(03-30-2015 09:51 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 09:15 PM)shere khan Wrote:  are there that many businesses in indiana with religious convictions that are so strong that will go to the trouble of finding out the sexual preference of employees from the state of Connecticut and then not take their money.


does any of this make any effing sense.

i hate the offseason

That's the problem... under this law they don't need to find out the sexual preference, they can merely presume it with their religious freedom.

So then what is stopping a true bigot from declining service to a black, latin, or jew and say, oh I thought they were gay? There isn't!

That is why this is such a dangerous peace of legislation.

There are still golf courses that don't allow women I think. Private business can do what the want. Way to much gov't involvement these days.

Lmfao.

(03-30-2015 08:33 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Most states have included some form of civil rights law on their books to include sexual orientation along with race, creed, sex, religion, etc as being free from discrimination.

Indiana politicians passed this bill and the governor signed it into law as a response to the beginning of marriage equality in that state; knowing full well that their state DOES NOT have such an inclusion of sexual orientation as a civil right, and that passing this type of legislation would give bigots, under the guise of religion, the law backed right to discriminate against gays that would be forbidden under similar laws in other states.

If you asked me a few years ago, I'd have told you things like this were something we as a nation began to move past decades ago with the passing of sweeping civil rights laws in the 1960's, that led to the end of white/black entrances, separate drinking fountains and segregated schools. Now we have people trying to turn the clock back on America in a last gasp for relevance and power!

You're a complete idiot if you think this is similar to what blacks dealt with in the 60s. I'm sick and tired of people trying to tie these issues together.

(03-30-2015 08:59 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 08:33 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Most states have included some form of civil rights law on their books to include sexual orientation along with race, creed, sex, religion, etc as being free from discrimination.

Indiana politicians passed this bill and the governor signed it into law as a response to the beginning of marriage equality in that state; knowing full well that their state DOES NOT have such an inclusion of sexual orientation as a civil right, and that passing this type of legislation would give bigots, under the guise of religion, the law backed right to discriminate against gays that would be forbidden under similar laws in other states.

If you asked me a few years ago, I'd have told you things like this were something we as a nation began to move past decades ago with the passing of sweeping civil rights laws in the 1960's, that led to the end of white/black entrances, separate drinking fountains and segregated schools. Now we have people trying to turn the clock back on America in a last gasp for relevance and power!

I've read this post 3 times, and I'm still stunned at the ignorance on display. Absolutely stunned.

I wish that I was. Unfortunately we have too many kids who have been brainwashed by government schools and political correctness.

There's exactly one issue homosexuals have a legitimate complaint about in some states. Even then there are legal work around to protect assets, inheritance, etc. The rest of it is just stirring **** up. If you don't agree with a businesses politics, don't shop there. Its a pretty simple concept.

Yeah, it's not "married" but it's not being lynched, beaten, separate water fountains, hanged....

I don't really have a strong opinion on the political side of it, but my guess is it will blow over by 2016 one way or another.

I suppose it's time for this thread to get moved/closed.

My point in bringing it up wasn't for politicking or bashing other peoples' viewpoints.

Here's my question: What would the NCAA do if some of their marquee programs in a given sport (UCONN in WBB, Kentucky in MBB, Alabama in Football, etc) refused or weren't able to compete in a given location? Would that be enough to get the NCAA to change a venue?

(03-31-2015 08:12 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 08:59 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 08:33 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Most states have included some form of civil rights law on their books to include sexual orientation along with race, creed, sex, religion, etc as being free from discrimination.

Indiana politicians passed this bill and the governor signed it into law as a response to the beginning of marriage equality in that state; knowing full well that their state DOES NOT have such an inclusion of sexual orientation as a civil right, and that passing this type of legislation would give bigots, under the guise of religion, the law backed right to discriminate against gays that would be forbidden under similar laws in other states.

If you asked me a few years ago, I'd have told you things like this were something we as a nation began to move past decades ago with the passing of sweeping civil rights laws in the 1960's, that led to the end of white/black entrances, separate drinking fountains and segregated schools. Now we have people trying to turn the clock back on America in a last gasp for relevance and power!

