Great Depression of 2016

[MrsBrooke]

Let's see how this plays out. Personally, I am not a religious person, but if gay lifestyle is immoral, I see that as an issue between the parties involved and God. Who am I to tell God how to run things? Let them make their choices and deal with the consequences if there are any.

My money says the government will pressure religious institutions to compromise their values and accept gay marriage. It comes down to the institutions having tax free status. The government would love to get that tax revenue.

I am a religious person, but I am a sinner, too, so I cannot judge... All I can do is counsel what Jesus said, which is "Repent and STOP SINNING." The rest is on them.

We shall see what this brings!!

MrsB

 

[Michael Apple]

I just can't help myself... that's actually hilarious...

Of course, one shouldn't expect consistency...

What's hilarious is the fool who created the pic thought he was being witty. Because a business decides not to bow down to a shrill 1-2% of the population defining their existence by their sexual preference, that could hardly compare to the promotion of State and Federal legislation banning a flag of this nation's history.
It is comical that the greatest advocates of "tolerance" are the most intolerant. Justice was served as the bakery's business increased when they refused to submit to the pressure of extremist groups. If the intolerant and extreme left truly believed in the "freedom" they preached, they'd accept the rule of freedom which allows a competitive market decide the fate of business, and allow the free expression of ideas for all individuals, not just those aligned with their narrative.

 

[cupman]

I thought I'd come check in on BYC and see how you guys were handling the news. about as expected. I guess it's back to the drawing board. I am sorry about the intolerant left not accepting your intolerance. I mean that's what you guys believe in and all. If I can offer any comforting news it's that life will go on and blood won't rain from the sky. in a few months you'll forget about this day and it'll be like it never happened.

 

[hemet dennis]

The people of Calif. were setting a dangerous precedent when the voted to limit the rights of a group of people. The Court had to overturn these laws. Not overturning these laws would also allow other laws to restrict the rights of any group, left handed people, red haired people, any group.

 

[Michael Apple]

I thought I'd come check in on BYC and see how you guys were handling the news. about as expected. I guess it's back to the drawing board. I am sorry about the intolerant left not accepting your intolerance. I mean that's what you guys believe in and all. If I can offer any comforting news it's that life will go on and blood won't rain from the sky. in a few months you'll forget about this day and it'll be like it never happened.

Nothing like a contrived statement of sadness ending in apathy

I'll give you an example of sensible tolerance versus tyrannical intolerance:

I could care less if two consenting adults want to be homosexuals. Throughout my life I've met homosexuals who were people of good character, and appreciated them for that reason. They did not define themselves by their sexual preference.

The pro-homosexual extremist forces the acceptance of sexual orientation NOT practiced by the majority of the population, and will attack businesses, deface churches, and the character of individuals who disagree with their politicization of sexual preference. They will then whine about the "intolerance" and "bullying" of those like me... sort of like the whining, schoolyard bully who gets punched in the nose when the other kids get fed up with him.

 

[Michael Apple]

The people of Calif. were setting a dangerous precedent when the voted to limit the rights of a group of people. The Court had to overturn these laws. Not overturning these laws would also allow other laws to restrict the rights of any group, left handed people, red haired people, any group.

California merely practiced state's rights which were once guaranteed by our Constitution. Nobody voted to prevent homosexuals from living their lives with the freedoms all other Americans value. People voted against the politicized and forced acceptance of homosexual behavior. They rebelled against the shrill minority telling us gay no longer means happy, and marriage no longer means a union of man and woman. The so-called advocates of the common people should then be irate that an activist judge and a 9th circuit court could deny the rights of the voting public.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
The voting people, or anyone else, can't restrict the rights of any group !
Should gays be allowed to own chickens if the people don't want them to ?

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
And please show me what part of the constitution says a group can be discriminated against.

 

[wlantry]

And please show me what part of the constitution says a group can be discriminated against.

Oh, boy. I promise you, it's in there. According to our blessed founding fathers, some people only counted as three-fifths of a human being, and so you could do anything you darn well pleased to them. People didn't get equal protection until the 14th amendment, about 80 years later.

 

[wlantry]

they'd accept the rule of freedom which allows a competitive market decide the fate of business, and allow the free expression of ideas for all individuals

But isn't that exactly the point? A truly free and competitive market leads very quickly to monopolies, as we ourselves found out, and the only remedy is regulation. Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican, mind you) launched over 40 lawsuits against these monopolies, precisely because their economic power led to LESS freedom for everyone else. Back then, the Morgans and Rockefellers had even more power than the Kochs and Adelsons of today. No-one wants to go back to those days. The famous 'invisible hand,' given complete freedom, very quickly turns into a closed fist.