiday, even (as I said 3 times) if Dec 25 was not when
                      Jesus was born, etc. It was based on it being CHRISTIAN, even if the
                      “origins” were pagan.

                      Your cognitive dissonance amuses me. Do you not realize how you’re contradicting yourself in the statement above? A married bachelor (^_^)

                      Please do not respond.

                      Take your own advice. Stop posting flawed and fallacious information. I will continue to correct your errors.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:12

                      No contradiction at all. You are illogical: You are saying that a national (and state) holiday was set up and those who decided it based it on paganism. Silly assertion. I will not deign to even try to refute something like that.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:50

                      RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. I’m saying the December 25th holiday was set up to honor multiple religions, not just Christianity.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:00

                      It was to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. It cannot be denied by a rational adult.

      • rubellapox2 November 30th, 2016 at 11:22

        They should call it what it is.. the anarchy law… anyone will be able to turn down anyone they don’t like and claim it’s their religious freedom… gays can deny Christians and Muslims… muslims can deny women and Jews.. Christians will deny anyone, single moms, divorcees, gays… how is that making us the United States of America?… how does that ridiculous piece of legislation, which will be struck down anyway as unconstitutional, make this a better country?

        • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:02

          No, it is for people of sincere religious faith, of course. And please read the act. It would not allow anything you are suggesting.

          • rubellapox2 December 1st, 2016 at 05:53

            Ah, so a law that’s only for people of faith? So, special rights for religious people only?… I have read the act, it states anyone who holds a sincerely held religious belief… that could be anyone of any faith.. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and satanist would have the right to deny service to anyone because of their beliefs… a clerk at city hall could deny a woman a drivers license, because according to his religious beliefs, women should not be driving.. An amendment like that would never make it thru, it would be Unconstitutional..

            • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:39

              Yes, people of any faith.

    • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:30

      Who’s we?….;)

  3. Suzanne McFly November 29th, 2016 at 17:20

    Yeah sure and old white men will be able to walk down the street without fearing for their lives once President Obama leaves office.

  4. Mike N. November 29th, 2016 at 17:30

    If I were the praying type I’d pray for these feeble-minded folks…

    • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:16

      If God were the existing type, He’d still just shrug His shoulders and do nothing.

      • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 22:21

        The old prayer vs “God’s Plan” dilemma. If their god is truly omniscient and knows, in fine detail, what is going to happen until the end of time, how can he allow prayer requests to change this intricate plan? Wouldn’t that be like the “time quake” roaring into the future?

        • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:39

          SHHH! Do NOT yell in the psych ward!

  5. KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 29th, 2016 at 17:50

    Americas most privileged people are so delusional, they feign hardship whilst deliberately persecuting others with glee.
    I believe the term is ‘self-righteous a$$holes’.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4b1de659fdb98bbd3c168c5e7e42542ddde8c1cf4714883aafefe1619083039e.jpg

  6. Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 17:59

    Exactly what did Hillary say that indicated she would “come after christians?

    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:24

      Her and Obama’s policies are, in effect, doing just that.

      • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:30

        More lies….
        Can you not think of an original thought?

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:31

          Typical response from you. Just insult and label.

          • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:36

            Whats is typical is your comment…
            Trowing out garbage based on nothing but religious zealots who make a living being persecuted, and wish to discriminate against anyone their “holy book” tells them it’s OK to do…

            • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:42

              You need to be specific. What “discrimination?” How about radical atheist haters insulting and demeaning religious faith? Now, that is discrimination and INtolerance!

              • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 20:49

                No, it’s not. You have the absolute freedom to follow any religion you chose. What you don’t have is any freedom from criticism and ridicule. You are talking about religious privilege, not religious freedom. Criticism and ridicule of asinine religious ideas is NOT discrimination, refusing to provide a service I am in business to provide because of your religious belief or refusing to hire you for the same reason, that’s discrimination. Criticizing your ridiculous belief is not intolerance, stopping you from expressing them by coercion would be intolerance.
                You are a poorly educated person, but you have no constraint on blasting your ignorance to all and sundry, then get all upset because people call your nonsense what it is, nonsense.

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:26

                  Typical: Transmogrify the statement into something of absolutely, utterly something unrelated – “rights.”

                  It IS “discrimination,” but not in the technically “legal” sense, of course.

                  • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:55

                    Can you translate that to English, my Gibberish is a little weak.

                    • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:13

                      Him say “Me like hate, want hate different tribes. Big chief-to-be say it good.”
                      http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/stills/G/gogo-gophers3.jpg

                    • bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 16:09

                      Go Go Gophers, watch them go go go!

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:13

                      It is the difference between “rights” and social disapproval.

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:27

                      So other people’s right are subject to your, or anyone’s approval/disapproval? That’s not how things work, the majority doesn’t get to sh!t all over a minority be simple force of numbers.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:35

                      No. There are real rights and made-up ones. Not in all cases, but one indication of a made-up “pretend” right is when the government has to pay for it. Take health care. It obviously is not a right. A state could choose to pay for some kind of hideous socialized medicine or whatever, but it is a fallacy to say it is a “right.”

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:40

                      Who decides which are the “real” rights and which are not, you? Why shouldn’t health care be a right or do you support the right to die because some can’t afford it? Typical self-centered, non-empathetic right winger.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:18

                      Look up “Natural Rights” and get back.

                      Human courts do not create rights, of course. That is the mentality of tyrants and despots.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 02:07

                      All rights come from humans, all laws come from humans, all morals come from humans and all gods come from humans. There is no such thing as “natural” rights, that was a concept of the 18th century like the “Noble Savage”. You really do need to get a real education, step out of the bubble you are living in and check out reality, it’s great.

                    • Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:30

                      He obviously can’t grasp the truth that ‘Natural Rights’ have nothing what so ever to do with christianity.
                      The joining of the two was done some decades ago by right wing religious radicals to justify their quest for power and the say over our ‘Constitutional Rights’. Wasn’t true then, still no true now.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:43

                      Yes, that is the Leftist view: Man creates rights. It is heinous.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:17

                      No, it is reality view. There are only humans, no gods, no demons, no devil, no heaven, no hell, all of these things come from the mind of humans. Heinous is telling little children that some god is watching them and telling them they will burn in hell if they do exactly as they are told.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:20

                      It is a different view. The Natural Rights view respect humanity and bases law on what IS PATENTLY CLEAR in our Constitution: Our rights are SECURED.

                      Look at the Constitution! I am serious. Rights are SECURED.

                      DO YOU REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT WORD? It does not mean “created,” but SECURING what is already there!

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:18

                      Nothing to do with “affording.” Health care is not a right. That is apodictic.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:59

                      Everything to do with affording. People went bankrupt, people died because they couldn’t afford health care. People suffered because they couldn’t get coverage on a “pre-existing” condition. People died because insurance companies pulled coverage because it was too expensive. Apparently you think dying due to lack of care is a right. Such a good Christian attitude. You should read Matthew 25 verse 31 to the end.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:39

                      Yes. It can be about “affording,” but in most cases, it is about what one prioritizes. Many people want their cable TV, flat screen televisions, computers, iPad, pets, eating out, etc. After those things, THEN they start thinking about insurance.

                      And many wait until they have a problem, and scream about “rights” to health care which is actually demanding that the government confiscate the property of RESPONSIBLE people to pay for their negligence and selfishness.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:57

                      The endless RW lie about the poor, the vile spewings of selfish people. You assume these things without evidence, showing your abject lack of decency and humanity. You disgust me.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:16

                      Most poor are not selfish. They are lazy.

              • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:58

                So I going to guess, since you seem to be a bible thumping Christian fundamentalist, you are pro-slavey, against the mixing of the races, for killing other people who do not worship your god, or worship him in a different manner than described in (Your) holy book….
                Care for me to continue?

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:25

                  I am not going to apply YOUR logic:

                  If a person supports homosexual marriage, then he has to be a homosexual.

                  YOUR logic. Applied.

                  • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:54

                    Fail, Christians DID support slavery using the Bible and “God’s Word” as justification. They supported segregation and miscegenation using the same reasoning. Hell, the last one didn’t change until 1967. Yes, the Christians did commit vile torture and murder using their god as justification. Christians claim that their god is unchanging, so how can you be against slavery etc now?
                    Support a positive thing is not the same as being willing to hate and fear. Decent people support equality for all, not just the ones that some god likes.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:11

                      Deflection off the topic. I APPLIED the “logic” of the post to which I responded. You are not.

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:25

                      You have no idea what logic is and certainly don’t know how to apply it.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:32

                      I applied the logic presented. Take another look.

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:40

                      No, you didn’t, you spouted some foolish BS and called it logic.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:19

                      I applied the “reasoning” and “logic” of what was presented to me.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:53

                      No, you didn’t, you just presented some garbled non-sequitur.

              • Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 20:59

                And if there are “atheist haters etc., etc.” what does that have to do with President Obama or Hillary?

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:24

                  Think “Sisters of the Poor.” They take care of the impoverished who are abandoned and dying.

                  And Obama and his sick administration wanted to force them to…. Well, YOU look it up.

                  • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:48

                    OMFSM, the pathetic “Sisters of the Poor” refused to simply fill out forms, they were not being forced to go against their “sincerely held beliefs”, they were being a$$holes.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:09

                      Another PERFECT example. And the Department of Justice went after them. The NATIONAL GOVERNMENT tried to force them to capitulate to the demands of the CENTRAL AUTHORITY.

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:19

                      Hardly, the gist is the Sisters refused to sign a standard form that they were opting out of providing birth control for the women that worked for them, nothing more. Somehow stating they don’t want to provide birth control is an attack on their faux religious freedom. What it was, was stupid. Refusing to allow their employees to get free birth control paid for by their insurance is detestable nonsense and foolish preening. They are the ones imposing their religious beliefs on others, hypocrites.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:23

                      Yes. They did not want to condone sin. Pretty basic, simple stuff.

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:25

                      Bullsh!t, they wanted to be grandstanding hypocrites. How can saying you don’t want to have your employees get birth control under their insurance be condoning sin? Sin has no legal standing, it’s just a construct religion made up to control the flock.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:32

                      No, they did not want to condone sin. They are not trying to control. They do not want to condone sin. If employees went out and got birth control, it would be no problem. But it would be a sin to provide it.

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:58

                      Of course they are controlling the health of their employees, pregnancies can be dangerous to women’s health and financial well being. The Catholics, and now the Protestants, prattle on about the “evils” of abortion, but block a means of avoiding having an abortion, that’s basically insane. Of course you know the real reason the Catholic Church has always been against birth control and abortion, don’t you? It was so they could have lots and lots of little Catholic babies to grow their church, sin had nothing to do with it, that was added as justification.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:20

                      Not logical. They are not “controlling” anything. Again: Apply your “logic” and “reasoning”: It would mean that NOT providing is “taking away” and violating rights.

                      Illogical.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:52

                      Your babbling again.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:37

                      It is obvious that they are not controlling anyone, of course.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:52

                      Yes they are, they are controlling the health and access to birth control of their employees based on some stupid notion of “sin”. They, like you, are ridiculous.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:16

                      Illogical. And I clearly and cogently articulated how it is illogical.

                  • Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:12

                    They want them to provide birth control to their employees through their health insurance, the same as every other employer does.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:57

                      The sisters did not want to condone, or indirectly participate in, sin.

      • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 20:42

        Oh, you mean the horrible assaults that support equality for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation or support a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, those policies? Or dear what an awful thing to keep extreme religious people from manipulating the government to support their narrow view of morality, based solely on their religion. Suggest you reread the 1st Amendment.

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:47

          To what “equality” are you referring?

          • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 22:31

            The freedom to marry whomever they love, choosing whether or not they should have the baby they are carrying. You religious freaks have been attacking the LGBT community with egregious lies and hateful vitriol for years, attempting to get the law to enforce your hateful beliefs. The extremist religious keep trying to force women to carry to term regardless of the woman’s circumstances, health or emotional needs. Protestants were drawn into the anti-abortion camp by crass, right wing, politicians to get more votes for Republicans. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the anti-abortion crowd is also anti sex education and anti birth control, they also drop the fetus like a hot potato once it is born – “no welfare for you and your brat, slvt”.
            This is simply a reflection of the patriarchal nature of religion, women must be controlled.

            • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:57

              Is this a repeat post, Red?

              • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:03

                The original shows waiting moderation because I used the word “s l u t” in it. I haven’t refreshed so I thought that it was still hung up.

                • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 23:19

                  I’ll delete it or you can…alan pays by the web inch, you know…:P

                  • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:23

                    I can’t delete it because I still see it in moderation. I don’t refresh because it screws up the new comment function.

            • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:17

              I will apply your logic to a real scenario. My brother and I mused that if our wives ever die and we are alone, we should live together. (No, nobody’s spouse is sick. It was just a casual conversation.)

              I love my brother. Therefore, applying YOUR “logic,” we should be able to get married.

              Or take it another step: Perhaps even now, even though our wives are both alive and well, we can get married.

              Radical “rationale” applied.

              • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:22

                You wouldn’t understand logic if it walked into the room and kicked you in the a$$. As it stands, incest is illegal in many places and marrying someone else while you are still married is still not legal. Your “scenario” is ridiculous and wholly detached from reality.

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:47

          A right to “choose” what, exactly?

      • Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 22:33

        Which policies? Please be specific.

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:17

          Look up “Little Sisters of the Poor,” for example.

          • Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 23:25

            No, you tell me. I’m not going to chase your delusions.

            • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:29

              Not a delusion. Real situation. Department of Justice involved. Learn.

              • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:59

                You need to learn.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:21

                  Dept of Justice was involved. Truth. Fact.

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:51

                    You understanding of the actual issue is not based on facts.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:36

                      It is. Look it up. Those sisters administer to the dying who are impoverished and without anyone to help them.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:50

                      So what, that has nothing to do with their pigheadedness in refusing to fill out a damn form that says they don’t want their employees to get birth control from their insurance. Stupid religious privilege in action.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:15

                      I see. Those sisters, who do the work that others won’t do, are “pigheaded.”

              • Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 23:59

                Just a delusion. If any branch of government proposed criminalizing religion this atheist would take to the streets in support of the religious. No branch of government has done so.

                • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:30

                  But the upcoming one could well try to attack the rights of many.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:21

                  No. Look it up.

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:50

                    You look it up. Obviously you get all your “news” from the RightWingNoiseAndLyingMachine.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:36

                      I strongly suggest you look it up. It is easy to check.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:38

                      I have looked it, but on reliable sources, not the RWNALM.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:10

                      It is easy to check.

          • bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 16:03

            If you can’t provide a link, then we can just discount your claim.

            It’s not up to the reader to prove YOUR claims.

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:05

              Google is a great tool. Put in the “Little Sisters of the Poor” and add “contraception” or some variation of that.

              Let me know what you discover!

              • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:49

                No. If you cannot provide a link, or elucidate, you point is simply not valid.

                What I KNOW about it is that the Little Sisters thought that the simple requirement of signing a paper STATING their position about birth control was an attack on their religion. Yeah, paperwork is JUST like the Spanish Inquisition!

                If you can’t provide a source that categorically disproves that synopsis, then your point is moot.

                • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:35

                  Google:

                  • bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:12

                    No link, so you point is invalid.

  7. whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 18:30

    https://twitter.com/splcenter/status/803615494267760641
    i guess he would say they are just good “christians.”

  8. Carla Akins November 29th, 2016 at 19:03

    What fucking attacks????

    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:25

      Christmas, for one.

      • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:28

        Psycho Talk…

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:31

          No. The House of Representatives actually put forth a resolution concerning this.

          • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:38

            Ha Ha Ha Ha….
            And where did it go?

            • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:43

              It was voted on and approved. Only a couple, out of HUNDREDS, either voted against it or abstained! It was, in essence, unanimous. I suppose the few that did not agree were radial haters of religion, or maybe they feared their constituency.

              • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:49

                Please name the resolution they passed, and a resolution does not make a law…

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:21

                  Sure. I “did my homework!”

                  “The House of Representatives (1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas; (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.”
                  -House Resolution 579

                  • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:44

                    Who wants ban references to Christmas? Just because retailers want to be inclusive and use “Seasons Greeting” and “Happy Holidays” because, hot flash, there are more than fundigelicals shopping for Christmas. There are moderate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, “Nones”, agnostics and, yes, even atheists. Those two phrases have been associated with Christmas for generations but, all of a sudden, they’re practically Pagan. More childish nonsense from extremist Christians.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:06

                      “Inclusive” (along with “diversity”) means attacking Western civilization and Christianity. It is an excuse, a pretense, for an obvious agenda, of course.

                    • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:10

                      What in hell are you babbling about? If your idea of Western civilization is that distorted, it’s little wonder you spout so much nonsense. As to Christianity, who cares, it’s just one false belief out of thousands of false beliefs. Your Christianity is nothing special.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:21

                      It is true: How about “tolerance” and “diversity” for you radicals to accept that some people believe in Jesus? That some people know that real marriage is between male and female? Heck, you cannot even DISCUSS it rationally! When the Left uses those terms, it invariably means to “tolerate” what the Left-wingers think should be tolerated.

                      Our very culture and values are inextricable from Christianity. It was part of the foundation of the greatest nation and culture in the world. We have inherited it. It is part of you and me, even if you try to reject it.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:09

                      So much wrong in such a small space.

                      How about “tolerance” and “diversity” for you radicals to accept that some people believe in Jesus?

                      This makes no sense, we accept you have the right to believe in Jesus, but we also have the right to ridicule your belief.

                      That some people know that real marriage is between male and female?

                      Some people claim that marriage is between a man and a women, but that is simply what they believe, without any foundation. No one is going to force them to engage in SSM. It is you and your ilk that want to deny the right for certain people to marry because of your unfounded beliefs. This is intolerance. Criticizing your attempts to force your beliefs on others is NOT intolerance.

                      Our very culture and values are inextricable from Christianity. It was part of the foundation of the greatest nation and culture in the world.

                      Totally false. The foundation of our nation, as expressed by the Constitution, was derived from Enlightenment philosophers, not the Bible. The framers fought of the religious extremists of the day who wanted to insert their Christian god into it. You have been listening to serial liar, David Barton. You know nothing of real history.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:23

                      There you go again, incorrectly transmogrifying a statement to “rights.” Not related to “rights,” of course. Maybe you are just in the Leftist habit of putting desires and personal wants in terms of “rights.”

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:49

                      More gibberish.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:35

                      No. It is a typical tactic: Claim something is a right when, in fact, it is merely a preference or a desire.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:48

                      Still gibberish.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:15

                      No, that is the tactic. “Right to a decent standard of living.” “Right to health care.”

                      Sound familiar? Do you DENY that those “rights” are bandied about? Do you?

                    • Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:15

                      Still, even a bible thumper knows, or should know, that aside from the nativity myth, all the rituals, traditions and symbols of the so called ‘christmas’ season are of Pagan origin. The bible even forbids the ‘christmas tree’.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:07

                      I know that atheist haters like to try to malign Christianity by saying its “origins/symbols/celebrations are pagan.”

                      But that is not the point, of course. Christmas is OBVIOUSLY the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, even if there are some “pagan” symbols, and Christ was not born in December.

                      The point, again: It is a CHRISTIAN holiday!

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:22

                  I know it is not a law. That is why I wrote: r..e..s..o..l..u..t..i..o..n

      • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:39

        Specify these “attacks” on Christmas, give details and explain how they are attacks.

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:05

          In December 2005, House Resolution 579 was created in response to the attacks of hateful atheists on one of America’s most celebrated traditions: Christmas. This resolution was set up to protect the symbols, traditions, and the national holiday of Christmas and to denounce attempts by these haters to ban references to it. This resolution was entitled: “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected.” 401 were in favor, and only 22 opposed it. Specifically:

          The House of Representatives (1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas; (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas

          • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:24

            There has never been any such “attack” by atheists, who are not hateful, just rational.
            This “attack” is a myth made up by lying RW freaks.
            It is not an attack on Christmas to keep the government from favoring one religion over others by placing Christian symbols, such as a nativity scene, on publicly owned property. This is a basic concept expressed in the 1st Amendment that you fools cannot grasp.
            Hell, I’m an atheist and I put up all kinds of Christmas decorations, including a nativity, but it is on my, private, property. Churches, private organizations and private citizens are completely free to display whatever the want, but no, you want the government to endorse your religion as well and you think this meets (3) above.

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:25

              There is. It is consistent. Why would the House spend time to create such a resolution? It absolutely CANNOT be denied that it was in response to what was going on. A rational adult cannot deny that.

              • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:47

                Because the House is full of Republican idiots that think wasting time on this nonsense if a good idea, like voting to repeal ACA over 50 times. The GOP has become God’s Own Party, flooded with religious extremists.

                • Budda November 30th, 2016 at 06:30

                  Exactly!

                • Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:15

                  Because they watch Fox news, and believe in the annual “War on Christmas,” which should be in full swing by now.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:34

                  Not logical: Didn’t you see the numbers who agreed? Do you REALLY think that there were only 22 Democrats in the entire House?

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:41

                    So what, it was a stupid, meaningless bit of posturing. There is NO attack on Christmas, just on foolish Christians who believe they are privileged and everyone MUST agree with them. It has been explained to you over and over but you are to dense to get it. I’m not going to waste my time trying to teach a willfully ignorant fool.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:11

                      No, it brings out an obvious point that I will repeat for a THIRD (and last) time: It was almost unanimous!