I've read this post 3 times, and I'm still stunned at the ignorance on display. Absolutely stunned.

I wish that I was. Unfortunately we have too many kids who have been brainwashed by government schools and political correctness.

There's exactly one issue homosexuals have a legitimate complaint about in some states. Even then there are legal work around to protect assets, inheritance, etc. The rest of it is just stirring **** up. If you don't agree with a businesses politics, don't shop there. Its a pretty simple concept.

Yeah, it's not "married" but it's not being lynched, beaten, separate water fountains, hanged....

There may not be separate "gay" water fountains, but gays have been lynched, and beaten to death for being gay.

What takes precedence? If I as a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay person because of religion, why can't I extrapolate it to race? The old testament has plenty of scripture having to do with separation of the races.

I just do not understand why anyone cares this day in age. If a business wants to discriminate let them that business will probably go bankrupt within weeks since most people will not spend there money nor would anyone want to work there. I do not understand why this became such a big deal. Any business that would discriminate against customers is a stupid business and will never be successful. I still do not understand why Indiana would bring this whole law up, was there some business in Indiana just tired of homosexuals always coming in their business and spending money and finally got tired of it and called his state legislature?

The answer to all of this, not just the Indiana law is quite simple. The federal government has been overstepping their bounds for quite some time. They have no reason what so ever to regulate marriage. None. Marriage should be an act between two people.

Now the church, which is an private entity, can choose to either condone and allow within their establishment or they can deny. It is freely their choice. The government cannot. Unfortunately too many people believe this country to be a democracy. It is not. It is a Republic. The key and significant difference is that the government is required to protect the rights of all citizens to a level of equality even if a small or large faction comprising of either a minority or majority chooses to fight against it.

The moment the government put laws into place saying that one group could get married and the other could not, it created a minority and gave that group a legal status and a point of argument.

As far as a business owner... I was one and there is nothing more annoying then having the government come in and tell you what you must do. If baking a cake for a gay couple for their wedding is a violation of the owners first amendment right then how is it the governments position that they must make the cake in order to not be discriminatory. That very position is discriminatory against religious freedom.

Just because someones religious position does not align with the political movement of the day does not mean it does not have validity and deserve protection within a Republic. Allow the market to decide. I personally would not purchase from that cake maker and I believe many others would not.

Our country was founded upon freedom. Not religious freedom or any other specific type. Just Freedom. If were going to create laws and many of which will have errors, then I say let us error on the side of freedom.

(03-31-2015 09:00 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 08:12 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 08:59 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 08:33 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Most states have included some form of civil rights law on their books to include sexual orientation along with race, creed, sex, religion, etc as being free from discrimination.

Indiana politicians passed this bill and the governor signed it into law as a response to the beginning of marriage equality in that state; knowing full well that their state DOES NOT have such an inclusion of sexual orientation as a civil right, and that passing this type of legislation would give bigots, under the guise of religion, the law backed right to discriminate against gays that would be forbidden under similar laws in other states.

If you asked me a few years ago, I'd have told you things like this were something we as a nation began to move past decades ago with the passing of sweeping civil rights laws in the 1960's, that led to the end of white/black entrances, separate drinking fountains and segregated schools. Now we have people trying to turn the clock back on America in a last gasp for relevance and power!

I've read this post 3 times, and I'm still stunned at the ignorance on display. Absolutely stunned.

I wish that I was. Unfortunately we have too many kids who have been brainwashed by government schools and political correctness.

There's exactly one issue homosexuals have a legitimate complaint about in some states. Even then there are legal work around to protect assets, inheritance, etc. The rest of it is just stirring **** up. If you don't agree with a businesses politics, don't shop there. Its a pretty simple concept.

Yeah, it's not "married" but it's not being lynched, beaten, separate water fountains, hanged....

There may not be separate "gay" water fountains, but gays have been lynched, and beaten to death for being gay.

What takes precedence? If I as a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay person because of religion, why can't I extrapolate it to race? The old testament has plenty of scripture having to do with separation of the races.

Wrong. You're talking about one of 2 things. Either.....