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:14

                      Who cares, it was absolute, grandstanding bullsh!t, totally meaningless and a waste of taxpayers money.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:21

                      That is what you WANT to believe because it contradicts your set ideas. The FACT is that they did that, and for OBVIOUS reasons, of course.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:25

                      They did what, pass a stupid feel good meaningless resolution about a problem that doesn’t even exist.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:52

                      Not valid. They made the effort for a reason. It was not out of the blue. That is not logical or even a reasonable assumption. But I know why you declared something as definitive that you cannot know.

                      It is a consistent pattern.

                      I am still waiting for a response to the other.

      • Carla Akins November 30th, 2016 at 06:46

        Citation, please. Name one actual instance of someone not being able to celebrate xmas.

        • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:55

          Look up the Pawtucket, RI case in which atheist haters tried to have a Christmas display made illegal!

          • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:07

            RightThinkingOne: Which specific case? If the display was on public property, I think I know why it was disputed.

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:14

              Look it up.

              • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:24

                You’re talking about Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) where the court decided (5 – 4) that the display didn’t violate the Lemon Test.
                Four years later in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) the court split over the display of the creche in a courthouse and the display of a Menorah along with a Christmas tree on the grounds. The court decide 5 -4 that the creche violation the establishment clause and 6 – 3 that the Menorah and tree didn’t.
                You seem to equate suing with destroying or some such nonsense.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:51

                  I know the cases. I know you looked them up. Now I know that you can do Google searches and have no excuse not to do so.

                  • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:06

                    RTO: If you make a claim, it’s your responsibility to cite material for others. If you want to validate your case, then muscle up and do your own homework.

              • George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:08

                RightThinkingOne: Accurately referenced the issue you’re trying to address. There are many court cases in every state across the nation.

                • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:11

                  I found and posted the citation about an hour ago.

          • Carla Akins December 1st, 2016 at 04:05

            It wasn’t made illegal, nor was the attempt made. The first amendment is pretty clear – govt doesn’t show a religious prefences on govt property with tax dollars. This is not attack on Christianity, it a pr-Constitution case. If govt office placed only Islamic displays in govt office and public schools, your head would explode, and rightly so. Keep your religion out of my government. Period.

            • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:39

              The point is that the atheist haters WANT to rid the public of the joys of Christmas, of traditions and what almost everyone in our nation celebrates and in which they find some peace and inspiration.

              It is hard to understand how hateful they must be to want to take it away, destroy that image by its removal, knowing that so many people find joy in it, see it as beautiful.

              • Carla Akins December 2nd, 2016 at 03:50

                No, no they don’t. No, I don ‘t. I don’t want to be forced to participate in someone else’s religion, period. It doesn’t belong in schools and government. You are free to ccelebrate and whorsip the religion of your choice in your home, church and yes – in public but you have no right to expect me to participate and then penalize me if or when I don’t.

        • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:55

          Refer to County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union

          • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:07

            RightThinkingOne: That’s a religious display on public property. If it was sold or moved to private property there wouldn’t be an issue.

    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:25

      Bakers, photographers, wedding planners, T-shirt designers… for others…

      • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:27

        Liar…

        • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:30

          Are you denying those cases? Really?

          • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:33

            No ones “religion is under attack”…(unless you happen to be Muslim in the US after trumpf takes office)
            Now in your mind and the mind of other fools, you may actually believe such nonsense…

            • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:41

              It is. Look at what the House did. Prayers out of schools. Haters want to have church property taxed. Radical atheists want to have “in God We Trust” removed from coinage, and “under God” from the Pledge. And on and on.

              • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:48

                All of those sound like fantastic ideas….
                Anyone can “pray” anywhere they wish, all they have to do is “pray” all long as it isn’t organized or disruptive…
                School is for learning, Church is praying..
                Radical Christian fear mongers had “IN God We Trust” added to our money just over 50 years ago…(1956)
                And “Under God” was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, it was added in 1954..
                Do your homework.

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:14

                  McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948:
                  Religious education provided by churches on public school grounds during the school day is declared unconstitutional, even though the State circuit court ruled in favor of the school district. McCollum, an atheist, said that his son felt ostracized. It affected 1,500,000 students nation-wide. It was voluntary education in the schools, but the radical hate-mongering malcontent atheist, McCollum, fought against schools’ having it.

                  • whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 00:06

                    https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/803313898443116548

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:22

                      Same thing from you.

                      But I will give you this: You seem adept at Googlie Searchies.

                    • whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 03:13

                      that wasn’t a google search:

                    • Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:08

                      And yet this is a secular country under a secular Constitution, and the law of the land explicitly says that ‘this country is NOT based on the christian religion’.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:05

                      Please show me where you got that quote. It ain’t in the Constitution, and it ain’t from the Constitutional Convention.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:09

                      RightThinkingOne: You know what else isn’t mentioned in The Constitution? Any proper name of any religion or deity. The only mention of religion would be prohibitions placed upon our government to guarantee citizen religious rights.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:26

                      Atheist haters say the Constitution says nothing about God or religion. But there are hints at it. In timelines, “Sundays excepted,” “in the Year of our Lord,” and so on.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:35

                      OMFSM! “The Year of Our Lord” was simply the standard way of expressing dates and doesn’t mean any support of religion. Sundays then, as now, were generally days off and most people went to some sort of church, so that doesn’t have any direct religious meaning.
                      Stop reading David Barton, he is a liar. Virtually all historians, including evangelical historians, like John Fea, have called his work nonsense.
                      The Constitution IS “godless”, that is a simple fact. No matter how you dance around and distort, it is a fact.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:56

                      Yes. the biblical tradition was part of it. Proves my point exactly!

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:14

                      No, it wasn’t, another Barton lie.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:19

                      Not true, of course. I present facts, historical events, concepts and data.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:26

                      Show me your source for this ridiculous claim.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:03

                      RightThinkingOne: That doesn’t invalidate the aim of the national founders of a secular structure.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:13

                      Again, I asked you for proof. You cannot provide anything.

                      But I did.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:19

                      RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. I did explain how a secular structure is woven into The US Constitution, and you have shown that you’re refusing to recognize that quality. Don’t make yourself a fool by actively being obtuse.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:25

                      Nope. You cannot demonstrate what I asked. You cannot. You are implying what is not there. It simply is not. And our Declaration is actually part of our Constitution, and I suggest you read that, too.

                      And answer the other questions. Two others. I have asked you many, many times, and asked others. Nobody can answer them because an answer would contradict this puerile and superficial meme about a “secular” government being created. If one looks at the actions of the founders, it becomes perfectly clear that is nonsense.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:29

                      Nope. The DOI has nothing to do with how the government was formed, besides Jefferson was referring to the Deist god which was quite popular at the time.
                      You are 100% wrong, the Constitution did, on purpose, against religious opposition, create a secular government.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:53

                      It is actually the beginning statement of principle.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:53

                      Almost all of the Founders were Christians, not Deists, of course.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:54

                      Stop reading David Barton.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:59

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Nope. You cannot demonstrate what I asked. You cannot. You are implying what is not there. It simply is not.

                      Would you happen to be autistic, or are you wrestling with cognitive dissonance which is causing you to repeat your baseless denials of facts that I’ve provided?

                      And our Declaration is actually part of our Constitution, and I suggest you read that, too.

                      Incorrect. The DoI is a founding document, but not part of The Constitution.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:23

                      “No religious test” The Constitution clearly implies this is not a Christian nation, but you guys like to get hung up because specific words, like “separation of church and state”, aren’t written there. Any intelligent, reasonable person would conclude that the USA is not a Christian Nation from the absolute lack of any religious language in the Constitution. If the Framers wanted a Christian Nation they would have put such language in the document.
                      Regardless of the lies you have read, and believe, the USA is NOT a Christian Nation, period.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:32

                      I never said we are a “Christian nation.” You have done it again: Distorted, deflected, and refused to answer several clear and pointed questions.

                      It is a consistent pattern with you.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:37

                      Bull, you have consistently claimed America is a Christian Nation.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:57

                      Nope. Never wrote that. But prove me wrong: Prove a quote of that from me. Go ahead and prove it. Just like the rest: You make assertions but cannot prove it.

                      I won’t forget and remind you of this.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:13

                      I am not wading through your hundreds of comments, besides I already answered this.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:19

                      You cannot because I never said that. Never.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:03

                      RTO: It’s from The Treaty of Tripoli. It’s the words of a founder. An a pivotal attendee of The Constitutional Convention.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:50

                      You did not read. You didn’t understand. You are completely wrong.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:54

                      RTO: I did read. I did understand. My disagreeing with your opinion, and narrowing of scope to only The Constitution, doesn’t mean that I’m wrong.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:00

                      But you are.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:08

                      RTO: Validate your assertion. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

                  • whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 00:09

                    yep. this is your party. if it’s good for Americans, then they are against it. so, tell me again, where in the hell does your party get the audacity to say out loud they are “christians?” they are anti-healthcare to the bone. they are the party of i’ve got my so fk you.

                  • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:01

                    RTO: I applaud McCollum! How dare the state impose on the religious rights of these young citizens.

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:15

                  Engel v. Vitale, 1962 PRAYER:
                  This built on the Everson case and held that public school teachers could not open class with a prayer, even if nonsectarian, and even if a school did not compel a student to join in.

                  • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:00

                    RTO: Correct. The state was imposing a religious practice. That maligns the ability of citizens to freely choose and practice a faith.

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:16

                  In Engel, the Court did not cite a SINGLE precedent to justify its prohibition of the VOLUNTARY prayers because there were none in the preceding 170 years! The Court had never struck down any prayer, in any form, in any location!

                  • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:59

                    RTO: Yes. This case sets a precedent. It recognizes that the rights of citizens to freely practice, or freely avoid the practice of, a religion was being imposed upon by an agent of the state (a teacher or other school employee).

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:49

                      Yes. People should not be forced to participate in a religious ceremony. But only haters and egotists would demand that because they do not want to hear or see any such ceremony, NOBODY can participate. That is extremism with selfishness and hate.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:59

                      RTO: They didn’t need to participate in the ceremony. Just sell them the cake.

                      If they didn’t want to see the ceremony, they could hire temporary staff to deliver the cake.

                      Again, it’s the bakers self-imposed religiously motivated issue that is causing the conflict. It’s up to them to find a workaround.

                    • whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 20:23

                      no one is forcing them to attend the wedding. we live by the law of the land not by your bible. it’s called discrimination and it will not be tolerated. you, your hate, your phony religion, your hateful party are exactly like those who use Islam in an extreme manner. you “christians” are no different than them. you too are extreme. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87532efb1e8906feb61d1c6a3b2eb79d9f3b1393cade0f181fae1cd3c4e0562e.jpg

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:16

                  Why do you tell us here what we already know about “under God” in the Pledge?

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:17

                  Most atheist haters think that the phrase, “under God” in the Pledge was arbitrarily added or taken from some religious proponent, etc. It was taken from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address!
                  “…resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom…”

                  • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:57

                    RightThinkingOne: It was added with a religious intent and mindset. It is a religious imposition by our government.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:07

                      Yes, it was. There was atheistic Communism.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:27

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Yes, it was.

                      Correct! Thank you for admitting that “under god” and “IN GOD WE TRUST” are violations of The Establishment Clause and should be removed to avoid government endorsement of a religion.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:29

                      Not violations at all. Thankfully, children across the nation say “under God” when reciting the Pledge.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:31

                      RightThinkingOne: Thankfully another religious denomination fought for the right to not participate in our national indoctrination pledge. So children across the nation have the right to not recite this religiously biased pledge that originally didn’t contain an reference to a god.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:07

                      If a person does not want to use the words “under God,” that actually is his right under the First Amendment.

                      It absolutely is NOT his right to demand that the schools and other institutions stop using it because his widdle fweelings might get hurted.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:29

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      If a person does not want to use the words “under God,” that actually is his right under the First Amendment.

                      Correct

                      It absolutely is NOT his right to demand that the schools and other
                      institutions stop using it because his widdle fweelings might get
                      hurted.

                      Nobody has made such a demand. Where are you seeing this? Did you just make an assumption or inference?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:17

                      Yes, they have made that demand – and many more. That is the reason that 10 Commandments plaques, 10 Commandment monuments, creches, and such were either taken down by court order, or the atheist haters tried to have them removed.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:14

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Yes, they have made that demand – and many more.

                      Validate your claim. Reference an article or other source of information.

                      That is the reason that 10 Commandments plaques, 10 Commandment
                      monuments, creches, and such were either taken down by court order, or
                      the atheist haters tried to have them removed.

                      You’re mixing up two different scenarios. The monuments and other religious displays were located on government property and equal treatment wasn’t being given or granted to other religions. Because it was exclusionary representation each of these was recognized by the courts as failing The Lemon Test, thus violating The Establishment Clause.

                      I’m honestly trying to explain the facts to you. You seem to want a special privilege for this religion. You’re like a kid trying to argue for getting candy, but not giving any to your brother or sister. It’s odd that you don’t realize, or are refusing to recognize, the bias and prejudice you’re displaying on this forum.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:35

                      Example: Stone v. Graham, 1980

                      It’s unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments on the walls of a public school (Kentucky). The Court held this, despite the fact that no student was required to read them! Students looked at them if they WANTED to. Why didn’t the Court refer to what James Madison had said: “We have staked the future….upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:18

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      The Court held this, despite the fact that no student was required to read them!

                      Would you feel this was okay if Satanic Bible quotes were printed on school walls? What if they were quotes from The Koran? The students wouldn’t have to read them, but the school endorsing one of these religions.

                      Please, be honest.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:22

                      A “question-as-answer” non-answer. Quite immature, too.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:43

                      RightThinkingOne: I answered with a question to better understand your views and opinions. Should I assume from your reply that you’re incapable of expressing these thoughts as well?

                      This exclusive treatment being granted to Christianity in a government building (a public school is a government building) violates The Establishment Clause.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:36

                      Another: Harvey v. Cobb County, 1993
                      Removal of 10 Commandments monument from Georgia courthouse must be removed unless there is an “educational display” of other items with it.
                      http://leagle.com/decision/19931480811FSupp669_11368.xml/HARVEY%20v.%20COBB%20COUNTY,%20GA.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:20

                      RightThinkingOne: Yes. Without equal treatment being given to other religions it is technically an endorsement of that religion. It fails The Lemon Test. It is a violation of The Establishment Clause.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:23

                      Unreasonable. There are over 2,000 world religions. And our culture and heritage are Judeo-Christian. It cannot be denied. You cannot wipe it away because it is here, with us, part of what we inherited.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:40

                      RightThinkingOne: So deny access equally to all world religions. That’s perfectly reasonable and equitable.

                      Nothing is stopping you and others from respecting the Judeo-Christian heritage of many, but not all, US citizens using your own resources.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:36

                      Another: The execrable, vile, repugnant ACLU v. Mercer County, KY, 2001
                      US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
                      A resident put up a display of the “Foundations of American Law and Government” in the courthouse. An ACLU member in the community sued because it contained the 10 Commandments.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:27

                      RightThinkingOne: US law isn’t founded on biblical commandments. So what are you confused about here?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:30

                      Off point. Off the target. You are doing it again: Declaiming that I am asserting something I never did. That stems either from 1) not reading what I posted, 2) impulsivity and emotionality, and/or 3) dishonesty.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:37

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Declaiming that I am asserting something I never did.

                      Incorrect. I addressed the focus of this court case. If that’s not what you wanted to discuss, then use your words. Say what you’re thinking.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:43

                      You are doing it again. You are wrong. Read or I will not respond. I do not want to repeat and repeat and break down and simplify, over and over.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:08

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Read or I will not respond.

                      Whatever (^_^) Go ahead and sulk. Get back to me when you learn how to better express your thoughts. …or when you address your cognitive dissonance.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:37

                      Yet more: McCreary County v. the base, evil, anti-American ACLU, 2005

                      ACLU sued two Kentucky counties for displaying the 10 Commandments within larger displays of historical documents in courthouses and public schools.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:35

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      the base, evil, anti-American

                      Your bias is showing.

                      The history of laws regarding murder pre-date Christianity. Drawing a conclusion that US law is based on these commandments is fallacious, and it seems they were right to address this effort to insert a religious artifact into a secular display.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:40

                      Not “bias.” The ACLU actually started with a Communist policy. Read what Baldwin said, specifically. Communism.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:07

                      RightThinkingOne: An opinion of communism being a viable structure isn’t inherently anti-American. It’s a flawed governmental structure, but it’s not anti-American.

                      So you’re going to ignore the other part of my earlier comment?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:15

                      Its purpose is not anti-American. But it is against our Founding principles and federalism. Therefore, when a Leftist supports or excuses it, he is supporting or excusing what goes directly against our form of government. He is supporting the overthrow of our government. He is therefore a traitor.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:43

                      RightThinkingOne: False dichotomy

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:58

                      No, it is accurate. One cannot – it is logically impossible – to want Communism and to want to preserve our republican form of government. They contradict each other.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:03

                      RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. This is a democratic republic. A mixture of democracy and representative structures. One can operate within this nation and government and still think that communism is a better option.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:06

                      Apparently you have no idea of what Communism is. I know that one can “legally” belong to the Communist Party, but that is not the issue. Read what I wrote. You fail to understand what it would mean for the Communist Party to fulfill its platforms. Heck, this can be applied to the Nazi Party also, and it is legal to be a member of that, too.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:11

                      RightThinkingOne: Did you know that the communist party was elected to power in the Nepal republic government?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:13

                      Unrelated. Not even in the ball park. Not even indirectly related.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:29

                      RightThinkingOne: No, it’s the same ball park. Are you trying to play a different game or change the rules?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:56

                      Nope. Completely different. Not even close.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02

                      RightThinkingOne: Baseless and infantile denial.

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:09

                    It was added to the Pledge, which is mildly fascist, on June 14, 1954. The bill was signed by Dwight Eisenhower who allowed his religious beliefs to override his Constitutional duties. It was coerced by religious and patriotic extremists notably George MacPherson Docherty. By the way, Lincoln’s quote is not certain.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:11

                      Variations of “in God we trust” actually was temporarily on coinage over a century and a half ago!

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:19

                  I did my homework:
                  “Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land…
                  And this be our motto ‘In God is our Trust.’”
                  Part of a stanza from the Star-Spangled Banner, made our National Anthem by an ACT OF CONGRESS, 1931

                  • StoneyCurtisll November 30th, 2016 at 19:18

                    Wow, 1931..
                    Women were granted the right to vote only 10 years earlier, Negros were still segregated in the Military civilian life, and Jim Crow laws were in fill effect..
                    still no “god on money” and Still no “god in the pledge of allegiance”‘..
                    The Volstead Act was still in full effect, (creating organized crime in America)

                    Is this the America you and Trump supporters is what is “going to make America great Again”?

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:08

                      Historical presentism. Please look it up.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:18

                      I did. It does not mean what you think it means.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:31

                      Look it up, please.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:40

                      In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.

                      You:

                      Part of a stanza from the Star-Spangled Banner, made our National Anthem by an ACT OF CONGRESS, 1931

                      Stoney:

                      Wow, 1931..
                      Women were granted the right to vote only 10 years earlier, Negros were still segregated in the Military civilian life, and Jim Crow laws were in fill effect..
                      still no “god on money” and Still no “god in the pledge of allegiance”‘..
                      The Volstead Act was still in full effect, (creating organized crime in America)

                      Please show how this discussion of historical facts fits Historical presentism. You have no idea what you are talking about.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:57

                      Historical presentism.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:12

                      Nope.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:19

                      It is, and it prevents your understanding the past. Look it up.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:30

                      It is you that has a fantasy view of the past. You keep spouting obvious historical misinformation. I have seen all this crap before and most of it comes from the liar for Jesus, David Barton.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:56

                      Red Mann: When do you think he’ll bring up *The Congressional Bibles* that David Barton loves to spread falsehoods and misinformation about?

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:03

                      I think that’s where he gets most of his ideas about the Constitution and the Christian culture/heritage BS.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:54

                      Who is David Barton? Please let me know more about this person and SPECIFICALLY how he supposedly “lied.”

                      I await your specific response to that, as well as to the other questions.

                    • Red Mann December 1st, 2016 at 00:00

                      WrongUnthinkingOne – I am tired of your idiotic bullsh!t and your refusal to understand the simplest things and now you are demanding answers to your nonsense. As we used to say in the Navy “F*ck of and die”. I am done with you, you are a pathetic waste of time.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:19

                      “Nonsense?” The founders writing state constitutions are “nonsense?”

                      HERE IS SOME PROOF!

                      Delaware, Article 22: Every person serving had to take this oath – “I, …., do profess faith in God the Father, and in JESUS CHRIST….” (emphasis added)
                      Richard Basset and George Read, signers of the Constitution, helped to draft this state constitution.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:19

                      Another!

                      Pennsylvania, “I do believe in one God, the Creator…I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:20

                      Another!

                      Massachusetts, Chapter VI, Article I: “I, …., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion….” In 1780, Massachusetts authorized a special levy to support “public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” New Hampshire adopted the same – verbatim.
                      Nathaniel Gorham, signer of the Constitution, helped to draft this state constitution.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:20

                      MORE!

                      North Carolina, Article XXXII, “No person, who shall deny the being of God….or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments,…shall be capable of holding any office.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:21

                      Here!

                      Maryland, 1776, Article XXXV: “No other test or qualification….than… a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” Maryland’s constitution also imposed a tax for supporting Christianity, decreeing “a general and equal tax for the support of the CHRISTIAN religion.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:21

                      Later Constitutions!!!

                      New Hampshire, 1784, Article I, Section VI: “And every denomination of CHRISTIANS… shall be equally under the protection of the laws.”

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:40

                      RightThinkingOne: The 14th Amendment invalidates that.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:30

                      Not the point at all. Not close. Not in the ball park by miles. Read the sequence.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 18:59

                      RightThinkingOne: The state level was permitted to favor a religion. That was a mistake that was corrected by The 14th Amendment. If you’re trying to address something else, you’re being too vague. Use your words.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:23

                      Off target again. I explained precisely how, and I am not about to summarize the series of exchanges yet again. Nope. You are off target.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:34

                      RightThinkingOne: You’ve asserted that states were granted rights to be partial or preferential towards denominations or religions. You’ve cited several state constitutions to validate your claim. I’ve said that is correct… until The 14th Amendment. That has applied all rights and prohibitions from The Bill of Rights to all parts of government, including state level.

                      There have been several court cases where biased individuals, like yourself, have tried to use these exclusionary qualities of state constitutions to justify refusing access or office to atheists and other maligned groups. The courts have correctly referenced The 14th Amendment invalidating these exclusionary qualities of state level constitutions.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:39

                      Wrong. Never said that states were “granted” those rights. Never. READ!

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:55

                      RightThinkingOne: Please do a better job of expressing your position. The fact that you keep having to tell other people to re-read your comments should point to the fact that you’re doing a bad job of expressing your thoughts.

                      You are the common denominator in these comment exchanges. Stop blaming others for your failure to communicate.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:22

                      And a bit later!!!

                      South Carolina, 1778, “The Christian religion shall be deemed… the established religion of the state,” and Article XXXVIII: “All denominations of Christian[s]…shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges,” and “no person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”

                    • Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 00:24

                      All of your examples are null and void since the SCOTUS decisions Red Mann linked to.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:25

                      I see. If it is the law, then it is right and moral. According to you, that is.

                    • Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 00:32

                      The law is neither “right” or “moral”; it is a code of conduct a society operates under. In our republic, it is possible to implement laws that go against the Constitution, but it is also possible to have the Supreme Court examine those laws for their constitutionality.
                      That’s why we’ve survived for 240 years; we self-regulate, and slap down stupidity.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:08

                      Wrong! Ultimately laws are based on morals. Think about it.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:38

                      RightThinkingOne: Modern laws are based on ethical considerations.

                    • Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 06:58

                      So, my having to drive on the right side of the road is a moral issue?
                      Who knew?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:40

                      Ultimately, it is. Please reflect on it.

                    • Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 20:23

                      I have; it isn’t morality, it’s conformity…aka “religion”.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:29

                      I know that in other nations, people drive on the left, etc.

                      Not the point. I will respond with a question: What are the underlying premises that drove our nation to agree to have such a law? It may seem quite simple and obvious, but that is an important point: There are things on which all of us – except extremists and crazies – will agree. And we do not even have to debate it. It would seem silly to propose that we drive on any side we want or to remove the requirement, wouldn’t it? In fact, one will not even see signs that say, “Drive on the Right.” (I did see them in Ireland, but only at the airport exits – for OBVIOUS reasons.)

                    • Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 20:36

                      You’re not just moving the goalposts, you’re replacing them with dancing ferrets!
                      Tell us what laws which restrict which side of the road one drives on have to do with morality, or else concede that laws do NOT equal morality.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:42

                      They do. The premise is the safety of others. That is a moral concept. And another – more of a value than morals – efficiency.

                      These seem commonsense, but that is the point.

                      We do not really base our decisions and laws on “reason” per se. We use reason to support values, beliefs, morals and principles. Ultimately, our choices and values are not rational.

                    • Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 21:40

                      Proof? Proof that the direction of a vehicle plays a part in the shaping of laws as pertains to morals? Or that it affects fatality rates?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:57

                      Yes. Now you are getting it.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:09

                      Yes, unconstitutional laws can be created, and examined by the Court and struck down as unconstitutional. Hopefully, that is common knowledge.

                      But just because the Court said it is unconstitutional, it does not mean the decision was correct.

                    • William December 1st, 2016 at 00:26

                      I believe you will find that a little impromptu meeting at a place called Appomattox settled the notion of states trying to usurp the Constitution. …but enjoy your own little fantasy world. It suits you.https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b55dda0845d302e3f512c1e8f6d656e2115185d80a2db071760ff6bb94fc83.jpg

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:27

                      Not a logical response. Read what was written. We are referring to the Founding. Stay on task.

                    • William December 1st, 2016 at 00:32

                      It is completely logical. Your two century old bullshit did not then nor does it now usurp the Constitution and separation of State and Religion. . I am also convinced you simply spew inane crap at a level equal to or possibly exceeding the senile ramblings of your avatar namesake. It must be terribly lonely to resort to spewing nonsense on a liberal website just to have some sort of human interaction and response.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:10

                      The discussion was about religion and our founding. Keep up.

                    • William December 1st, 2016 at 00:46

                      The founders also held slaves, didn’t permit women to vote, and Jefferson boffed his 14 year old servant. Welcome to the 21st century. Your argument is invalid. The founders and whatever they thought is irrelevant. The 1st amendment is very clear and it has been argued and adjudicated by the highest court in the land. Founders, Jefferson’s ink well, the price of rice in China, what some rube in S Carolina wrote…all completely irrelevant. You’ve failed at trolling and understanding the bill of rights. I have concluded you’re just some troll engaging in mental masturbation, unaffected by facts and logic.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:19

                      Unrelated to the topic, and an excuse to bash our origins.

                    • William December 1st, 2016 at 01:34

                      Idiots like you who claim some sort of divine inspiration by using that tired old Glenn Beck shtick of trying to win arguments by claiming to know what the so called founding fathers were thinking just makes me laugh. You have no idea what they were thinking or what motivated them. They were for the most part rich slave owners.
                      Here are some more facts or as you call them, “bashing”
                      The founders owned slaves. The founders made no provision for women to vote. Jefferson had sex with his 14 year old servant. Jackson had countless native Americans slaughtered. The USS Maine was not sabotaged, it blew up on it’s own, coal bunker gases, but we started a war over it anyway. We put Japanese Americans in interment camps. You clearly don’t know anything about American History. Claiming to know what motivated people who have been dead for two hundred years simply makes you appear ignorant. Supporting your argument with your fantasy simply reinforces that.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:18

                      Please provide the rational you used to declare that I adhere to “divine inspiration.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:19

                      Please describe your reasoning process to declaim that I follow the “old Glenn Beck shtick.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:20

                      One does not go by the “thinking” of the Founders, of course. I never said that. Please look up Original Understanding. It will demonstrate how one can draw obvious conclusions about the Founding era. Please get back after you have done that. Thank you.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:22

                      “Facts” are not chosen out of thin air, or randomly. One has a goal in mind, and picks “facts” to support that. You have a goal. Why not have the clarity of thought to articulate the goal, the reason that you select specific “facts” to support what you want to conclude or think about our Founders? Please do not give the excuse that you are interested in “truth.” You have something in mind.

                    • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 00:53

                      William told you!

                    • StoneyCurtisll November 30th, 2016 at 23:16

                      No thanks..
                      I have a job, home and family to think about..
                      Move along now….
                      and get off my lawn…

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:11

                      OK, just remember that I am correct.

                    • StoneyCurtisll December 1st, 2016 at 17:34

                      Wrong…

                • Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:05

                  In fact, that Pledge was written by a cleric.

              • Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 21:02

                And why shouldn’t churches be taxed? They bring in billions of dollars without providing much in return.

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:11

                  “All subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.”
                  -Supreme Court case of 1816, McCullough v. Maryland

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:11

                  The fact, in our First Amendment, that the government cannot make any law establishing religion OR prohibiting its free exercise is a perfectly clear statement that the power of government does not extend over the subject of religion. Therefore, religious institutions are exempt from taxation, not by some “tax codes,” but by self-evident, solid principles!

                  • Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:17

                    Taxing churches in no way prohibits its free exercise. Most churches provide no public good, they only serve their own members.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:57

                      It is not about “free exercise.” Please read what I wrote.

                      Thank you.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:59

                      Yes, it is about free exercise. Churches have no Constitutional right to tax exemptions, it is just another religious privilege.

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:12

                  Liberals say that tax exemptions actually get government involved with religion, typically arguing that it aids religion. These Leftist atheist haters will probably want to overturn another Supreme Court case that was more recent, Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York in 1970. Walz tried to use the “Free Exercise” clause but the Court used the Establishment Clause – whether a tax exemption is an “excessive entanglement” of government and religion. The Court rightly concluded that it was not.

              • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 21:52

                So, you would be okay with the Adhan during school hours?

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:10

                  It is up to the community and school board. If we actually were concerned with REAL rights, it would only stipulate that no student can be coerced into participating.

                  • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 23:18

                    And yet, there is peer pressure amongst juveniles. How many children would be taken to task for beating up that “Jewboy who killed Jesus”, if the principal were also of the same mind?
                    How many Jewish children would be punished for blackening the eye of that “Muslim kid who wants Israel destroyed”, especially if the principal were Jewish?
                    Best to separate churches and states.
                    Heretic.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:22

                      I see. Applying your “logic,” then schools should abstain from any policies or iterations or curriculum that could POSSIBLY result in some student, somewhere, being bullied.

                    • Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 23:24

                      Well,yes.

                  • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:54

                    RTO: Incorrect. The state not endorsing or advancing a religion removes manipulation and impositions on citizen rights to religious freedoms. Having a monument or display for only one religion is a form of coercion.

                    The most respectful tactic is to leave spiritual and religious matters to a child’s parents. Not allowing manipulate children while entrusted to the care of agents of the state.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:48

                      It most certainly is not a form of coercion. If you see a 10 Commandments monument, just walk by. Don’t ruin it for the rest of the community. That would be what a narcissist or extreme hater would do. Only think of the self.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:03

                      RTO: I didn’t say coercion. Further evidence that you’re inferring instead of actually reading my comments.

                      If you see a 10 Commandments monument, just walk by.

                      If it’s on private property, I will and have in the past. If it’s on government property and equal access isn’t given to other faiths, I’ll call out The Establishment Clause violation.

                      That would be what a narcissist or extreme hater would do. Only think of the self.

                      Interesting. I’m thinking of the whole community. You seem to only be thinking of Christians.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:09

                      If you see a 10 Commandments monument or a creche, don’t try to destroy traditions and the happiness and cohesion of your community. Be decent. Have respect. Don’t give in to selfishness and egoism.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:21

                      RTO: You’re inferring that selfishness and egoism are the motivation. AGAIN, it’s a 1st Amendment violation that is being corrected.

                      Nothing is stopping the community from setting up a monument or creche on private property. I’m sure that there’s a church somewhere nearby that could host such displays.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46

                      It is not a violation of the 1st amendment, of course. What do you know about this “separation” garbage, anyway?

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:12

                      RTO:

                      It is not a violation of the 1st amendment, of course.

                      Incorrect. If the government paid for the monument and rejected requests from other religions, then it’s an establishment of that religion by government. If it’s a privately funded monument and other privately funded monuments are rejected by government, then it’s an establishment of that religion by government. Either is a violation of The Establishment Clause of The 1st Amendment.

                      What do you know about this “separation” garbage, anyway?

                      I know what I’ve read from multiple SCOTUS decisions and 1st Amendment papers written by constitutional scholars explaining the issues involved for laymen.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:37

                      In all of the cases, there was not any rejection of other religions.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 23:57

                      RTO: Incorrect. Several requests were made in various cases to install a statue of Baphomet to represent The Church of Satan. In most cases the local government removed all religious monuments to avoid having to host such a statue. The primary case was in Oklahoma.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:23

                      The church of satan should not be displayed, except on the private property of haters and degenerates. Try common sense. Grow the f…. up.

                      You show no maturity. I won’t be responding to many – if any – of your childish posts from now on.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 01:29

                      RTO:

                      The church of satan should not be displayed, except on the private property of haters and degenerates.

                      Then Christianity gets equal treatment.

                      Grow the f…. up.

                      Have you considered taking your own advice?

                      I won’t be responding to many – if any – of your childish posts from now on.

                      Your choice. Fewer posts for me to correct.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:19

                      No, it is common sense. Note that after something as puerile and vapid as that, I response less to you.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 18:55

                      RTO: To which part of my comment are you responding with…

                      No, it is common sense.

                      Again, if you choose to not respond then it’s less work for me. If you continue to post, I’ll happily correct your errors between tasks at work. It’s a great way to kill time while earning a buck (^_^)

              • whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 21:54

                there are many differently religions, and you suggest they should pray to the “god” you believe in? and religion has no place in public schools. so answer me this, what in the hell happened when prayer left out of school. not a damn thing different than what was going on before.

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:12

                  Schools have gone downhill since the Left forced its agenda in schools. The ending of prayers was by the radicals, but the curriculum of the New Left did incredible damage.

                  • whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 23:38

                    i said, what changed?

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:17

                      Leftist curricula.

                    • whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 03:15

                      it’s people like you and your ill thinking and people like this woman that screws up our educational system:
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c17b92b304add2c8857e99d7d0953944a0a97b19b450bc615ec4133d5c86632.jpg
                      and it has nothing to do with prayer. just outright stupidity and ignorance.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:17

                      Lower achievement.
                      Violence in the schools.
                      Etc.

                    • whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 03:10

                      you do realize that priest rape little boys right? you do realize that those that scream the loudest about being religious or “christian” are sexual perverts, i.e. the digging duggard, or hasert who worked to impeach Clinton is now a convicted pedo. they all call themselves “christians.” where’s your proof that absence of prayer resulted in lower achievement or violence in schools? or your etc.

              • bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 02:49

                Freedom vs. privilege. You obviously don’t have the ability to differentiate between the two.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:45

                  Please read what I wrote. It is not “privilege.”

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:54

                    It is, you want your religion to have special treatment. Screw you and your religion if you insist that it be shoved down everyone’s throats.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:24

                      “My religion?” Please clearly articulate how you came to declare that. Provide a simple rationale.

                      Want me to apply what is obviously YOUR rationale?

                      I want to wait to see how you reasoned and came to that conclusion first.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:45

                      I reasonably assume that all your ranting about religion reflects your religion. You have done nothing but talk about “angry atheists”, “sin”, that the Constitution is not godless and how badly Christians are treated among many other arguments for religion. You have made hundreds of comments on these lines. It is crystal clear that you are extremely religious and that you want special privilege for your religion.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:59

                      OK, I will not apply your “reasoning” to same-sex marriage.

                      Your syllogism:
                      If a person adamantly supports X,
                      He must be one of group X.

                      THAT, SIR, IS WHAT YOU ARE ASSERTING. It is YOUR logic.

                      Apply that:
                      If a person adamantly supports homosexual marriage
                      He (or she) must be a homosexual.

                      YOUR reasoning – on display.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:11

                      No, that is not my reasoning, it’s your pathetic attempt at reasoning.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:18

                      I applied your reasoning. YOU declared I am a believer because I am supporting something. How could you possibly NOT understand this?

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:35

                      Someone who rants on and on about how following the law would make someone sin, that the Constitution is not secular, who falsely claims Christmas is under attack, the the government is attacking the Sisters of the Poor and dozens of other claims about religion would reasonably be considered religious and a believer. Your stupid argument to the contrary fails. If it walks like a duck and quacks like it duck, it is most likely a duck. You, like Peter, are denying your religion.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:56

                      I will apply your logic now:

                      Anyone who claims that the same sex can “marry,” and says those who want to preserve male-female marriage are bigots, denying rights, phobic, and hateful MUST – according to YOUR logic – be a homosexual.

                      Again: YOUR reasoning, not mine. I think otherwise, of course.

                  • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:15

                    RightThinkingOne: bpollen did read what you wrote. That’s why he’s letting you know that you’re mixing up the words or concepts.

                  • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:40

                    Please read what *I* wrote: You can’t differentiate between the two.

                    You seem to have a problem with the removal of the Xtian Gawd from schools. So you’re cool with an Imam coming in every day to say Salat al-zuhr, the Muslim midday prayer?

                    Think that creches should be on public property? You down with a nice statue of Baphomet at the entrance to your local city hall?

                    You think it’s an attack on Christianity to remove Gawd from the Pledge? “Under Gawd” is an ADDITION to the pledge passed as a knee-jerk response to Gawdless Commies. So from 1931 until 1954, we had NO problem with that phrase missing. Now suddenly it’s an attack on Christianity to find it inappropriate to only list ONE Gawd?

                    You are persecuted because people want to take Gawd off of money? (Your bible says money is the root of all evil. Seems kinda hypocritical to place Gawd’s name on the tool of Mammon.) Then you should be fine with having “in the Flying Spaghetti Monster we trust,” right?

                    If you didn’t answer that you would be fine with OTHER deities in those same places you are whining about, then you are sniveling about PRIVILEGE and not Freedom. All those other religions have JUST AS MUCH freedom as Christianity. If they can’t do the same thing, then THEIR freedom is denied.

                    Have a Shiva-Blessed day! Don’t be Thor! I’m having a Baal, Vishnu were here!

                    • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:48

                      bpollen, close your eyes and you will feel me giving you a hug! love ya!

                    • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 03:54

                      Aw, shucks. Thank ya kindly, ma’am!

                    • trees December 1st, 2016 at 03:00

                      Your bible says money is the root of all evil.

                      It says, “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”

                    • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 03:15

                      That’s ALL you got? Correcting an aside about Biblical hypocrisy?

                      Pfffft. Spitballs. How devastating. Bet it got your troll winkie to dance all over!

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:34

                      There was a school in Hawaii that celebrated Buddhist holidays.

                      There were schools in Brooklyn that had rabbis come in for graduation ceremonies.

                      Can’t you read? I said it was up to the community.

                    • bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:19

                      But is MY freedom and MY equality up for a vote? Some people with legitimate reason feel that secular functions of the government should be showing NO affiliation for any religion. Do you think minority faiths should NOT be represented just because MOST in the community are of a different faith? Is it limiting YOUR freedom to practice your faith without government involvement? Without preferences for specific belief systems and their particular bugaboos?

                      Freedom OF and FROM religion. Believe whatever fairy tale you want, but when you connect ANY religion to the exclusion of others with the government, you deny equal rights for those other faiths or lack thereof.

                      You claim you are about ALL faiths having the choice, as long as the MAJORITY think that it’s the RIGHT faith. The hypocrisy is deep.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:50

                      It is puerile and vapid to put this in terms of “rights.” Just an excuse for hate and repugnant behavior. It is the height of egoism and selfishness.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 18:54

                      See, BlightThinkingDumb, people who DON’T believe in your religious fantasies are possessors of every right you have. So yes, your “right to religious freedom” also involves the right of NON-BELIEVERS in your fairy tales.

                      Can’t rebut, so you just deride. Which is a tacit admission that you can’t refute my points.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:54

                      Yes, hateful atheist narcissists have the “right” to not participate. They do not have any “right” (except the made-up, pretend rights) to force others to stop their public displays of faith, of course.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:02

                      Can’t dispute, but you CAN attack the messenger.
                      Proof positive that you have no actual facts to dispute my point.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:07

                      Did you burn a flag? I am talking about the scum of the earth who would do such a vile, hateful, repulsive thing, even if it IS “legal” to do so. They are ungrateful reprobates. Beneath contempt. I sincerely hope you never did that.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:12

                      Can’t dispute, so you deride.

                      You don’t like THEIR speech, so they MUST be the scum of the earth by your lights.

                      Once again, ONLY your opinion. NOT truth, just your ass-inine opinion.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:20

                      No, it is only the scum of the earth that would do that. Not my opinion. It is a matter of respect, decency and manners.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:06

                      Prove it. You’ve expressed your opinion. If we are to consider it as something other than simply your opinion, you need to provide verifiable facts to support it. Saying “istooistooistooistoo” over and over again doesn’t make it true.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:43

                      How old are you? Using obscenities, for example, in front of, say, elderly ladies is uncouth, vulgar and unseemly. You are the kind of person who would demand that someone “prove it.”

                      LOL

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:45

                      Not pertinent to THIS discussion.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:54

                      Pertinent. The example is EXACTLY what you sound like. “Prove” what is patently obvious.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:55

                      Cursing in front of old ladies is JUST like burning a flag. More fact-free claims…. ARE you Kim Davis?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:21

                      Both are hideous, disrespectful, ugly, disgusting, and reprehensible.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:25

                      Which is, again, repeatedly, your O-PIN-ION!!!

                      Your statements invariably assume facts not in evidence. I think YOU are hideous, disrespectful, ugly, disgusting, reprehensible, and flatulent. It’s the truth. Use Google, look it up.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:27

                      No, it is not an opinion. To desecrate a flag is the depth of degeneracy, ingratitude, vile, ugly and despicable. “Legal,” of course.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:28

                      If it is NOT an opinion, you could back it up. You DON’T, you NEVER have with ANY of your specious claims.