1) the natural dispersion of the races / cultures / language after the flood / tower of Babel or...
2) "Mixed race marriage" being wrong in the sight of God. To simplify this as only a race issue is really missing the point. It wasn't so much to do with race as it was teachings regarding mixed religions in marriage. The simple fact is that people were segregated naturally into different groups based on religious and cultural similarities, not at all different than what we see today in almost every nation. This would be akin to modern day Christian Caucasian marrying someone from the Middle East. It's HIGHLY likely that the Middle Easterner is a Muslim. The scriptures taught against being "unequally yoked" to a non-believer, nothing more.

Ironically, the USA is easily the most integrated country on the planet today.

You're really reaching here... Your reference to scripture is NOT the same thing as gov't mandated segregation.

The flip side of that is there is plenty of scripture which clearly condemns homosexuality.

(03-31-2015 09:47 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The answer to all of this, not just the Indiana law is quite simple. The federal government has been overstepping their bounds for quite some time. They have no reason what so ever to regulate marriage. None. Marriage should be an act between two people.

Now the church, which is an private entity, can choose to either condone and allow within their establishment or they can deny. It is freely their choice. The government cannot. Unfortunately too many people believe this country to be a democracy. It is not. It is a Republic. The key and significant difference is that the government is required to protect the rights of all citizens to a level of equality even if a small or large faction comprising of either a minority or majority chooses to fight against it.

The moment the government put laws into place saying that one group could get married and the other could not, it created a minority and gave that group a legal status and a point of argument.

As far as a business owner... I was one and there is nothing more annoying then having the government come in and tell you what you must do. If baking a cake for a gay couple for their wedding is a violation of the owners first amendment right then how is it the governments position that they must make the cake in order to not be discriminatory. That very position is discriminatory against religious freedom.

Just because someones religious position does not align with the political movement of the day does not mean it does not have validity and deserve protection within a Republic. Allow the market to decide. I personally would not purchase from that cake maker and I believe many others would not.

Our country was founded upon freedom. Not religious freedom or any other specific type. Just Freedom. If were going to create laws and many of which will have errors, then I say let us error on the side of freedom.

When it comes to this issue... your opinion is very close to being in line with mine. Whether you're a Christian business owner or gay couple... the gov't needs to get out of it altogether. Period. End of story.

If a gay couple wants to get married a church shouldn't be forced to marry them but they should be allowed to be "legally married in the eyes of the government."

If a gay couple wants a cake, a business owner shouldn't be forced to make them one. There are plenty of other bakers that would be more than happy to bake a cake for them but you can't infringe on somebody's religious beliefs.

(03-31-2015 10:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:47 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The answer to all of this, not just the Indiana law is quite simple. The federal government has been overstepping their bounds for quite some time. They have no reason what so ever to regulate marriage. None. Marriage should be an act between two people.

Now the church, which is an private entity, can choose to either condone and allow within their establishment or they can deny. It is freely their choice. The government cannot. Unfortunately too many people believe this country to be a democracy. It is not. It is a Republic. The key and significant difference is that the government is required to protect the rights of all citizens to a level of equality even if a small or large faction comprising of either a minority or majority chooses to fight against it.

The moment the government put laws into place saying that one group could get married and the other could not, it created a minority and gave that group a legal status and a point of argument.

As far as a business owner... I was one and there is nothing more annoying then having the government come in and tell you what you must do. If baking a cake for a gay couple for their wedding is a violation of the owners first amendment right then how is it the governments position that they must make the cake in order to not be discriminatory. That very position is discriminatory against religious freedom.

Just because someones religious position does not align with the political movement of the day does not mean it does not have validity and deserve protection within a Republic. Allow the market to decide. I personally would not purchase from that cake maker and I believe many others would not.

Our country was founded upon freedom. Not religious freedom or any other specific type. Just Freedom. If were going to create laws and many of which will have errors, then I say let us error on the side of freedom.

When it comes to this issue... your opinion is very close to being in line with mine. Whether you're a Christian business owner or gay couple... the gov't needs to get out of it altogether. Period. End of story.

If a gay couple wants to get married a church shouldn't be forced to marry them but they should be allowed to be "legally married in the eyes of the government."