                      Truth has data to support it. Any hypothesis without corroborative evidence is STILL a hypothesis.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:17

                      It is a repugnant act, carried out by vile, base, disrespectful, malevolent reprobates.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:23

                      To quote LightBlinkingOne, “It’th twue, it’th twue! Beweeve me!”
                      .
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f55cf91bd79506b9026768dc998c60c0acd4f5cac119297280aa0c055f66457.jpg

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:31

                      No, it is vile, disrespectful, hateful, ugly.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:34

                      Yup, that TWUE! Just like your last TRUTH BOMB!
                      .
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f4dfc7d21b20325188f4c15e74bb747706795c2926134cc845df042c3a3c04cd.jpg

                      The wonders of Ziploc!

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:30

                      OPINION. Facts have data to back them up. No facts, no truth.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:19

                      It is depraved to desecrate the flag. Unseemly.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:20

                      Here’s some of your earlier fact-free work:
                      .
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf0f6375ad9dd7dc69759c3e2befb436601f4ddad11807651f247a8249e536d6.png

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 00:13

                      Except for the fact that they are NOT analogous, they are almost identical – if you ignore reality. Hence, that’s what YOU think.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:24

                      It is EXACTLY what you sound like.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:25

                      Can’t refute, just attack the messenger. That is a tactic employed by those who have no facts to support them.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:27

                      It is exactly what you sound like. Ex-actly!

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:29

                      Just attack the messenger like all those who have nothing.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:35

                      Seen a fact anywhere? Unless or until provided, all of your claims are in the same realm as this, and at least they have a picture:
                      .
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e17047127ffa2ecb673a28f5dec829906e9baefa2af02fe84f6321729eb887d3.jpg

              • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:52

                The stupid lie, prayers were not taken out of schools, kids can pray any time they want as long as they don’t disrupt the classroom, teachers can say prayers as well. The decision simply stopped schools from dictating prayers and Bible readings. I know how ignorant you are, but the main force behind that decision was Christians and Jews who didn’t want their kids to listen to prayers they didn’t agree with.
                The churches should be taxed on all non-charitable related income. They’ve been getting, and abusing their tax breaks for no good reason. Once more religious privilege.
                Rational people want to get that crap off our money and out of the Pledge, it was put there by the actions of religious extremists who wanted to show the Godless Commies the “God” was on our side. Childish BS.

          • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:39

            • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:46

              OK. It is obvious that you are denying it. Heck, look at what the anti-Christian hate-media did to lie about and distort the Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis.

              • StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 21:02

                Actually it was Kim Davis’s people that distorted The meeting with the Pope and this crazy Davis woman..
                Now I think you are just here to have fun,…
                No one actually believes what you are pretending to believe…(but you are kind of funny)

                • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:13

                  No, the Pope met with her and spoke about the moral imperative to put one’s principles of faith before the STATE.

                  • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:46

                    The Pope was conned into meeting here and the guy who did was fired. It was a scam run of The Pontiff which blind sided him. Typical sleazy extremist Christian behavior.
                    BTW, the rule of law completely outweighs any religious “law”.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:07

                      No, the Pope met with the brave lady and encouraged her and others of faith.

                    • bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 02:48

                      And I quote:

                      The Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, was not intended as a show of support for her cause, the Vatican said Friday.

                      http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/

                      This leaves us with a quandary… do we believe the Vatican about what the Pope’s meeting is about, or the irrational claims of someone with a persecution complex. This is such a HARD choice!

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:25

                      The Vatican did not want to turn the Pope’s visit into that “issue.” The Liberal media would rant and go on and on about it, of course, obscuring his other reasons for coming to the United States of America.

                      But the Pope did support people of faith who made choices that aligned with their consciences. He was perfectly clear about that. The statement was unequivocal.

                      Kim Davis was a brave woman.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:46

                      Kim Davis is a disgusting religious bigot and she violated court orders. She is unfit to do her job because she allows her superstitions to prevent her from doing the job she was elected for. You are a fool to praise her.
                      http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/
                      http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/europe/pope-vigano-resign/
                      The Pope was set up by religious zealots and wasn’t too happy about it. Even if he did support her, that would just make him as wrong as she is.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:23

                      Kim Davis is a courageous woman. She is highly respected by two kinds of people:
                      1. People of faith.
                      2. People who love liberty

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:46

                      No, she is respected by the anti-LGBT haters that put their superstitious beliefs ahead of the law. People who really love liberty would never support her since she wants to diminish people’s rights.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:01

                      Kim Davis is a brave woman.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:10

                      No, she is a hypocrite.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:16

                      Courageous and to be respected.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:35

                      Stupid and to be despised.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:56

                      Kim Davis is highly respected by people of faith and by people who believe in liberty.

                    • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:24

                      Ahh… the Vatican is lying and only YOU are telling the truth.

                      What a load of BS.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:32

                      No, the words of the Pope were recorded. They were said to a reporter, not to Kim Davis. Please keep up.

                    • bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:24

                      Link or more bullshit. The Vatican made a statement that you claim is a lie, and outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. You’ve made the claim, do you have ANYTHING other than your fantasies to corroborate this ridiculous “the Vatican lied about the Pope” conspiracy theory?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:51

                      No, it was recorded by a reporter. The Pope did not say it directly to the courageous Kim Davis.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 18:55

                      So then you have NO way of showing that he was talking to HER!

                      Which is your entire point. Sorry…

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:55

                      He spoke with that courageous woman briefly, and in a group as she was passing back and forth. I referred to his clear statement (SIX TIMES!) that was DOCUMENTED WITH A REPORTER ON THE AIRPLANE. D..o..c..u..m..e..n..t..e..d!

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:01

                      You said he spoke to HER and other’s of faith. Then you say he DIDN’T speak with her. Well, you MUST be right when you take BOTH sides of the position.

                      Show that he spoke DIRECTLY to her, or your point is BS. Plus, you need to provide TEXT of his statement to verify that he didn’t call her “misguided” or “intolerant.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:06

                      Read what is written!!! He made a statement in an airplane TO A REPORTER about people of faith in government jobs adhering to their faith and suffering legal punishments. How they are courageous and how he prays for them! READ!!!!

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:09

                      “Read what is written!!!”

                      I did. First you said the Pope DID talk to Kim Davis. Then you said he DIDN’T speak to her, the Pope was speaking to everybody. Then, just a second ago, you said he made the statement on an airplane.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:14

                      Again, and the last time. The Pope met with her in a group, said something as she passed. The statement about support for THOSE in government service and their faith was said to a reporter.

                      IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO KIM AND PEOPLE LIKE HER! That cannot be denied by any mature, rational person. Are you going to claim that the Pope just made that statement from thin air? Are you really going to try to do that?

                      Un-freakin-believable!

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:31

                      He spoke to her, he didn’t speak to her, he spoke to the reporter on a friggin’ airplane.

                      When you get your story straight, feel free to submit your NEW REVISED version of your claim. Each position you have taken so far contradicts every OTHER position you’ve taken on the subject.

                      Was Kim Davis the reporter on the airplane?

                      No facts in evidence to support your point. Any hypothesis or statement of “fact” requires corroborating evidence to be considered “likely,” let alone correct. No evidence, not likely correct.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46

                      I was clear. Read.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:02

                      Yes, you were clearly presenting ever-changing versions of the story, and very clearly provided NO evidence.

                      Facts not in evidence are not considered facts.

                      I don’t care if you READ or not, just provide actual links or quoted cites that AREN’T somebody else’s opinion.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:41

                      Google. Look at the boob tube. Read newspapers.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:42

                      No link, no truth.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:43

                      Linky for you or not, it is the truth.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:45

                      What do you call outrageous claims with NO evidence? Either “Bullshit” or “Alex Jones’ business model.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:53

                      Not outrageous at all. In fact, it was the SECOND case with the same program!

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:58

                      Not a lick of evidence. If you can’t provide any sort of substantiation for ONE, you think people should just believe ANOTHER unsubstantiated claim?

                      If you can’t provide even a scintilla of evidence to support your OUTRAGEOUS and UNTRUE claims. then there IS no proof. You know OF google, maybe, I don’t know, USE IT?

                      You won’t provide evidence because you HAVE no evidence.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:24

                      It is true. It can easily be verified. I will not run errands for you. Your pouting does not change what happened, no matter how much you stamp your feet and caterwaul.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:26

                      Facts not in evidence are not considered valid.

                      If it is TRUE, you can prove it. Since you don’t…

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:27

                      It is true. Your whining and ululating does not change the truth.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:29

                      Who’s whining? I’m just asking for facts. You have none. Ergo, not true.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:18

                      Better to check it out than pout.

                    • bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:21

                      I like when you did this:
                      .
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/089f56fe95011a3a34ee64d76853e7a08358df5d98cd7976721504d13d549443.jpg

                      We need better security!

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:15

                      See? You ARE good at Goolgie Searchies!

                    • rubellapox2 November 30th, 2016 at 07:44

                      No he did not.. she was in a room with a whole bunch of other people lined up to shake his hand… she did not speak with him, he did not “encourage” her..and that according to the pope himself… I believe the pope…

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:58

                      Read the Pope’s statement. It was clear. He supported her and encouraged people of faith to stick to their faith.

                      Kim Davis is a courageous woman!

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:16

                      You are deluded. Kim Davis is a travesty along with all the religious freaks that support her. You superstition do not allow you ignore that law. Just because you stupidly believe homosexuality is a “sin” doesn’t make it so and you don’t get to decide who can marry whom. You religious freaks think that you own the concept of marriage, you don’t and if a man and a man or a women and a woman want to marry you have no business stopping them. You don’t have to “gay” marry, no preacher will ever be forced to marry any couple they don’t want to, people may criticize them and ridicule them for their primitive beliefs, but they won’t be forced to officiate. SSM has zero effect on anyone else’s marriage. All the lies about the LGBT community are hateful and hurtful, you are nasty people.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:29

                      The Pope said “conscientious objection is a human right. And if a person does not allow others to be conscientious objectors, then they deny them a right.”

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:50

                      So what. That doesn’t mean you get to impose your beliefs on others like Davis did. If she truly was a conscientious objector, she would have taken no action against those seeking a marriage license instead of refusing to issue them and ordering her subordinates to refuse as well, she would have simply expressed her objection. Instead she refused to do her job.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:01

                      I am waiting for your response to the questions asked. Reminder: The founders and state constitutions and established religions.

                      I will continue to remind you.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:02

                      I already answered this but I’ll do it again.
                      The 14th Amendment had the effect of applying the Constitution to all states, not just Congress. This rendered any religious test in any state constitution null and void. The Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 81 S. Ct. 1680 (1961) held that states could not have any religious tests in their constitutions, upholding the 14th Amendment.
                      In 1997, a South Carolina religious test for public office provision was struck down in Silverman v. Campbell, 486 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 1997). There are no establishments of any religion in any states even if they had existed after the Constitution was ratified.
                      This is another one of your specious arguments.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:08

                      Read my other post. It speaks to that specifically.

                    • rubellapox2 December 1st, 2016 at 05:43

                      Those were the words of the pope… he did not talk to her… you are bearing false witness..

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:39

                      Yes, the words of the pope and it is obvious he was referring to Kim Davis and other courageous people like her.

                    • rubellapox2 December 2nd, 2016 at 04:23

                      He did not have a sit down conversation with Kim Davis., nor did he say those things to her…. he walked down a line of people, shook hands that’s all.. why are you trying to make it into something else? Isn’t lying bad? Isn’t the admonishment against bearing false witness in the Ten Commandments? And no she was not being courageous… she was abusing her position to discriminate…she’s lucky she was elected into her position or she would have automatically lost her cushy job …

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:54

                      The Pope saw her in a small group. He made the statement of encouragement for public officials of faith to a reporters. It is a matter of record, not discussion.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:08

                      Your statement proves my point: {BTW, the rule of law completely outweighs any religious “law”.}

                      It proves that even today – to a lesser extent, of course – Christians are persecuted. You presented an excuse and nothing else.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:29

                      What Christians believe is not based on any actual reality, so how can “laws” with no actual basis outweigh laws made by real, actual humans. Once again you want to have religious privilege where your beliefs are more important than anything else.
                      There are tens of thousands of religions and religious sects, all claiming to have the one Real Truth and your religion has exactly the same evidence to support it all the rest, none.
                      Beliefs cannot be allowed to override reality, that is way we have a secular government. Christians in this country and most of Europe and some of Asia are not persecuted by any stretch of any imagination, it is in your fevered imagination.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:25

                      Religious freedom. You are obviously against it.

                    • whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 01:39

                      when it’s used to discriminate, yes. you’re free to chose whatever religion you want to put your faith into, but that doesn’t give you the right to discriminate against others because they have a different faith, or because you don’t agree with who they are. it’s just a term used to discriminate against others period. NOT a single one of them are Christian. just bigots, racist and ignorant asses.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 18:08

                      It is not “discrimination,” of course, and that is patently easy to demonstrate: They baked cakes and did photographs for homosexuals! It was ONLY the “marriage” issue. And the reason was perfectly clear: They did not want to participate in sin.

                      Again: It is a myth that they “discriminated” against homosexuals. If they did, they would NOT have baked cakes and done photographs in the past.

                      It is perfectly clear.

                    • whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 18:15

                      IT’S discrimination. if you don’t like gays getting married don’t marry someone gay. it is not for you to judge. they are human beings. you don’t get to decide if your personal beliefs trump (for lack of a better word) mine.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:49

                      No, I’m all for it, but I’m against religious privilege. You just don’t have any idea what religious freedom actually is.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:35

                      I know religious freedom does not mean freedom FROM seeing or hearing any religious displays or music. That is tyranny.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:47

                      You are so f*cking stupid, you have zero comprehension. It has nothing to do with seeing or hearing religious displays, for the last time, no agent of the government can show support of any particular religion or belief over another. Christian symbols on public property show such support. It is the basis of separation of church and state and this separation protects both the government AND the church.
                      Historically, the merging of church and state leads to tyranny and, often, bloodshed.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:14

                      It does. In fact, in one Supreme Court case in which a 10 Commandments monument was ordered torn down, the “rationale” was that someone who just happens to pass by might “feel” ostracized (I do not remember the exact word, but it was about someone who passes it and “fweels baddy” because he is a non-believer). And it happened in a school where the radical atheist haters took it to the Supreme Court: There was a 10 Commandments paper simply on the wall of the school, with no reference or requirement to teach it or refer to it, but the atheist haters managed to get it taken down.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:53

                      Bullsh!t you clown, you can’t understand the simplest concepts. It has nothing to do with hurt feeling, although by promoting a particular religion it does imply that those of other beliefs are inferior.
                      I’m going to yell at you now, so maybe you can understand.
                      THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE THE EXPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR RELIGION (actually 2 religions, Judaism and Christianity, but it is the Christians to make such a big deal over it.) THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT, BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROMOTE ANY ONE RELIGION OVER ANY OTHERS, THIS WOULD VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
                      It is about the law, the real law, not your fantasy law,

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:06

                      It actually DOES! That was the Court’s rationale! I will look up the specific quote, the rationale, of the Court later, it is in my extensive notes. It was considered “passive” because the people are not required to participate in anything, but “passively” FEEL subjected to being ostracized or marginalized. It is a fact. The Court used that as a rationale!

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:10

                      It still gives a government imprimatur to a particular religion, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. There is no other argument.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:16

                      That is fine if it does, of course. Our heritage is Christian. Our culture is Christian. (Judeo-Christian to be precise.)

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:37

                      Nope. Just because most people are Christians does not make the culture or the heritage Christian. Since our heritage has some pretty awful things in it like slavery, genocide, segregation etc, I don’t think claiming it as Christian makes the point you want.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:58

                      Actually, it does. Many people think that our culture and society began with the ratification of the Constitution or thereabouts.

                      Not true. Our culture and society stems from centuries before. If one studies the colonial era, then one gets a deeper understanding.

                      It also helps to have lived – not merely “traveled” – abroad.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:48

                      RTO: So the just result occurred for the wrong reason. The real issue is a religion was given exclusive access to government property, which violates The Establishment Clause. Moving or removing the monument corrects the violation of national law.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:47

                      Not true. There are other places that have alternatives. And there is nothing in our Constitution about states not supporting religion in that way. It is up to the communities. This “separation” stuff is codswallop. It is only something atheist haters are using to destroy our heritage, our culture, and religious institutions. It is anti-freedom and anti-human nature.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:06

                      RTO:

                      It is up to the communities.

                      Sure. Spend more money on other religious representation, or allow equal access, or deny access and representation to all religions.

                      This “separation” stuff is codswallop.

                      A common refrain from those who are upset that they’re losing a privilege not granted to other religions and groups.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:10

                      People should then, petition for their Satan-Worship statues. See what happens. Maybe in some Liberal communities, they will go for it.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:19

                      RTO: But I, as a tax payer, have no interest in our government wasting money on multiple religious depictions when their are private institutions dedicated to such actions. Better to spend that money on services for the community.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:45

                      They are not wasting money.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:12

                      RTO: That can be voted on. If the community wishes for tax money to be spent on multiple religious displays, that’s up to them. I would vote against that as it’s something that surrounding religious institutions can take care of.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:37

                      I would vote for it. And that is how it should be decided, just as you said. That is the principle of self-government. Best!

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 23:50

                      RTO: Whatever. Still a waste of tax dollars (^_^)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:54

                      Not for most people. Most people are glad to have a creche on display, of course.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 00:08

                      RTO: So you wont mind when a Satanist requests a display, paid for with tax dollars, to be added next to the creche? Then an atheist banner, paid for with tax dollars, on the other side of the creche?

                      of course.

                      You assume a lot for most people. My parents, for example, are Christian and would take issue with a government organization wasting their tax dollars on a display that should be set up at a church.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 20:03

                      RightThinkingOne: That’s not what’s being addressed. Nobody is fighting to take religious displays off private property, like your lawn or church property. A government building equally serves all citizens. If one religion is being given access, then all other religions are given equal access or all access is to be denied equally.

                    • Theo November 30th, 2016 at 20:23

                      You got a small winky. When you expose it to little boys, they laugh.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 20:36

                      Theo: If you aren’t able to effectively rub two thoughts together to form a cogent defense or rebuttal, why publicly display the breadth of your ignorance and lack of prudence?

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:56

                      Are this Max and Theo nasty trolls that follow you around?

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:03

                      Red Mann: This is my first time posting on this website. This is my first time seeing responses like this so quickly.

                      I suspect that this is their first time seeing me.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:17

                      No. The community should be able to decide. It is hateful to have creches torn down. Reprehensible.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:59

                      Wrong, wrong, wrong. The community doesn’t get to decide to follow the law or not. It is the law. Religious symbols cannot be placed on public land. You are incredibly dense, all those years of religious brainwashing have rotted your mind.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:11

                      I know the laws. And they are wrong. But you do not know what you are talking about because in one of those cases I presented, the Court actually DID permit creches to be displayed on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!

                      You only spout feelings. I present facts and history and concepts.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:38

                      Yes, and I cited it already, but the court, not the community decided it.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:58

                      Yes. That is against self-government, a basic founding principle.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:54

                      RightThinkingOne: Was that display accompanied by displays from other religions? Was it made an open space available to all religions that wish to participate?

                      Those would be two options to comply with The Establishment Clause.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:06

                      I don’t think it was, and it does not matter. There are thousands of religions. And that does not matter, either. If the community decided, it should not be up to courts to give in to hateful atheists.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:25

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      I don’t think it was

                      Then it does violate The Establishment Clause if it involves government property or resources and other religions are excluded.

                      If the community decided, it should not be up to courts to give in to hateful atheists.

                      So hateful Christians are preferred? Incorrect. The government is neutral regarding religion. Thus, it’s better to not give access to any religion, or to give equal access to all religions.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:29

                      The Court decision in RI was great: It referred to preserving traditions. And our nation originated from Judeo-Christian sources. Even if you don’t like it. Can’t be changed.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:36

                      RightThinkingOne: Red Mann already addressed this. It was changed.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:01

                      RightThinkingOne: Nobody is advocating having a creche “torn down”. As long as it wasn’t purchased using public funds, it can be moved to private property.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:12

                      It should be allowed to be both purchased and set up on government property.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:17

                      RightThinkingOne: …alongside other religious displays. It’s only compliant with The Establishment Clause when other religions are given equal treatment and access.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:23

                      The community should decide. Only hateful people would go to the courts to get them taken down. People of the most spiteful, vindictive, and reprehensible natures.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:39

                      Again, the community doesn’t get to decide what laws to violate or what ones to follow.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:59

                      Actually, it does. This is basic politics 101. No, students study that at the middle and high school levels.

                    • bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 02:45

                      You still beating that dead “poor persecuted Christian” horse?

                      Failure to comply with the law is the reason those cases you mentioned were brought. Those laws do not include a “I think my religion allows me to discriminate against you” exception.

                      What kinda jollies does this persecution complex get you? Must be something major because you are talking UNPROVABLE delusions.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:23

                      In those cases, the person of faith is presented with an extremely difficult choice:
                      1. Comply with the ridiculous laws and sin.
                      2. Avoid sin, and suffer unreasonable penalties.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:41

                      Sin, sin, sin! Can’t you realize that sin has no legal standing? It is a construct made up be religion to control the masses.
                      Sin is purely subjective and has no rational basis, the law is objective and has a rational basis. Your blind superstition does not override the law, ever.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:22

                      It is not “made up to control the masses.” I would like for you to trace the secret societies that created this. LOL

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:01

                      Yes, religion is used to control the masses and sin is one of the tools and religion was created by humans for the gods they invented. What “secret societies”?

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:11

                      Name the cabals! LOL

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:15

                      RightThinkingOne: I don’t think anyone would refer to the Christian denominations as cabals.

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:21

                      Read what was written.

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:45

                      You made some vague reference to “secret societies”, then answered with an even vaguer reference to “cabals”.
                      The usual suspects of the crazy conspiracy theorists are the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateralists and the New World Order. You talking about these or do you have some other, maybe the Skull and Bones club?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:00

                      Yes, because someone here claimed religion was CREATED to “control” people. I will not do this again. READ what is written and to what one responds.

                    • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:26

                      Exactly.

                      It’s a choice. It’s NOT persecution. If you want to see what REAL persecution is, look up the Inquisition.

                    • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:45

                      or look at what the so called “christians” are doing to Muslims. Islam & christianity are no different when they choose to use it to oppress or vilify or use it as an excuse to murder. people need not to be so gullible. if you believe in a higher power, great, there’s nothing wrong with it. but, you don’t have the right to harm others that don’t believe in what you believe in. and that’s the problem. i was raised both catholic and baptist. and even as a child, i didn’t believe in Adam & Eve. it made no sense. i didn’t believe in Noah’s Ark. it made no sense. but, stupid racist “christians” can’t believe in god, if they don’t respect all of god’s creatures. he made us the way we are, and i just happen to be different than you or you or you.

                    • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 03:57

                      One of the worst features of religion as practiced by actual human beings is that any divergent viewpoint is evil, a threat, in need of suppression or eradication. As if a real Gawd was so picayune and petty that he wants people to be persecuted for saying “Ah-men” instead of “Ayyy-men.”

                    • bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 04:32

                      I don’t really care who or what anybody believes is their higher power. “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” as Jefferson said. But that belief has no business impinging on MY beliefs.

                      And if a Gawd is worthy of his/her/its name, then Gawd don’t need no puny humans to defend the Gawdhead.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:33

                      Yes, it is a choice, and the STATE has persecuted. It should follow the RFRA, even though there should be no need for that in a civilized society. In fact, it was not needed for over TWO CENTURIES, and such codswallop does not exist in other nations.

                    • bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:24

                      Proof, not more bullshit. WHO has been persecuted, HOW have the been persecuted, WHAT indicates that their RELIGION is the reason they are persecuted, and PRECISELY how that differs than any OTHER person was treated.

                      You repeatedly make the claim, say “uh-huh” and “is too!!” and provide bupkes for actual facts. In the face of NO evidence, the only conclusion is you CANNOT prove your point. What other people say, what other people’s opinion is, how you interpret congressional pandering and LEGAL intent does NOT prove your point, but it DOES prove you have no actual facts.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:51

                      Happening all over. Look at the people on television with that home improvement channel just recently.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 18:56

                      List them with all the details I requested.

                      Unless or until you’ve done that, your point is false.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:55

                      Nope. Look it up. Just last week.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 19:59

                      Provide link or your post is BS.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:04

                      Look it up.
                      Home improvement channel. HGTV, I think.
                      Gay marriage.

                      Take a look. I don’t run errands for mentally lazy leftist haters.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:05

                      You post the link. If you are unable, then you’re full of it.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:09

                      LOL

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:10

                      Didn’t post the link, so the obvious conclusion? Full of it. If you can’t prove your “facts” all by your lonesome, then they aren’t facts.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:14

                      LOL!

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:28

                      Yeah, your being full of BS is very very LOL!

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:13

                      You failed again to show any truth to your arguments. If YOU make the claim, the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence.

                      You don’t DO that. You just make claims. Like Alex Jones.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:20

                      Use Google. Best search engine I think.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:05

                      No. If you can’t supply the corroboration, then it’s BS.

                      And, frankly, I don’t give a shite what your opinion of the efficacy of Google is. YOU use it and find actual links to support your contentions. If you can’t put up the effort, then *I* ain’t gonna do it for you.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:41

                      OK, don’t do it. What I wrote is the truth.

                    • bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:42

                      No, it’s not. If it IS, you should be able to show evidence.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 19:24

                      RightThinkingOne: Render unto Caesar…

                      When you live in any country, adhere to and respect the laws of that land. If you wish to impose additional religious laws upon yourself, that’s your choice. If those laws conflict with each other, you must deal with the repercussions of any related actions.

                    • Max November 30th, 2016 at 19:57

                      Pedophile ccksucker

                    • oldfart December 1st, 2016 at 00:58

                      I borrowed from you. above.
                      all he will do is reply non- answer.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:22

                      oldfart: Well stated in your reply. It’s like that relative that you call an intervention for… and they feel like it makes sense to fight everyone instead of admitting that there might be a problem.

                  • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 01:09

                    you know, i brought up the fact that priest rape boys, what i failed to ask you was, if religion was such an important aspect of moral growth, and if because it’s no longer practiced in school, i.e., prayer, how in the hell do you explain boys who were raised in catholic schooled, were raped by priest? obviously “good” “christian” and “family values” didn’t play in to account.

          • George T November 30th, 2016 at 19:21

            RightThinkingOne: Are you denying that those businesses were making their goods and services publicly available and then refused service based on race or sexuality?

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:10

              Yes, I am denying that. In fact, take the bakers and photographers: They PROVIDED cakes and did photographs for homosexuals. It was only the “marriage” issue!

              • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:13

                RightThinkingOne: Then you’re just blathering at this point if you’re contradicting yourself.

                These businesses are publicly available, and selectively refused their services based on discriminatory qualities. If they don’t want to run afoul of that, they need to set up a restrictive business model that allows them to limit their clientele.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:27

                  No. I am consistent. YOU claimed they denied homosexuals. They did not. Again (THIRD repetition): It was only about “marriage.”

                  • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:05

                    RightThinkingOne: What kind of marriage were they refusing services?

                    • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:13

                      Same-sex “marriage.” How can you NOT know that?

                    • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:45

                      So, homosexual marriages then.

                    • George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:01

                      RightThinkingOne: Correct. So they are discriminating based on sexual preference. Thank you for recognizing that.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:07

                      non-answer

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:29

                      RightThinkingOne: You don’t have an answer? Well no further answer is needed if you truly recognize that these were cases of religious and sexual discrimination. I sincerely hope that you do, and welcome you to a better understanding of equality and justice (^_^)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:05

                      It is not a case of “discrimination” on the part of the people of sincere faith, of course.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:27

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      It is not a case of “discrimination”

                      Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

                      on the part of the people of sincere faith, of course.

                      If your faith based morals conflict with the law of the land, then be prepared for the consequences of your actions. That, or find a way to avoid such conflicts.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:16

                      Well, I suppose it is “discrimination.” Against people of faith. The radicals should have shut their mouths and gone to another photographer or baker, of course. But because the person would not capitulate to their personal desires, they decided to destroy his life.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:18

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Well, I suppose it is “discrimination.” Against people of faith.

                      Only if you eschew all logic and any concept of equality.

                      The radicals should have shut their mouths and gone to another photographer or baker, of course.

                      I’ve already explained to you, I believe in another thread, why discrimination laws were needed. Your arguing for discrimination is charmingly backwards, but only serves to illustrate to others why it’s just and egalitarian to oppose your biased interests.

                      But because the person would not capitulate to their personal desires, they decided to destroy his life.

                      The baker destroyed his own business by not operating it fairly and in accordance with anti-discrimination laws.

                    • oldfart December 1st, 2016 at 00:53

                      He got you there.
                      Your guilty of projection dude, plain and simple.
                      I get it, in YOUR mind you believe you’re right…fine.
                      But you have zero right to make anyone but yourself to believe it.
                      and, in case you haven’t noticed, you have zero ability to get anyone agree with you either.
                      Can you understand that ? Can you accept that ? Can you respect that ?
                      There is only one way to make people conform, in this country,
                      it’s called law, period. render unto Cesare, if you would prefer.
                      you will never get a (your) religious preference law passed in this country federally and federal law over rides state law.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:23

                      Yes, agreement is not expected from Leftist atheist haters.

                    • oldfart December 1st, 2016 at 11:20

                      You consider yourself to be a Constitutionalist. You also consider yourself to be a christian… Yet these two things are not compatible. You choose to come here to comment and are shocked to find that peoples reaction does not conform to your point of view. You then proceed to overrule their comments and rebuttals because your point of view, in your mind, is the only true and logical reasoning. You claim moral high ground and absolute superiority to justify everything you espouse on.
                      When finally faced with logic, you reply with non-answer.
                      And finally, to bring it all back with your original entrance here, you wanted to buy a rug with Hillary’s picture on it to wipe your feet on…

                      Perhaps you feel that being “persecuted” here makes you worthier.

                      By all means stay here, in our house, it’s a free country.
                      Pontificate all you want and inherit the wind.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:42

                      Please provide your rationale for declaring that “You also consider yourself to be a christian.”

              • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:02

                That’s idiotic. There is no justification for not providing the service they are providing to the public.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:12

                  Again (14th repetition): They did not want to participate in sin.

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:46

                    Sin is not real and can’t be used to justify anything.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:01

                      Then, things like love, loyalty, honor, and such do not exist in your world. Heck, they are not “real” in any sense that you demonstrate.

                    • Meepestos December 2nd, 2016 at 01:03

                      It is just a superfluous religious concept that originated in Eurasia. Did you know that the Huron did not recognize the concept of sin along with many other cultures throughout the globe?

                      Personal errors, wrongdoings, and injustices were recognized by the Huron, but they did not consider them spiritual crimes. Any grievances or wrongdoings were worked out within the tribe. This disconnect between mortal behavior and the fate of the soul meant that the Huron found the Christian concepts of sin, guilt, and eternal punishment inconceivable and superfluous. When the Jesuits asked about their sins, many claimed not to know how to sin. Even more confusing to the Huron was the notion that one could sin just by thinking. For them, it was unreasonable to be punished for an idea that was not put into action.

                  • George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:02

                    RightThinkingOne: Then they shouldn’t run a business that people they think are sinners might want to use.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:08

                      Sorry, that is not logical or reasonable.

                    • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:11

                      Its actually completely logical. Where is the responsibility of the store owner in this. The store owner is ‘sinning’ by misrepresentation (bearing false witness)

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:22

                      RightThinkingOne: Projecting? Pot, you’ve just called the kettle *black*.

      • Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:02

        Here you go with your ignorance, if the law considers that discrimination against people simply because of their sexual orientation, which should be the law all over the country in a just, decent society, is illegal then the business person is required to provide the service. Refusing to sell to blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians etc has been a dark smear on America and your crowd wants to keep up this vile behavior because your Big Book of Stories says so.
        If these precious little bigots can’t handle treating all people decently, then they should find something else to do.

      • Carla Akins November 30th, 2016 at 06:45

        Those are not attacks. Calling out bigotry is not only our right but an obligation.

        • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:53

          It is not “bigotry.” Those people simply did not want to participate in sin.

          • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:55

            There is no such thing as sin, it is made up BS. It is bigotry.

          • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:54

            RightThinkingOne: They wouldn’t be participating. They’d simply be providing a cake or some service for a marriage.

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:07

              I spoke to this in another post.

              • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:10

                RightThinkingOne: I addressed it in another post.

              • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:26

                RightThinkingOne: You spoke, but you haven’t provided a logical basis for discriminating.

                • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:56

                  I cannot provide a logical basis for something that did not happen.

                  • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:04

                    RightThinkingOne: This is the dissonance. You refuse to recognize that a discriminatory action is discrimination. Gotcha.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:07

                      No, it is not “discrimination.” The only “discrimination” is against the bakers and photographers, etc.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:09

                      RightThinkingOne: Yes, I get it. You refuse to recognize discriminatory actions of Christians. You’ve clearly expressed and shown your bias. Thanks (^_^)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:13

                      No, 20TH REPETITION: They provided services to homosexuals. It was only the “marriage.” They did not want to participate. How can you NOT get it? They wanted no part of it. That is all. The homosexual couple should have had respect for the bakers, shut their mouths, and gone elsewhere.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:32

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      They provided services to homosexuals.

                      Yes, knowingly or not, I am sure of this and have already recognized that in our discussion.

                      It was only the “marriage.”

                      Yes, homosexual marriage. That is a more specific form of discrimination based on sexual orientation… but still discrimination.

                      They wanted no part of it. That is all.

                      Then they shouldn’t operate a business serving the public. Some members of that public are of the same sex and wish to get married.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:57

                      No. The bakers wanted to remove themselves from sin. They did not want to sin. They did not try to stop the people from “marrying.” You are illogical.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02

                      RightThinkingOne: From their view or opinion of what sin is. That opinion conflicts with anti-discrimination law. Knowing there was a potential conflict, they should’ve taken steps to avoid or address the conflict.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:47

                      It was sin. It is hard to understand how one can even begin to NOT comprehend that.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:12

                      RTO: Because sin is a made up illness that various religious denominations claim to cure. People who don’t follow those faiths and beliefs don’t care what you call a sin.

                      Just like you wouldn’t care if a hippie said your aura is a bad color and told you to stop eating your favorite food to correct it. You would obviously dismiss his or her assertion just like I dismiss your silly concept of sin.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:58

                      Sin is real for people of faith. You are intolerant. The extent of your close-mindedness and intolerance is beyond the pale.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:12

                      RTO:

                      Sin is real for people of faith.

                      Sure. If you’ve chosen to believe in this construct of sin, then you must remember that others aren’t obligated to follow or adhere to your beliefs. Just like you aren’t obligated to bow towards Mecca several times each day.

                      Tolerance is letting you make your own choices, not expecting others to adhere to your choices.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16f97916001f201a395afaa9d885fe3a2ea6e605c70cc8df313c0abb3808bd42.jpg

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:57

                      RTO: So you’ve never addressed which sin. I’m not aware of any sin mentioned anywhere in the Christian holy book that addresses same sex marriage or making cakes.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:18

                      Homosexual sex. “Marriage” between the same condones homosexual sex. A sin.

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:03

                      RTO: Please cite or quote where this is specifically addressed. I’m not aware of any prohibitions regarding marriage and the prohibition regarding homosexual sex is debatable, possibly addressing something else.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 21:11

                      It is obvious. “Marriage” condones a sexual relationship. It is irrefutable. Undeniable.

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:18

                      RTO: Is that stated clearly somewhere in this holy book?

                    • whatthe46 December 2nd, 2016 at 01:10

                      why did the priest who raped boys continued their sins? clearly they enjoyed sinning right?

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:41

                      whatthe46: Apparently bakers have more self control than those who directly serve the biblical deity.

                    • whatthe46 December 2nd, 2016 at 20:09

                      apparently.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:39

                      RTO: Now you’re coming around! As I’ve said before, knowing that same sex marriage is legal they should’ve sold their business to avoid having a conflict. If you know you might run afoul of discrimination laws because of limitations you place upon yourself, take steps to avoid the issue.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:29

                      Not applicable. It is only a cake.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:52

                      RTO: Yes! Just sell them the cake and there would’ve been no issue.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:09

                      Just saw a report that the LGBT mafia has ganged up on Chip and Joanna Gaines of the popular HGTV show Fixer Upper. Hate from the radicals against Christians.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:20

                      RightThinkingOne: Sure. That can happen. Please state clearly how you think this is directly applicable to discrimination law.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:21

                      An example of discrimination against people of faith.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:25

                      RightThinkingOne: Is someone refusing publicly available service to The Fixer Upper couple?

      • shocktreatment November 30th, 2016 at 09:15

        Buffoon.

      • George T November 30th, 2016 at 19:20

        RightThinkingOne: If they offer their services publicly, then it’s discrimination to refuse service based on a group quality like race or sexual preference.

        • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:09

          No. They did not want to participate in sin. It is that simple.

          • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:10

            RightThinkingOne: Then they shouldn’t make their business publicly available. It is that simple.

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:26

              They did not want to sin.

              • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:09

                Apparently they DID want to sin.

              • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:25

                RightThinkingOne: I don’t see any place in the bible where it says two men or two women can’t marry.

                • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:56

                  Actually it does. Becoming one flesh.

                  • George T December 1st, 2016 at 22:58

                    RightThinkingOne: Actually it doesn’t. A modern marriage is a contractual arrangement. It no longer has a direct association with copulation.

                    For example, an asexual couple could marry for tax, visitation, or beneficiary rights.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:01

                      You did it again: You are writing about something else. Try reading.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:07

                      RightThinkingOne: No, you’re being obtuse. Trying to avoid recognizing what I’ve expressed.

                      The Christian bible seems to address (this is open to debate) same sex copulation. That is not strictly addressing or opposing same sex marriage. You are *assuming* that marriage is included in this biblical reference.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:11

                      Real marriage is between male and female. It is not only the Bible, but the entire world. And all human history.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:15

                      RightThinkingOne: Your opinion is that marriage is between male and female. It is not an opinion held by the entire world. The US is not the only country to make this change to marriage contracts.

                      Did you know that marriage was the only legal contract in The US that had a requirement regarding the sex of those agreeing to the contract?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:18

                      Not in the past few years, of course. But I refer to thousands of years of history, and the entire world.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:23

                      RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. There’s a long history of same sex actions and issues dating back thousands of years, among humans and other animals.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:56

                      You are doing it again. Not the topic. CAN’T YOU READ? It is about MARRIAGE. M..a..r..r..i..a..g..e!

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02

                      RightThinkingOne: Correct. They were discriminating based on a same sex marriage. If you’re trying to say that they were refusing to make cakes for all marriages, that’s simply not true.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:47

                      That is not “discrimination.” They homosexuals voluntarily chose certain behaviors.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:11

                      RTO: That’s debatable. Choice or not, it’s still legally recognized discrimination to refuse service based on that lifestyle. In a certain respect, refusing service based on a lifestyle choice is an act of judgment. As the bibble says, they were judged in kind.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:57

                      It is not discrimination. TWENTITH REPETITION – Read RFRA.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:16

                      RTO:

                      It is not discrimination.

                      That’s your opinion, which conflicts with reality.

                      Read RFRA.

                      Why? It was deemed unconstitutional in 1997.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:21

                      Read the RFRA. Let me know when you do. It is not long.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:12

                      RTO: So I read that The RFRA is now limited in scope to certain federal level situations. States are free to enact local level RFRA if they wish. The state where this incident with the bakery occurred had no RFRA, so the primary applicable law is anti-discrimination. Again, the bakery should’ve considered this and found a work around given that no state level RFRA had been passed.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 22:16

                      Yes. Thanks for reading it. Now you hopefully understand.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:35

                      RTO: Yes, I’ve understood from the beginning. It’s a case of a bakery discriminating against a same sex couple trying to buy a cake for their wedding.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:40

                      No, it was not discrimination, of course. The homosexuals were hateful, vicious and narcissistic.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 00:04

                      RTO: Yes, again, they were refused service because the event they were buying a cake for was based around their lifestyle. The bakery was discriminatory in denying services based on race, religion, or sexual orientation involved.
                      I do see what you’re asserting. You think that non-Christians should coddle and acquiesce to Christian beliefs and practices. This is akin to a Muslim owned and operated business requiring any woman to wear a headscarf when entering their business. Would you agree with that religious imposition? Honestly curious.

                    • Meepestos December 2nd, 2016 at 00:54

                      “There’s a long history of same sex actions and issues dating back thousands of years”

                      Indeed, same sex marriages existed throughout the globe and some of these marriages had other primary purposes. An interesting one is that of women marrying women in many societies. An example is in Sub-Saharan Africa where it was done consensually in order to have legal control over another woman and her children also to further social and economic positions in society, but these arrangements were not homosexual marriages nevertheless same sex marriages. Now it would be interesting if any lesbians took advantage of this type of marriage ; )

                      In North America, though rare, in some tribes, a berdache could and would marry a man, but were for reasons involving romance and love. Among the Crow, female berdaches often married women.

                      Then there was a time when same sex wasn’t illegal in parts of the Roman Empire, but only lasted for about a hundred years (SSM was officially outlawed by the laws of the Roman Empire under the Christian emperors) a century after the same sex marriage of Nero to Pythagoras, which was the only formal same sex wedding Nero had, but I suspect likely a forced marriage, which were not uncommon during those times considering marriage wasn’t usually for love or necessarily sexual desire more so for family alliances as we still see today is some cultures in the form of arranged marriages.

                      One could argue that the longer than unusual known pederastic relationship of Agathon and Pausanias over 2400 years ago was a type of unrecognized same sex union yet their relationship was formally recognized like a civil union. At least it appeared to be a consensual relationship, but still not a marriage.

                      Marriage has certainly come a long way for the better especially for women and homosexuals.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:00

                      Meepestos: Thanks for the info! I was vaguely aware of some situations you mentioned. You’ve detailed quite a bit more than I had ever heard of, and I think @RightThinkingOne:disqus should be made aware of these if he’s not reading all thread comments.

                    • Meepestos December 3rd, 2016 at 00:38

                      Your welcome. Anthropology used to be my forte in the 90s. Still I have some brushing up to do.

                    • oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 01:24

                      George T:
                      Please stop addressing you replies in that manner
                      It’s creeping me out and we REALLY don’t stand on
                      that much tradition here.
                      We’re the Pus*y grabbing America now…it’s ok.
                      Rant over and have a great day !

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:34

                      Using the “name:” can help others to know more about deleted comments. In other forums it’s quite common for people I converse with to have their comments deleted, and people end up wondering who and what I was replying to.

                    • oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 09:45

                      Since you put it that way… this site has a rare problem with dropped comments, probably hiccup-ups from Disqus, but mostly, deletions are the result of commenters crossing the line and getting booted off the site. RTO has an obtuse benign blather quality, that while he can be an irritation, is not likely to get out of line. I dare say he probably enjoys seeing his name displayed in your fashion, IYNWIM.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:35

                      It’s just a habit at this point to help avoid confusion when someone might get the ban-hammer or have a comment deleted for some other reason. I’ll reference him as RTO to avoid his serf-aggrandizing.

                    • oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 01:16

                      WOW dude how old are you ?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:19

                      Yes, some states added amendments to define marriage because they saw what was coming.

                      It was not needed in the past because it was obvious that males marry females and vice-versa, of course.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:22

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      It was not needed in the past because it was assumed that males marry females and vice-versa, of course.

                      Fixed your error.

                    • oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 01:15

                      And everything else is an aberration ?
                      Tell me, exactly how many people also believe this ?
                      besides you…

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:48

                      Almost all of the world in the present. All of the world for thousands of years.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:31

                      RTO: Actually, this isn’t even consistent within the bible. Do you refuse to recognize the polygamy, sex slaves, incest, and rape all condoned by god?

                    • whatthe46 December 2nd, 2016 at 19:42

                      ask him to explain Adam & Eve. he won’t respond to me. lol. if he really believes that Adam & Eve were the first, then surely incest was involved. if he believes in the great flood, then surely there was some incest going on there. considering everyone was wiped out except for Noah’s family.

                    • Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 19:27

                      You seem to ignore the ancient Greek and Roman History– plenty of homossexual couples.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:59

                      You are not reading what was written. You are changing what was written and declaring it to be what was written. Either you did not read carefully, did not comprehend what was written, or you are deliberately distorting.

                    • Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 20:06

                      You said”…the entire world. And all human history”. I read it, see? And it’s false.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:11

                      It is true. There has NEVER been a society in which the a man “marrying” another man was included in the concept of marriage.

                      Sure, there were a few emperors and rogue churches, but READ, READ, READ my specific statement. I really do not want to play this game of repeating. Read the clear and specific statement above. Most haters distort it. I suspect you will, even though it is PERFECTLY CLEAR.

                    • Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 19:29

                      Your avatar, je suis quoi? Je peut pas le lire..

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:49

                      Gina Bousquet: Please search for “Raif Badawi”

                    • Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 20:02

                      Thank you George, I will. :)

          • George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:53

            RightThinkingOne: Nobody is forcing them to be married to a member of the same sex, if that’s the sin you’re thinking of.

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:04

              They would be participating in sin. I hesitate to present an analogy because there are certain types that only look for a flaw in the analogy in order to deflect. No analogy is perfect, so these “types” USE that.

              Suppose you have a married friend who asks you for a ride to a motel where he will commit adultery with a married woman. Of course, he can get a ride from others or use a taxi, but he asks you.

              It is perfectly reasonable and understandable if you refused that on the grounds that you do not want to be part of his (and her) committing adultery.

              • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:07

                This is a childish, foolish line of reasoning you keep repeating. Sin has no legal standing and cannot be used to justify breaking the law. Why is that so hard to understand?

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:14

                  I know it has no legal standing. But look up the RFRA. (16th)

                  • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:47

                    Yeah, a very misguided action, given as a sop to the religious extremists. It is very bad legislation.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:01

                      Tell that to Bill Clinton who signed it. Betcha didn’t know that!

              • George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:09

                RightThinkingOne: Now imagine that I was a taxi driver, offering a public service, and I refused to drive a gay couple to their wedding. I would be discriminating. Even if I drove gay couples to other places before, I would be discriminating.

                • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:15

                  It would be up to your conscience and religious convictions, of course.

                  But why couldn’t the homosexual couple respect the driver and simply say nothing?

                  • George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:06

                    RightThinkingOne:

                    It would be up to your conscience and religious convictions, of course.

                    Incorrect. If my religious convictions might cause a conflict then I shouldn’t work in a business that would run afoul of such an issue. For example, if I think it’s unclean to handle pigs or pork products then I shouldn’t work in a grocery store that sells pork.

                    But why couldn’t the homosexual couple respect the driver and simply say nothing?

                    But why couldn’t the driver do his or her job that’s being offered to the public at large?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:10

                      A person could buy a simple kitchen knife to kill someone. However, if the person buying the knife revealed that he wanted to buy it to harm someone, what is the moral (repeat, MORAL, MORAL, MORAL) thing, not LEGAL, thing to do?

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:21

                      RightThinkingOne: To stop that person from harming another.

                      If your religion says gay marriage isn’t moral, then that’s between you and your religion. It is not universally understood to be a moral or ethical violation.

                  • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 01:45

                    take you conscience and ….. what business is it of yours? are you going to die? are you going to turn gay? if a bi-racial couple wanted to catch a cab they don’t have to announce they are a bi-racial couple, it’s out in the open, and if the driver decides not to pick them up because he doesn’t believe “his kind should mix with their kind” how do you get around that? are you going to suggest that they take separate taxi’s to the same location as to not offend the racist/bigot?

          • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:03

            Again, “sin” has no legal standing and is not an excuse for breaking the law or doing your job. This is religious privilege in action.

            • RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:13

              They did not want to sin (15th repetition).

              • Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:49

                And sin is not a real thing (repeated repetitions). It is a groundless argument.

                • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:03

                  It is real for those of faith.

                  • Suzanne McFly December 1st, 2016 at 19:13

                    This faith?…..

                    Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

                    7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

                    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

                    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:34

                      Yes. They did not tell the homosexuals not to “marry.” They merely wanted to remove themselves from participating in sin. Now, if they had begun the incident with condemning them from the start, from refusing to give any services before, and for telling them that they are sinning, etc., you could have a case.

                      But they simply did not want to provide the services to celebrate sin.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 1st, 2016 at 21:23

                      Who are you to say what sin is? I know of the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins and I have read nothing that has anything to do with homosexual marriage. Why are you so wrapped up in this one thing? Why is this upsetting you so much when the world is melting and animals are becoming extinct at a rate that we have never seen before? Is your life so wonderful that you can sit back and judge other people’s marriages? How many homosexuals do you even know? You need to get a hobby, you are a pathetic little human.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:55

                      I am not saying what sin is. How can you possibly conclude that?

                    • Suzanne McFly December 2nd, 2016 at 07:36

                      Keep up sparky, these are YOUR words….
                      Yes. They did not tell the homosexuals not to “marry.” They merely wanted to remove themselves from participating in sin.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:54

                      I am only presenting the reason that they refrained from making the cake. They did not want to sin.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 5th, 2016 at 22:43

                      That is some hell of a thread you are continuing to spin, boring as hell though.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 23:19

                      “Boring?” Really? Not based on the number of responses – many very, very heated and adamant – I am getting.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 7th, 2016 at 12:55

                      Heated? You wish, we come out and smack you around like a punching bag then when we got rid of the bad energy we leave you alone and let you stew in your pile of hatred.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 7th, 2016 at 12:57

                      Heated? Hardly so, but nice try. You are like a punching bag, we come out and knock you around for a bit just to get rid of the bad energy we are feeling. Once we are done, we go back to our sensible lives and leave you alone again to stew in your pile of hatred.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:33

                      No, I post facts. You do not like them.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 14:40

                      Spare me some time, I have a life and don’t have much to waste like you do. Cite one of the “facts” you have claimed and I will take back my accusation.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:41

                      Radicals try to revise the meaning of the Bible by asserting such nonsense as modern and ancient notions of “sexual orientation” are different. But the definition of marriage was grounded in the created order itself (Genesis 2:24 – they become one flesh), and Jesus spoke of man-woman marriage and its permanence (Mark 10:6). These revisionists try to say that the apostles did not know what we moderns know about sexual orientation! But when the Bible refers to sexual immorality, it ALWAYS views homosexual sex in a negative light. And the Bible is not based on the “expertise” of the apostles and prophets on matters of “sexual orientation” and such, but it is the revealed Word of God. So, the revisionist position is based not on the Words of Scripture but on the radicals just choosing who the author is. How convenient!

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:42

                      The problem is that human beings are not “non-bodily persons” inhabiting and using non-personal bodies. The body is not an INSTRUMENT; it is intrinsically part of the personal reality of a human being, so bodily union is personal union, and marital union is thus founded on this bodily union which is made uniquely possible by the SEXUAL COMPLEMENTARITY of a man and a woman! “Of one flesh” as the Bible puts it. It is this ONE-FLESH union that is the foundation for two persons to bind themselves; marriage – real marriage – is a one-flesh communion by acts that are procreative IN TYPE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PROCREATIVE IN EFFECT. The partners form the PROCREATIVE PRINCIPLE, even if they do not produce children. Children who may be conceived are not JUST the ends EXTRINSIC to marriage but rather gifts of the unifying principle.

                      READ. IMPORTANT:
                      In homosexual couples, sex cannot be part of the uniting of flesh, the becoming one; it is only for affection, pleasure, fun or whatever.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:44

                      Two of the main reasons that there are such strong statements against homosexuality in the Bible is that: 1) It denies life; it denies God’s desire that the male and female cohabit; and it denies the root structure that the Bible prescribes for all mankind, the family. Right from the start, God said that “It is not good for man to be alone,” and He did not create another man, but He created a woman. Man becomes fully human by united with woman.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 18:48

                      You make these statements with a tone of truth. You speak from a place of hatred for another and you know nothing of the God I love.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:03

                      That is a typical rejoinder: If a person disagrees with the radical, then the person disagrees out of “hate.”

                      LOL!

                    • Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 20:48

                      You are quoting from a book written by men who never met Jesus and were born thousands of years after him to prove your hatred is valid in God’s eyes. You are a sad person.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:05

                      You did it again. I merely showed what the Bible has. I am an atheist. My reasons for wanting to preserve real marriage are not based on religion.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 21:11

                      Then why do you make your argument using the Bible? You give your argument then you claim you don’t even believe your argument but you just wanted to throw it out there.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:03

                      Because some atheist hater said there is nothing about homosexual stuff in the Bible, of course.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:03

                      What do you mean, I don’t believe my argument? Some atheist hater referred to the Bible.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 9th, 2016 at 17:03

                      Put the pipe down dude.

              • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:09

                Then they should only work in businesses that do not put them in this situation.

                • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:23

                  Puerile. Anyone can sin. Heck, someone might buy perfume to give to his mistress when he commits adultery. Silly.

                  • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:46

                    Lets see if this is clear. When a business license is granted, I suspect there is some sort of clause around expectations and non discrimination. To get a restricted license (only serving a specific group) there would need to be some sort of arrangement. So the ‘Christian Business’ needed to sign that they would adhere by the law. Now unless lying is not a sin, they would be sinning by refusing service in that they would be breaking their oath (false witness)

                    Also , if you are selling perfume to a man who is committing adultery, are you not sinning?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:21

                      They did not want to sin. And read (6th repetition) the RFRA. It is clear. If it gave undue hardship by not providing a “cake,” then they would have a reasonable case. But since there were about 10 bakeries within a 2-mile radius (I checked), and not having a little cake from a specific bakery does not present an “undue hardship” by any mature, reasonable, normal view, well…..

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:35

                      RightThinkingOne: Discrimination laws were put in place because all regional cake shops would conspire to refuse service to races, religions, and sexual orientations. Thus, those targeted groups would have no reasonable alternative.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:30

                      Not true. In one case, for example, the baker actually suggested another place! And I checked something: There were over 10 bakeries within a 2-mile radius of the place. Many, many others would be happy to get the money.

                      But no, no, no. Even though the bakers provided cakes and things to homosexuals before with no problem, the radical haters had to force them to accept their “marriage.”

                      That is hateful and base. Uncalled for, and deplorable.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:07

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      Not true.

                      Incorrect. That is the history of discrimination law.

                      In one case, for example, the baker actually suggested another place!

                      Super. So you admit that they were intending to discriminate. The baker was refusing services made publicly available. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.

                      had to force them to accept their “marriage.”

                      How does baking a cake force them to accept a marriage?

                      That is hateful and base. Uncalled for, and deplorable.

                      Agreed! It’s a clear and obvious case of discrimination. The baker should’ve just made the cake and taken the money. That, or set up a *club* or some other sales structure that allows them to exclude unwanted clients.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:24

                      No, it is not “discrimination.” Again (15th repetition!): They provided goods and services to homosexuals in the past. It was ONLY the marriage issue!

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:48

                      RightThinkingOne: Again, what kind of marriage did they have a problem with?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:59

                      You are joking with that response, right?

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:07

                      RightThinkingOne: You’ve already admitted the discrimination quality when I asked this same question earlier. I’m not sure why you don’t understand after admitting the issue.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:21

                      Not true. I explained already. I won’t do it over and over.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:44

                      RightThinkingOne: You’re free to revel in misinformation and cognitive dissonance if you wish (^_^)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:48

                      Everyone else understands what I write. They do not agree, but they understand. It is clear by their responses. Have a look. Think about it.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:04

                      RightThinkingOne: Looking at other replies, I see that everyone else does understand how your expressed views conflict. It’s a form of cognitive dissonance to divide your response to two equal scenarios based on a quality you’re imposing as an excuse for different treatment.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:14

                      Glad you are seeing that everyone else understands the sentences I wrote, even though they disagree. You are the only one for whom it seems necessary to repeat and simplify, and even that does not help in most cases.

                      Unfortunate.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:45

                      RightThinkingOne: Whatever (^_^) Let me know when you deal with that logical conflict you’re wrestling with.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:29

                      To provide the cake is tacit acceptance of the sinning, of course. How can anyone NOT understand that? They are facilitating the celebration of sinning.

                      I do not like to provide analogies because no analogy is absolutely, 100%, perfection without any flaw at all, and there are certain types of people who only look for the flaw in order to avoid the concept.

                      But it would be like a Nazi asking a Jewish baker to make a cake to celebrate Hitler’s birthday. Or a member of a white power group asking a black photographer to take photos of the celebration in which they demand blacks be segregated or removed from the nation.

                      Yes, the Jew and the black might be required “legally” to provide those services, but any DECENT person would know that the customers should go elsewhere, and any reasonable adult would side with the Jew and black guy for refusing.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:47

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      They are facilitating the celebration of sinning.

                      Then they should stop offering cakes if they might be used for something they think is a sin.

                      the Jew and the black

                      I’ve worked for people I disagree with. It’s part of being an adult.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:58

                      “Disagree with?” A Nazi wanting to celebrate Hitler’s birthday is merely someone who “disagrees” with you, especially if you are a Jew?

                      Please do not respond to my posts. I presented something and you refuse to honestly respond to the obvious.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:53

                      RightThinkingOne:

                      “Disagree with?” A Nazi wanting to celebrate Hitler’s birthday is
                      merely someone who “disagrees” with you, especially if you are a Jew?

                      If they aren’t breaking a law like assault or harassment, then yes. Doing otherwise would be a case of discrimination.

                      Please do not respond to my posts. I presented something and you refuse to honestly respond to the obvious.

                      I will continue to correct errors in posts. If yours contain errors, then I will correct them.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:13

                      Interesting response. It reveals a lot about you.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:49

                      RightThinkingOne: Yes, that I’m able to work with people who I strongly disagree with. If you’re saying that you’re unable to do so, that reveals a lot about you.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:00

                      Again, it reveals a tremendous amount about you.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:24

                      RTO: …and you. I am able to function in a diverse, egalitarian society while you seem inclined to an imposing dictatorship or nanny-state that caters to only your wishes while maligning others.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:29

                      On the contrary. You want to persecute people of sincere faith. The radicals should have just gone to another bakery and had the decency to respect the faith of the bakers. They presented the height of intolerance and totalitarianism. They were willing to DESTROY the lives and families of people who do not capitulate to their personal desires.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:44

                      RTO:

                      On the contrary. You want to persecute people of sincere faith.

                      On the contrary. My parents are people of sincere faith who have never done anything like this baker. They politely respect the choices of others, regardless of motivation, and only advise regarding their faith and belief when asked. I know there are people of sincere faith who aren’t hypocrites because they’re members of my family, and I would never advocate anything that would impact their respectful practice of their beliefs.

                      The radicals should have just gone to another bakery and had the decency to respect the faith of the bakers.

                      Again, the baker knew there was a potential conflict and should’ve taken steps to avoid discrimination issues. They didn’t. They got 15 minutes of publicity and a hefty chunk of money from suckers who donated money to them.

                      They presented the height of intolerance and totalitarianism.

                      The bakers did so by refusing service to paying customers based on their lifestyle choice.

                      They were willing to DESTROY the lives and families of people who do not capitulate to their personal desires.

                      The bakers knew they could have a conflict given that same sex marriage had been ruled legal. As mentioned above, they did a great job taking advantage of a polemic issue, got some fame, and cashed out. Don’t cry for them.

                    • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 01:38

                      “They did not want to sin.” so, i guess a priest raping a child gets a pass? you see why people don’t (well me) take you seriously when you consider yourselves to be “christians?” because you’re the biggest hypocrites to face this planet. all that “love thy neighbor” crap, goes straight out the window if it doesn’t pass your smell test of what’s moral. if you believe that all are sinners, then don’t cast stones.

                      oh wait, now you’re going to suggest if the bakery 5 mins away won’t service them because they are bigots and homophobes who own it, then surely they can find one 30 mins away that would. remember when black people had to go to the back of a restaurant to purchase a meal? their money was good but be damned the skin color, they were not worthy enough to walk through the front door.

                      remember when “loving” had to go to court to fight for marriage? if people can use the excuse of religion to discriminate, then we are right back where we started from. you can make up sh!t if it would further your hate agenda. damn dude, why, and i’m serious, why are you such a bigot and racist?

                    • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 01:56

                      I’m not suggesting that there was not some political posturing on the part of the couple. However, the concept of sinning doesn’t fly as an excuse as they were already sinning (as I described above). Thus the store owners were hypocritical in their position.

                    • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:29

                      for crying out loud, kim davis was one of the biggest hypocrites to come out of the anti-gay marriage rights. a threat to family values my ass. married cheat, divorced, remarried, cheated again, children by both fathers while cheating and remarrying. talk about a soap opera. but, gay marriage is a threat to “conventional” marriage, while they are committing adultery, and praying to jesus. WTF ever.

                    • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 02:32

                      Yup

                    • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:37

                      so, you see my dilemma about my not giving a flying monkey’s fk about them and their holier than thou, i’m a “christian” and i’m being persecuted b.s.

                    • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 02:38

                      This is true. However, it can be fun to watch the gymnastics

                    • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:48

                      lol

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:31

                      It is not an “excuse.” The owners of the bakery, photography studio, wedding planners establishment, etc. simply did not want to commit sin.

                    • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 18:48

                      But they did commit sin (according to the Biblical definition)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:50

                      If they provided the services, they would have committed sin. I cannot judge them, and radical atheist haters certainly cannot.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:01

                      RightThinkingOne: Radical and normal atheists are able to judge them. Their concept of sin is not a universal concept. It’s specific to their beliefs. Since it’s self-imposed, others are free to consider their views and pass judgment.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:13

                      That is illogical.

                    • George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:48

                      RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. Do you expect others to accept Islamic *sins*? Christian *sins* equally fail to apply to all people, and are not recognized by law. They are self-imposed limitations based on personal belief.

                      If you place these limitations on yourself, then it’s up to you to address any conflicts or issues stemming from that decision.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:59

                      I know that different people have different ideas about what sin is. Every rational adult knows that, of course.

                    • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:22

                      RTO: So are you saying that you’re not rational, given that you’re showing a failure to recognize those who disagree with the concept of sin entirely?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:51

                      You are demonstrating intolerance to the highest degree.

                    • George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:56

                      RTO: You are crying intolerance and persecution to deflect and avoid recognizing my point.

                    • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:56

                      Not really.
                      It’s simple:
                      Are they following the rules they seek to enforce upon others?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:27

                      Yes. They provided services to homosexuals for decades. They only did not want to participate in sin.

                    • whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 19:48

                      they themselves are sinning. and where in your bible does it say that it’s a sin to provide services to married gay couples? i’ve got all day.

                    • john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 21:25

                      So instead they committed at least 3 sins:
                      ▪They did not love their neighbor as themselves.
                      ▪The sat in judgement rather than looking to the plank in their own eyes.
                      ▪They disobeyed the law of the land in which they live – in contravention of Bible law.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:47

                      They did. They supplied services to homosexuals for years. (19th repetition)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:48

                      No, you are referring to Islam in the last “point.”

                    • john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 22:34

                      Do I really need to cite chapter and verse? I thought you were familiar with the Bible.
                      Matthew ◄ 5:41 ► NLT
                      If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles instead.
                      ◄ Romans 13:5 ► NIV
                      Therefore, it is necessary to submit to
                      the authorities, not only because of
                      possible punishment but also as a
                      matter of conscience.
                      I cited the 2nd passage because it specifically addresses conscience, but there are many others throughout the Bible which address obedience to worldly authority.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:39

                      Hey, Jesus did not “submit.” The Jews didn’t.

                      LOL

                    • john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 09:10

                      How … quaint.
                      Now you’re not only wrong you’re arguing against bible law – inspired of God.
                      You do realize those aren’t the only 2 passsges right?

                      ◄ Romans 13:1 ► NIV
                      Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

                    • john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 21:51

                      As Christians where Jesus did not judge who are they to do so?
                      The Centurion’s Faith
                      Luke 7 and Mathew 8:5 -13
                      The bible records that as he entered onto Capernaum Jesus met a Centurion pleading that Jesus heal his servant.
                      In Koine Greek Luke and Mathew use duolos and pais respectively. Duolos does mean servant but it is preceded by a word meaning honored. No Roman of rank would ever refer to a simple servant as honored. Thus we have a suggestion that the youth was something more than is clearly stated.
                      Mathew clarifies it when he uses the word pais, which in context means either a male servant kept primarily for sexual purposes, or the younger partner in a same-sex couple.
                      Given the NT usage, to denote someone who willingly gives himself into the power of another, we have reinforcement of the second meaning.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 22:15

                      SEVENTH repetition! Again (and again and again): They served the homosexuals, FOR YEARS!
                      They were not judging! How can you NOT get that? They simply did not want to participate – directly or indirectly – in facilitating a “wedding.”
                      THEY SIMPLY DID NOT – THEY THEMSELVES – WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.

                      That is all. To participate would have been a sin – FOR THEY THEMSELVES.

                      What is so freakin’ hard to understand? They did not want to participate FOR THEMSELVES!

                    • john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 22:41

                      You can deny it all you like. But at the core of their decision was the judgement that the couple were living in sin. That they were not worthy to marry.
                      And it is doubtful they ever read any of the clobber passages for themselves, much less in context.
                      So they relied upon their own understanding. Something else the Bible prohibits.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:40

                      No, it was that they did not want to participate in sin, of course. Otherwise, they would not have given them services for YEARS before that. HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?

                    • john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 09:20

                      I understand that they JUDGED that the couple were engaging in sin. And so they committed 3 sins rather than do something they believed to be a sin.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:30

                      No. They did not judge in the sense of criticizing or pointing fingers. It would be as if your married friend asked you to give him a ride so he could meet a married woman at a hotel and commit adultery. It is likely you would refuse to give him a ride to such a place because you do not want to facilitate his adultery. (It is not about you but the CONCEPT that there are many people who would not for that reason.) And most of us have been in such situations as kids (or adults): Someone wants to cheat on an exam, shoplift, etc. If you are in a store and your friend decides to try to steal, say, a CD (it does not matter what), you might remove yourself from the scene so to have no part of it. (I know, I know, I know that you may think it is none of your business, or report it, or stop him, etc., but that is not the point.)

                      It is just that simple.

                    • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 21:42

                      By not providing a service they have committed sin. They can be judged legally and (if they want to play the religious card) Biblical.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:57

                      No, according to their faith, homosexual sex is a sin. To facilitate others’ sinning would be immoral.

                    • Ken Campbell December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02

                      I understand that their faith states that homosexuality is a sin. However they are committing a sin (false witness) by refusing to honor the promise they made when they started their business. They made a promise to obey the laws defining business practice. Thus, to refuse service to a homosexual couple, they would have to stop doing business altogether. It would be the only possible outcome.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:46

                      No, the sin would be to participate in the celebration of sin, the “marriage.”

                    • Ken Campbell December 4th, 2016 at 20:32

                      You really don’t understand this? If the business breaks their promise to uphold business standards, they are committing a biblical sin. Christians are hypocrites to pick and chose their sins. Oh wait…..Christians ARE hypocrites

                    • whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 20:50

                      and i asked him where in the bible does it say it’s a sin to bake a cake for gay couples who are getting married. furthermore, they weren’t asked to participate in the marriage by attending. and it’s the law of the land we are governed by, not his damn bible.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46

                      No, they did not want to sin.

                    • Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 00:33

                      You keep repeating the same words. It is apparent that you do not actually want to think about the implications of your position.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:26

                      I know the “implications.” They did not want to facilitate sin. Facilitating sin is participating in it, albeit indirectly. If I make a cake that celebrates a murder or child molestation, I am obliquely both condoning that and participating in it.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 01:39

                      RTO: That’s your opinion. Other people are capable of taking money and providing a service without supporting the subject in any way. It’s called being an adult and operating a fair and responsible business.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:21

                      Not opinion. Fact. Again (23rd! repetition): They served homosexuals for years. They did not want to participate in the “marriage.” That would be facilitating the sin and condoning it.

                      A rational adult should be able to understand that. I gave clear analogies to make it simple enough.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 18:50

                      RTO:

                      They served homosexuals for years.

                      Then they should’ve been fine making the cake, since the only mention in the bible of anything remotely prohibiting same sex relationships (arguably) involves fornication. There is nothing about same sex marriage being a sin.

                      So, again, they chose to impose this view of same sex marriage as a sin in their beliefs upon themselves. It is not a widely held view. It contradicts national law. They should’ve prepared for this, taking steps like hiring outside labor to deliver the cake if they didn’t want to go near the event.

                      A rational adult should be able to understand that. I’ve clearly explained this before.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:17

                      You are now a mind reader? Did you learn through correspondence school? Or did you attend classes or have a guru?

                      It is amazing that you were able to look into the minds and hearts of the bakers and all of the others and know exactly the tenets of their faith, their beliefs, their consciences. Amazing!

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 20:00

                      RTO:

                      It is amazing that you were able to look into the minds and hearts of
                      the bakers and all of the others and know exactly the tenets of their
                      faith

                      It’s amazing that you’ve been making these assertions regarding their thoughts and mentality, and now accuse me of operating under your assumptions regarding the tenets of their faith, their belief, their consciences.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:03

                      Wrong. I don’t know. All I do know, and can know, is that they knew homosexual sex is a sin. Are you actually going to say that many Christians don’t ascribe to that? Are you? Note the word “MANY.” READ WHAT IS WRITTEN! Again, many.

                      And they publicly stated that they know that homosexual sex is a sin.

                      I cannot call them liars, or people who are just making it up. They gave services to the homosexuals, up until this “marriage” issue. It is obvious.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 20:13

                      RTO:

                      I don’t know.

                      Correct! That doesn’t change the quality of your previous comments asserting the views and intent of the people at this bakery.

                      All I do know, and can know, is that they knew homosexual sex is a sin.

                      Last time I checked, marriage ceremonies don’t involve sex of any kind. So what would be the issue here?

                      They gave services to the homosexuals, up until this “marriage” issue.

                      And there were businesses that provided services to minorities until those minorities planned a wedding to a white man or woman. That is also a case of discrimination, regardless of services rendered in the past. Your referencing past work by this bakery doesn’t somehow justify or invalidate this discrimination case.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:30

                      No. They gave the reasons. They were clear. No doubt.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 21:22

                      RTO:

                      They were clear.

                      Clear as mud. You are equally clear. I’m not even sure which part of my comment you’re responding to.

                    • Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 02:05

                      It is a hypocritical position. I suggest that Christians do not go into business as they clearly cannot understand the expectations of working in a law-based society

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:23

                      It was an exception. They did not want to participate in sin. That is all. The homosexual radical-haters should have shut their mouths, respected the person who gave them services for years, and gone someplace else. But they were too selfish and willing to destroy anyone who resisted participating in any aspect of their “preferences.”

                    • Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 20:11

                      I’m not suggesting that the people launching this action were not targeting the store owners. However, the bottom line is that the store owners broke the law.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:12

                      Not true. Did you look up the RFRA yet?

                    • Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 21:09

                      Yup. I know about the act. Its basically permission to discriminate. It is developed by Christians and for Christians. It is a very bad bit of legislation

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 21:25

                      It was signed into law by President Clinton. You have contradicted yourself.

                    • Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 22:01

                      How have I contradicted myself?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 23:18

                      You did. One of yours put it into law.

                    • Ken Campbell December 6th, 2016 at 00:36

                      One of my what?

                    • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:53

                      Their faith is founded upon shifting sands. There are seven clever passages in the Old and New Testaments combined.
                      Most are situation or cannot be read as modern Christians would like.
                      Ezekiel, and the other prophets, have decreed that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and failure to care for the poor, in the midst of great wealth.
                      Not one of the prophets mentions homosexual behavior in relation to the Cities of the Plains.
                      Nor are believers to rely on their own judgement.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:27

                      I am not here to engage in biblical exegesis, of course. Rather, I refer to their faith, courage, and the importance of religious freedom.

                    • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:43

                      Of a certainty anyone can hold them to the tenets of their faith, as laid out in the Bible.
                      Did they adhere to Bible law? No.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:26

                      They apparently did.

                    • john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 20:25

                      Actually – no. They didn’t.
                      Love your neighbor as yourself.
                      Love does no harm. Therfore is love the whole of the law.
                      Judge not lest by whatsoever measure you judge you be judged.
                      You are to obey the law not only for fear of punishment but as a matter of conscience.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46

                      They did not want to sin. That is obvious.

                    • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:40

                      it’s covered in the Articles of Incorporation. The company is either licensed as a public accommodation (serving the public), or as a private (club or organization) related enterprise.
                      If the latter its customer base is restricted to members of such clubs, or organizationspeaks, as it is associated with.

                    • Ken Campbell December 2nd, 2016 at 14:49

                      So if the business in question wants to be a Christian Club, they can determine that they will only serve Christians. Mind you, the gay person could be a Christian so would still be able to belong.

                    • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 18:14

                      Sorry, no.
                      The business can affiliate with one or more Christian clubs/organizations. As many as will agree, and the owner feels necessaryou. The members will be the company’s only customers.

              • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 03:21

                to NOT love your neighbor as you love yourself IS A SIN! if the only way to respect others different, then throw out your phony religious mindset and stand on the moral ground. i don’t need to belong to a religion to know it’s a good thing to care and respect others. if you need religion to tell you that, then you’re lost. it’s human decency. it’s common sense. it’s NOT that damn difficult.

              • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:34

                Define civil law that defy God – and in THAT they SIN!

          • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 03:18

            you participate in sin every time you decide you won’t love your neighbor. i.e., black people, brown people, gay people, etc., or respect them. yes, you are a hypocrite and a sinner of the worst kind. pray to god and then say FK everyone else.

          • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:33

            What is simple is their thinking.
            They are licensed to run a business in the public interest. fair business exists to accommodate some perceived need on the part of the public. Hence the name public accommodation.
            And in defying the law they are defying God. The Bible says repeatedly that Believers are to be in submission to civil Authority.
            If a soldier requires that you carry his pack a mile, carry it 2 instead.
            And you are to obey those in authority over you: “Not merely for fear of punishment, but for conscience sake.”

            Or should I site chapter and vetse?

            • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:56

              Read the RFRA

          • Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 19:34

            Participate in sin?! Were they asked to? lololololo

            • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:59

              Yes, they actually were.

            • whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 21:24

              he’s so stupid.

              • Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 21:38

                He made me laugh with that one! :)

                • whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 22:29

                  thing is the idiot is serious. that’s what make people like him dangerous. they are weak minded and as long as you throw god in the mix and degrade people he’s fine with it. look at the evilgelicals. that’s one crazy group. just like WBC. crazy.

                  • Gina Bousquet December 7th, 2016 at 10:37

                    He is a laughable kind, but you’re right, they are dangerous enough to put the orange one in the WH.

      • Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:08

        Ah….so you are asking for new rules that permit Christians to break the law?

      • whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 00:59

        re: phony “christians” who claim to be “christians” did any of them die? where they tied to a stake? were they tortured? what suffering can you attest to that was put upon them? oh wait, human being not subscribing to their idea of “morals” right? well, i can, if you want, link a site for you, where so called “christians” did some sick sh!t to people in the name of their twisted “god.” would you like that?

        do you not see the disgust and hypocrisy in your thought process? poor put upon “christians” have to be kind to someone. WTF ever.

      • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:26

        Any businessman running a public accommodation (walk-in business) is required under law to serve any customer who walks in. With certain exceptions they are not allowed to restrict whom they will serve.
        If a business man wishes to discriminate as to whom he will or will not serve he should incorporate as a private club, or organization, related Enterprise. He will then be prohibited from serving walk-in customers.

        • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:56

          You are wrong. It has to pose an “undue hardship.” If a hospital refuses to treat a man who is having a heart attack because he is homosexual, that fits it, of course. But when a person wants a CAKE, and there are TEN bakeries within a 2-mile radius? ARE YOU FREAKIN’ KIDDING ME? THAT IS AN UNDUE HARDSHIP?

          Read the RFRA!

          • john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 20:12

            I am familiar with the RFRAs. They are unconstitutional in that they were intended to deprive a recognizable minority of a right enjoyed by the majority. Namely the right to seek legal redress.
            An open door business is licensed as a public accommodation. That is licensed to accommodate some perceived need on the part of the public. NOT whatever fraction of the public they like.
            If they want to do that they need to incorporate as a private club or organization related enterprise.
            And the framers of the RFRAs openly said that their legislation would allow an EMT to refuse to treat a gay man.

            • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:19

              It is constitutional and it protects people of faith from persecution by hateful atheist radicals.

              • whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 21:23

                your religion sucks.

              • whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 21:23

                not constitutional idiot. why do you insist on this outright lie and stupidity?

              • john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 22:24

                The equal protection clause says otherwise. As does the section laying out the conditions necessary for the government to deprive a recognizable minority of rights enjoyed by the majority.
                The states have repeatedly failed to show clear and compelling reason for depriving LGBT people of their right to seek legal redress.
                The courts will decide on a case by case basis the legal merit of any suit. Namely whether seeking an alternative source for any services creates undo hardship.

                • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:39

                  Read the RFRA. They are not “deprived.” If a homosexual had a heart attack, and a hospital refused to admit him because he was a homosexual, of course that would be undue hardship.

                  But a cake? And where there are 10 bakers in the vicinity? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

                  • George T December 5th, 2016 at 01:33

                    RTO: 10 or 100. Discrimination is not somehow negated by alternate options.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:20

                      You are wrong. You spout opinions without thought. If you read the RFRA, it would be clear. But you will not even make the effort.

                    • George T December 5th, 2016 at 18:52

                      RTO:

                      You are wrong.

                      You fail to give a valid justification for this assertion.

                      You spout opinions without thought.

                      Incorrect. I post summations of legal precedent and how it impacts what you’re discussing.

                  • john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 07:38

                    The likelihood that there are 10 bakers in a 2 mile area (as you specified) is exceedingly low. And the man who drafted one state’s RFRA specifically said it would allow a Christian EMT Tech to deny services.
                    And again, that’s what the courts are for – to decide if a case has merit. Contrary to your suggestion there are very few frivolous cases. Primarily because the losing party must pay the court costs and the attorney’s fees of the winner.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:25

                      No, there are. I checked. One can go to Google and check for most kinds of services and stores with the Google Maps. Check it out. I did. You just want to believe something, despite facts and reason.

                    • john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 19:09

                      I said it is unlikely – not impossible. And it is irrelevant to this discussion.
                      It is for the courts to decide if the case has Merit. It is not for the Legislature to seek to block any minority from the legal rights enjoyed by the majority.
                      And for the owners of the bakery to release the couples personal information was criminal. Perhaps had they acted in a civilized manner the case would not have gone against them.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:24

                      I was wrong. I just checked in relation to the “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” case. There are actually TWENTY bakeries in the area!!!!! TWENTY!

                      Make an effort, pal! I write the TRUTH. If the bakeries do not show up, go to the right, and click the “Nearby” and type in “bakery.” LEARN THE TRUTH

                      Here it is, but you dream up some excuse to reject the TRUTH, go right ahead:
                      https://www.google.com/maps/search/bakery/@45.5101434,-122.502919,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m8!2m7!3m6!1sbakery!2sGresham,+OR!3s0x549575e85d2e60bb:0x9fc30a18adce5d2f!4m2!1d-122.4302013!2d45.5001357

                    • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:30

                      It wouldn’t matter if there were 20 bakeries in every building in that 2 mile area. EVERYONE living under US authority is guaranteed certain rights by the United States Constitution. Among those is the right to seek legal redress for a perceived wrong committed against them.
                      The government CANNOT strip that right from a recognizable minority without showing a clear and compelling reason for doing so.
                      And it is for the courts to decide if any case has merit. If a case lacks merit, the court will invariably either dismissed the case or summarily rule in favor of the defendant.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 21:59

                      It DOES matter. You do not deal with facts and reason. Read the RFRA. It is clear. You are wrong – it DOES matter.

                    • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 22:45

                      I deal with, and have stuck to, 2 classes of facts. Business Law, and Constitutional Law.
                      The number of alternative sources for a service in a given area matters only after suit has been brought. And it matters primarily in determining if the suit has merit.
                      The RFRAs are an attempt at an end run around the courts.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:52

                      TWENTY bakeries in the area. And “undue hardship.”

                      Oh, my God! They have to go to a DIFFERENT bakery! The trauma! The hardship!

                    • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:15

                      The case went against them because they further violated contract law by publishing the couples contact information, including their address.
                      That information was provided to facilitate contractual obligations on the part of the bakery. When did they decide to violate the contract and disseminate private information?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:25

                      The narcissist couple started the selfish and vicious lawsuit. THEN the brave people of faith fought back. The couple should have respected the baker’s faith, shut their mouths, and gone to one of the TWENTY other bakeries in the area!

                    • whatthe46 December 6th, 2016 at 23:31

                      they don’t have to do what you want them to do just because you disagree with their lifestyle. i disagree with everything you have to say about anything, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to say it. take your “christian” sharia law and shove it. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87532efb1e8906feb61d1c6a3b2eb79d9f3b1393cade0f181fae1cd3c4e0562e.jpg

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:16

                      The bakers violated not only US law but BIBLICAL LAW.
                      Clearly they are unfamiliar with the book you seem to think they live by.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 00:58

                      No, they did not. They adhered to their sincere faith. They were courageous and to be admired. I am an atheist, and I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for such people.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 09:28

                      A sincerely held religious belief supposedly based on the Bible.
                      Yet they violated Biblical law:

                      ◄ Romans 13:1 ► NIV
                      “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

                      ◄ Romans 13:5 ► NIV
                      “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”

                      ◄ Matthew 5:41 ► NIV
                      “If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.”

                      Had they followed Mathew they would have baked 2 cakes.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:19

                      Yes. The law God has established. All of those people followed that.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:53

                      No. They violated it.
                      The Bible repeatedly says to obey the law of the land in which you live.
                      I quoted you 3 citations – chapter and verse.
                      And, just to point out the patently obvious – Mathew 5:41 would have been contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the Israelites.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:18

                      No, God’s law is followed first. And Christians have been persecuted for centuries for following God’s law. Jesus Christ was executed for it.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:29

                      It IS relevant! Did you read RFRA yet? Did you? I am not going to tutor you here. It only takes a couple of minutes to read. Try a summary on Wiki!!!

                    • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:43

                      The day you can tutor me in business law is the day I tear up my degree.
                      The various RFRAs have been rewritten multiple times. Each creating a worse mess.
                      In trying to make them constitutional they have been broadened to the point of giving any business owner* the right to discriminate against ANYONE, provided they claim a sincerely held religious belief as the basis.
                      And the RFRAs remain unconstitutional.

                      * and many others

                    • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 21:59

                      Not true. Read the RFRA. It is about freedom. Those opposed to it are intolerant and despotic. They are against liberty.

                    • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 22:37

                      I have read several, including re-drafts of some. I have also listened to those who framed many of them.
                      Those citing an RFRA in their defence are trying to sidestep the courts.
                      If there is no substantive case against them the suit will be thrown out and they will be compensated. So not only is the legislation unconstitutional it is unnecessary.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:49

                      You must know about “undue hardship.” There were almost TWENTY other bakeries in the area. TWENTY!

                      Now, if a hospital emergency room refused to take a person having a heart attack, or there was an isolated gas station that refused to give the person gas, then there would be a case.

                      But a freakin’ CAKE? With TWENTY other bakeries around? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

                    • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:10

                      Undo hardship is one factors in determining whether a case has merit. And hence whether a lawyer will take it.
                      The RFRAs were written to eliminate the possibility of suit even if there is only one provider in the state.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:22

                      There was no “undue hardship” with the narcissists who would not even walk down the street because the baker of faith would not capitulate to their selfish demands.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:13

                      32nd verse – same as the first.
                      Undue hardship is for the courts to decide.
                      And the author of one state’s RFRA acknowledges his intention in drafting the legislation was to shift the issue to one of Religion rather than business law, or hardship.

                      I’m pulling my notes together

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 00:57

                      No, it is patently obvious. The homosexual couple was selfish. They were willing to destroy the lives of people. Reprehensible.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 09:12

                      You are trying to make this about a single case.
                      So let’s restore the proper scope. This legislation has the potential to undo all non-discrimination legislation. Business ownes could decide that their beliefs prohibit them from serving people of other races, or religions/creeds. They could decide not to serve people with tattoos, or people who have divorced.
                      Or frankly any criteria you can think of. Is a woman out alone? Does she teach? Or is she in a position of authority?
                      Does she follow Paul’s instruction to women to dress chastely, and forego perfumes and jewelry? Or does she ignore it?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:15

                      No. Multiple cases. Elane Photography v. Willock, 2006: Refusal to photograph a “commitment ceremony.” It would require them to express a message via their photos and that conflicted with their religious beliefs. They had to pay $6,637.94 in attorney fees and court costs. The homosexual couple immediately found another photographer who charged $1,200 less.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 18:36

                      Business law does not allow a public accommodation to refuse patronage except under certain clearly delineated circumstances.
                      The business exists to accommodate some perceived need on the part of the public.
                      And the proprietor profits from filling the need

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:43

                      RFRA

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:15

                      A printer in Lexington, Kentucky, refused to print T-shirts for a gay rights event, because he explicated disagreed with the message he was asked to print. He is being investigated, even though he has gay employees and regularly serves gay customers.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 18:40

                      If you do not want legal difficulties obey the law.
                      If you want to limit your clientele do not incorporate as a public accommodation

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:45

                      The homosexual couples were selfish, disrespectful, vicious. That is perfectly clear. They were willing to DESTROY the livelihood of the business owners, even though they were never refused any other product or service.

                      So I ask you: Do you support what they did to the business owners?

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:09

                      There would have been FAR less difficulty if the bakers had shown ANY ethics.
                      Instead they deliberately published published information they had no right to.
                      Why?
                      Why did they publish the couple’s phone number and address?
                      Because they WANTED the couple harassed! And they frankly didn’t consider that they might be endangering the couple.
                      THAT is wanton disregard

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:20

                      Why don’t you answer the question? HUH??? And I posted a plethora of other cases! And they went on public media AFTER they were attacked.

                    • Carla Akins December 7th, 2016 at 19:12

                      The bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children. The Kleins “brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding” the couple who filed the complaint. They were not fined for refusing service but required to pay damages because of their action. Oregon’s public accomodation law is very clear and the bakery owners were fully aware that what they where doing was in violation of the state regulation and their business license.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:25

                      Yes. They fought back. I applaud them for bringing it to public attention: The fact that a self-centered couple, after receiving services from them for YEARS, wanted to DESTROY their livelihood – and their lives – because they did not capitulate to their demands.

                      The couple could have walked down the street and respected the sensibilities of the bakers, but they decided to force them to acquiesce to their personal demands.

                      And look at the other cases I presented: Same pattern of vicious, egotistical couples who were willing to DESTROY the lives of others who did not give in to their demands, when they simply could have gone someplace else with ease.

                    • Carla Akins December 8th, 2016 at 11:06

                      Fight back? They initiated the public, inflamed supporters and these women received death threats – and they had broken no violation. This couple did not attack the bakers, in fact the bakers had previously done a wedding cake for them (for a family member) all they did was report a violation. They did not go public – the Kleins did. If the Klein’s are unhappy with rules for owning a business they can close, work to change the law or take the business online (which is what they did) but violating the couples rights is simply wrong, definitely not Christian. Why on earth would you think it was right for them to behave in such a manner but not others?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:36

                      Yes, fought back. The narcissistic couple demanded capitulation. Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Aaron Klein in Oregon was found “guilty” of discrimination because they refused to bake a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowmen. Radicals protested outside of the bakery, and the family’s children were targets of death threats. The Labor Commissioner said they, and others like them, were to be “rehabilitated,” not shut down. Nice choice. On April 24, 2015, Alan McCullough of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in fines.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:15

                      In Salon, Brian Beutler says that churches that refuse to marry gays should lose their tax-exempt status.
                      http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/confusion_plagues_the_right_why_it_doesnt_understand_liberal_views_of_the_hobby_lobby_case/

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:24

                      There is ZERO chance of that happening. Now why not stop pretending that Christians are poor little innocents?
                      And in 2015 a California lawyer started a petition for a ballot initiative granting believers the right to:
                      Execute gays by a bullet to the head. Or by any means convenient.
                      He had some 5,000 signatures before the court shut him down.
                      And the RFRAs were phrased as a religious issue because the authors thought it would make the legislation unassailable. Guess what?
                      No one’s religious rights supercede others civil rights!

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:28

                      Not the point. Look at the total picture, and remember that this is the MENTALITY. This is what the atheist haters want.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17

                      Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, 2005: The owners were Catholics. They simply told the gay couple they believed marriage was between male and female, even though they would host them because of the law. In 2012, the wedding coordinator of the Inn turned down a request to host a wedding reception for a same-sex couple. The Inn had to pay fine of $30,000 to settle.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17

                      Robert and Cynthia Gifford own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Scaghtocke, New York. The public can buy produce, pick blueberries and raspberries, and get lost in a corn maze in the Halloween season. They also host weddings, receptions, corporate functions, and so on. In 2012, Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin contacted them to rent spaces for a “wedding” and a reception. They Giffords POLITELY declined because they are Roman Catholics. The radical couple filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, and they had to pay attorney fees, a civil penalty of $10,000 and over $3,000 to the lesbians because of “mental anguish.” It is the ultimate irony that the Division of “Human Rights” is empowered, in Kafkaesque-fashion, to take away “human rights,” REAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:41

                      Roman Catholics who allow the celebration of a pagan feast day on their land?
                      Seems they’re rather selective in their theology.
                      They’re also particularly ignorant of catholicism. You’d think they’d know the hagiographies of the saints. At a minimum they should know the Martyrs.
                      Sergius and Bacchus were both.
                      One Catholic theologian said of them:
                      “Let us not strive to separate in our thoughts those who were United in life.”
                      While another described Bacchus as:
                      “The sweet lover and companion of Serge.”

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:17

                      Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday.

                      It cannot be denied. No rational adult can possibly deny that.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17

                      In 2013 in Washington State, a florist refused to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, and the STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE got involved!

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:44

                      A florist refused to make a cake?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:17

                      No. I have a plethora of examples to point out something that is PATENTLY OBVIOUS.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17

                      In 2013, a bakery in Gresham, Oregon was investigated because it declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Because of death threats to them and threats against their five children, they decided to close the shop.
                      Here they speak:
                      http://cnsnews.com/node/839431

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17

                      This is a story of a wonderful person, a florist in Washington, who has been taken to court by homosexual activists. She has been defended by Alliance for Freedom:
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDETkcCw63c

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:18

                      Elane Photography v. Willock, 2006: Refusal to photograph a “commitment ceremony.” It would require them to express a message via their photos and that conflicted with their religious beliefs. They had to pay $6,637.94 in attorney fees and court costs. The homosexual couple immediately found another photographer who charged $1,200 less.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:26

                      There are many cases. There have been the bakers. Heck, photographers, too. Then there were the wedding planners. Hear about the one in Vermont? And even T-Shirt designers! The hateful radicals want to destroy the lives of so many people who do not completely capitulate to their agenda and personal desires.

                    • john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 19:15

                      If you have been following my posts on this thread you will have seen that I have provided the basics of business law. The owners of the businesses incorporated as public accommodations.
                      if they wanted the right to restrict their clientele they should have Incorporated as a private (club or organization related) enterprise.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:30

                      It is a simple business. Maybe they did not anticipate hateful narcissists who would, after providing them with friendly services for YEARS, just turn on them and try to destroy them.

                    • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:50

                      They applied for, and were granted, a business license. In doing so they agreed to comply with United States business law.
                      End of story.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:00

                      Read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

                      Thank you for your cooperation.

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:12

                      RTO: The thing that doesn’t apply at state level. That RFRA?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:22

                      RFRA.

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:26

                      RTO: Right. We’re talking about the same thing (^_^)

            • RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:19

              The bakers and other provided services to homosexuals without a problem. They simply did not want to participate in sin – the “marriage.”

        • Harglide December 5th, 2016 at 21:44

          B.S.!

          • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:59

            Try for a cogent rebuttal.
            Your bs is passe.

    • Mensa Member December 2nd, 2016 at 20:07

      >> What fucking attacks????

      Do you get to use that word, if you’re a moderator?

      • Carla Akins December 3rd, 2016 at 06:02

        You can use that word too (in context) you just don’t have the ability to approve your own post. One of us would have to come along and approve it.

  9. Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 19:20

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    If these morons spent a few moments to read the 1st Amendment instead of their mythology they would know that you cannot outlaw religion.

    • Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 17:55

      Not letting them ‘run the show’ is persecution.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e6ae27c42cad7a1f9481fcae392c36a582f8ec16aec6d4eadfb56ed21aa5a3fd.jpg

      • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:10

        ..

      • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:12

        Isn’t the meme that it is those who have the power who can oppress? In other words, look at how some use it with racism, one of their favorite areas in which to obsess and caterwaul: They say that, for example, blacks cannot be “racists” or “oppress” because they do not have the power. (Critical theory – right out of Marxism, by the way.) So, in this case, it is hateful atheist who have the power: Hollywood, the “chattering professions” (lawyers, the hideous ACLU, “professors,” actors, journalists, etc.).

        • George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:11

          RTO:

          So, in this case, it is hateful atheist who have the power

          Only by fair legal recognition of egalitarian religious rights.

    • john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:21

      Trump has already established a “religious council” to ensure that the voice of the far right is heard in his cabinet. And he promised a meeting of Televangelists that he will make America:
      “One nation under one God.”

      • George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:18

        john Johnson: Do you think religious freedom via government neutrality is yet another thing that humanity isn’t able to appreciate until it’s gone?

        • john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 23:39

          We just may find out.

      • RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:08

        Bravo for President-Elect Donald J. Trump.

        • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:57

          His action is an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over all others.
          The Oath of Office requires that he defend the Constitution!
          So by his own words, and actions, he has rendered himself unfit to swear the oath.

          • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:02

            Show me his endorsement of the establishment of a religion. Which one? Catholic? Pentacostal? Episcopalian? Which one will Donald J. Trump, president in ONE month and 13 days from now, ESTABLISH as the national religion? Please provide the quote.

            Thank you!

            • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 22:54

              The creation of a “Religious Council” to be composed entirely of adherents to a single religion is an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion very all others.
              Further he told a meeting of Televangelists that he will keep America:
              “One nation under one god.”
              And he has expressed his opinion that “Freedom of Religion was intended only to apply to Christians… Because if there were any Muslims around they were slaves.”

              • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:57

                You did not answer my question.

                I did not think you would.

                • john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:22

                  I answered your question. Christianity is not the only religion in America so your question was phrased overly narrowly.
                  It is Christianity he is favoring over all other religions.
                  And FYI:
                  Some 32% of Americans do not identify as Christian.
                  Nor is Trump correct in assuming that any Muslims in America at the time were slaves. Several of the names on the crew rosters for Columbus’ ships were middle eastern.

                  • RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:28

                    He used the past tense. And of course you did not answer my question. I will ask it yet AGAIN:
                    Articulate what Donald J. Trump – next president of the greatest nation in the world – said about establishing a specific Christian sect as the national religion.

                    Thank you.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:22

                      You’re endless repetition is getting boring.
                      Regardless of what Trump believes America is not a Christian nation and the US Constitution prohibits any use of governmental authority to try to make it one.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 00:59

                      Wrong, of course. There are chaplains, for example, in the military. Paid holidays that celebrate Jesus Christ. Our Founders used government money. Congress pays to have a prayer said EVERY SINGLE day of its opening.

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 09:41

                      Your argument is a non-starter.
                      The military also has Rabbis and priests of most other religions.
                      And our money originally bore the motto “E Pluribus Unum”(From Many One). “In God We Trust” was added in the mid 20th century.
                      And the only way the Supreme Court of the United States could find to allow the government to continue celebrating Christmas was to acknowledge that it has essentially been a secular Holliday for many decades.

                      As to Congress they do a great deal which is unconstitutional. Including exempting themselves from many of the laws they write.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:20

                      Yes. The OBVIOUS point is that the GOVERNMENT pays for religious services. And I showed other examples of the GOVERNMENT paying for religious, or religious-related, services!

                    • john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 20:04

                      And I have addressed each of your examples.
                      Your argument still doesn’t hold water.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:20

                      It does. The GOVERNMENT paid for religious services and materials. Until atheist haters started the distortion of Jefferson’s letter, it was for Christian services and materials.

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 17:11

                      RTO: So what’s your point? If they were trying to impose Christianity via the government they had just build (flying in the face of the very reason they separated from England) what is your assertion in relation to this?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:00

                      Never said that. Try READING.

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:28

                      RTO: So what is your point? Government paid for religious services and materials. Is there anything else that you’re trying to express or assert related to this?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:46

                      Of course. Read what was written!

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:52

                      RTO: I did. So your point is that our government paid for religious services? Full stop? You’re not trying to draw any further conclusions?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:55

                      Now you got it! You are reading!

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:06

                      RTO: I and @disqus_bx04n9XdVU:disqus acknowledged that multiple times. Do you have a reason for bringing this up?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:12

                      Yes. Read what I wrote to you, over and over and over and over and over and over.

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:23

                      RTO: You’ve asserted twenty or thirty assertions, creating multiple branching conversations. Related to the subject of chaplains being hired, which of the twenty or thirty assertions are you referencing?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:56

                      I will not repeat about the chaplains. SEVEN times is enough.

                      This is something on which atheist hater-deniers get stuck: One can find isolated statements from the DIARIES and LETTERS of the Founders that can be presented to make them look atheist, Deist, or anti-religion, of course.

                      But that is deceitful and dishonest. To find out TRUTH, one must look at 1) actions taken, and 2) formal declarations to Congress and/or the nation.

                      Examples, and with NATIONAL monies:
                      Paying missionaries for converting Indians to Christianity.
                      Buying Bibles.
                      Paying chaplains to say prayers at EVERY session of Congress (including today)
                      Using federal buildings for CHRISTIAN masses and worship.

                      And simple things like this:
                      “[T]he commanding officers of each regiment are direct to procure Chaplains accordingly.”
                      -George Washington, orders issued by him to the Continental Army
                      AN ORDER THAT RESULTED IN AN ACTION, not just some musing in a letter or diary. AN OFFICIAL ORDER.

                      I could go on and on for pages.

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:17

                      RTO: Okay. Your point is?

                      If this is tied to one of your other multiple posts based off of my last one in this thread, you should really consider consolidating multiple postings into one. You end up fracturing the conversation by making multiple responding posts.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:04

                      7 times is plenty

                    • George T December 9th, 2016 at 00:26

                      RTO: 7 times posted where? Is it in this direct thread or one of the threads you created by responding to the same post multiple times?

                    • Hirightnow December 9th, 2016 at 01:34

                      Friend, I’m afraid you’ve hit upon that internet denizen known as the “Just won’t get it”.
                      This common but rather vocal species of commenter can have a fact repeated to it numerous times, and yet will fail to respond to it in any way except to re-assert its own viewpoint. Often, when presented with a query, it will either fly away, or change its song.
                      Favoring short, tersely worded posts, it has been known to post several hundreds of times in a forum, doing nothing more than repeating its song, and claiming that its song is enough, while totally ignoring the songs of others. Many times, it will claim to have actually answered others’ songs, when in fact it simply repeated itself. It appears to find comfort in seeing its own avatar at least a dozen times in a forum, but moderators and site hosts find the revenue from its clicks tend to outweigh the annoyance of its song, and only chase it away when it starts to drown out the song of other poster.
                      Highly paid internet scientists have dubbed this the “Don’t waste your time; you’re talking to a brick wall” phenomenon, and then went on to browse Reddit, claiming that if people want to try interacting with these creatures, that’s their problem.

                    • George T December 9th, 2016 at 01:56

                      Hirightnow: I’m sure. Just using him to kill time at work (^_^)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 01:03

                      Just an estimate. No more games.

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 05:36

                      RTO: In which of the many fracture threads that you’ve created by posting multiple replies?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 17:48

                      I was foolish enough to repeat and repeat and repeat, to break down, and to simplify – over and over and over and over.

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45

                      RTO: But you kept…

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45

                      RTO: …posting like this…

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45

                      RTO: …instead of collecting all of your information in one post.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 19:55

                      Nope. If you READ as you respond, this would not be happening.

                      Note I am not responding to many of your posts. The reason should be obvious.

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 20:14

                      RTO: Practice what you preach. You yourself are the one typing all of this and you admit that you don’t know how many times you’ve repeated something…

                      7 times is plenty

                      Just an estimate.

                      Regarding your failure to respond, I see that as frustration at the situation you’ve created by fracturing your replies.

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45

                      RTO: When you collect everything into one comment it avoids fracturing the linear track of the conversation.

                      UPDATE: Then you can edit the post if you need to add more information instead of fracturing the conversation into multiple thread lines.

                      You are the source of your own frustrations.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:58

                      An OFFICIAL, PUBLIC statement to be heard (read) by the citizens of the entire nation (not some sentence taken from a diary):
                      “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits….. That great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good what was, that is, or that ever will be….”
                      -George Washington, on proclaiming a national day of prayer and thanks

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:59

                      OFFICIAL STATEMENT, IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD:
                      “The use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great…you Committee recommend[s] that Congress will order the Committee of Congress to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland….”
                      -Request to Congress, 1777

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:00

                      OFFICIAL STATEMENT, NOT FROM A DIARY OR IN A PERSONAL LETTER!!!

                      “It may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ….to prosper the means of religion.”
                      -Congress, calling for a national day of thanksgiving on November 1, 1777

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:00

                      In the historical record:
                      “[I]t is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
                      -John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:11

                      RTO: What are you asserting by mentioning this quote?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:01

                      More OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS by the Congress of the United States!!!!

                      “[I]t has pleased Almighty God… to bestow blessings on the people of these States… a day of public thanksgiving and prayer… to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread all over the earth.”
                      -Proclamation for giving thanks, approved by Congress, October 18, 1780

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:09

                      RTO: Congress is a collection of citizen representatives.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:02

                      Yes. Who supported and endorsed CHRISTIAN holidays and national monies being used for CHRISTIAN stuff and celebrations.

                      LOL

                    • George T December 9th, 2016 at 00:28

                      RTO: What Christian stuff did they fund using tax dollars?

                    • RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 01:03

                      Plenty. I outlined some. READ!

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 05:35

                      RTO: In which of the thread lines that you fractured with multiple posts?

                      Pro Tip – If you’d collect everything in one post instead of posting multiple replies you wouldn’t have people trying to figure out whatever you’re trying to reference.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 17:47

                      I did.

                    • bpollen December 11th, 2016 at 17:49

                      Here’s some OTHER things you did provide info about, back when you were fledgling troll:
                      .
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/977bafed28239aaf8f8463256d817d4c2d1af937d4c17b49c06dba6aa6fc4b9f.jpg

                    • George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:46

                      RTO: You did… what? You did in which of the thread lines? Your reply doesn’t match the request that I’ve made.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:03

                      How can any RATIONAL ADULT see these declarations and expenditures and deny that our origins were heavily influenced and driven by CHRISTIANITY? How can any mature person who is not insane not understand these cultural roots and history?

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:09

                      RTO: Is that all? Yes, the culture when our nation was founded was comprised of several bickering Christian denominations.

                      Was that all? No other point? I’m pretty sure you’ve alluded to other things.

                    • Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 20:34

                      I believe he is proving the local funny farm lost their most demented patient.

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:23

                      Suzanne McFly: It think he’s operating under the assumption that his multiple posts in response to one comment are somehow showing up to others in a linear fashion. Then, when I respond to each individually he gets frustrated that I’m not reading multiple postings all at once.

                      All in all, he’s not considering the possibility that he’s doing something to sabotage himself… which amuses me (^_^)

                    • Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 21:34

                      Its fun to poke them every once in a while, I know I enjoy it lol.

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:08

                      RTO: Chaplains in the military follow multiple faiths and minister to all faiths and beliefs without proselytizing, thus satisfying 1st Amendment prohibitions and providing religious assistance to those is other lands dealing with hardship situations.

                      Congress is a collection of citizen representatives. If they were government representatives there would be an issue.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:19

                      THIRD REPETITION! The government is paying for a religious service!

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:22

                      RTO: That’s not being denied. I’m addressing the fact that they pay for services to multiple religions to satisfy The Establishment Clause prohibition.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:27

                      The OBVIOUS point here is that the national government paid for religious services. Until recently, it was primarily – if not exclusively – for CHRISTIAN services and materials!

                    • George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:33

                      RTO: So you’re asserting that these services were not fair and egalitarian, which violates The Establishment Clause. I know (^_^)

                    • RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:10

                      READ! I am “asserting” that the national government paid for religious services and materials, and it was virtually all CHRISTIAN. Please READ!

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 17:08

                      RTO: Again, the military chaplains are not exclusively catering to or providing services for Christians.

                      Congress hiring a chaplain is not a case of government sourced religious services. The members are citizen representatives, not representatives of our government.

                    • RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:59

                      WHAT? The government pays the chaplains!

                    • George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:29

                      RTO: Yes. Go on. What’s your point?