If a gay couple wants a cake, a business owner shouldn't be forced to make them one. There are plenty of other bakers that would be more than happy to bake a cake for them but you can't infringe on somebody's religious beliefs.

What you are missing is that the gov't funds the roads, courts, safety workers etc. who protect the businesses. Since the US gov't has a responsibility to ensure all citizens have equal rights and the businesses could not function without the protections funded by the gov't, businesses cannot discriminate, this is what the civil rights act was built on.

Finally, people who want to use the free market (which I generally support) as this cure all fail to recognize that humans are fallible. This is why we set up the checks and balances to reduce fallibility in the officials we elect to govern our republic. Free market cure all's is a lazy political position that is all too typical in today's GOP (I am an independent btw). Similar to giving everyone easy access to a gun to solve gun violence.

Business can't function without government? That's rich.

(03-31-2015 11:15 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:47 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The answer to all of this, not just the Indiana law is quite simple. The federal government has been overstepping their bounds for quite some time. They have no reason what so ever to regulate marriage. None. Marriage should be an act between two people.

Now the church, which is an private entity, can choose to either condone and allow within their establishment or they can deny. It is freely their choice. The government cannot. Unfortunately too many people believe this country to be a democracy. It is not. It is a Republic. The key and significant difference is that the government is required to protect the rights of all citizens to a level of equality even if a small or large faction comprising of either a minority or majority chooses to fight against it.

The moment the government put laws into place saying that one group could get married and the other could not, it created a minority and gave that group a legal status and a point of argument.

As far as a business owner... I was one and there is nothing more annoying then having the government come in and tell you what you must do. If baking a cake for a gay couple for their wedding is a violation of the owners first amendment right then how is it the governments position that they must make the cake in order to not be discriminatory. That very position is discriminatory against religious freedom.

Just because someones religious position does not align with the political movement of the day does not mean it does not have validity and deserve protection within a Republic. Allow the market to decide. I personally would not purchase from that cake maker and I believe many others would not.

Our country was founded upon freedom. Not religious freedom or any other specific type. Just Freedom. If were going to create laws and many of which will have errors, then I say let us error on the side of freedom.

When it comes to this issue... your opinion is very close to being in line with mine. Whether you're a Christian business owner or gay couple... the gov't needs to get out of it altogether. Period. End of story.

If a gay couple wants to get married a church shouldn't be forced to marry them but they should be allowed to be "legally married in the eyes of the government."

If a gay couple wants a cake, a business owner shouldn't be forced to make them one. There are plenty of other bakers that would be more than happy to bake a cake for them but you can't infringe on somebody's religious beliefs.

What you are missing is that the gov't funds the roads, courts, safety workers etc. who protect the businesses. Since the US gov't has a responsibility to ensure all citizens have equal rights and the businesses could not function without the protections funded by the gov't, businesses cannot discriminate, this is what the civil rights act was built on.

Finally, people who want to use the free market (which I generally support) as this cure all fail to recognize that humans are fallible. This is why we set up the checks and balances to reduce fallibility in the officials we elect to govern our republic. Free market cure all's is a lazy political position that is all too typical in today's GOP (I am an independent btw). Similar to giving everyone easy access to a gun to solve gun violence.

I couldnt disagree more. To say that since a government supplies services, it is allowed to regulate all aspect relating would be equally true to state that since we now provide healthcare that we can regulate what people eat.
Furthermore I look at business as nothing more then an extension of someones personal liberties. Since roads, electric, police coverage and many other services also extend to my home, by your line of reasoning government has a right to tell me I cannot discriminate within my home. The founding fathers were actually very clear that the role of government wasnt to interfere within these types of situations. Federalist #13 I believe talked explicitly to the issues that would arise if government gives into factions.
Also when you speak of the "government" you are acting like they are a third party when they are not. They are a representation of us. Providing those services is a neutral position. It is required of them constitutionally to do so... that part is clear. Whereas regulating marriage isnt so clearly defined as a constitutional role.

Being gay and wanting a cake cannot overrule a business owners personal religious convictions. For the government to step in would require them to over rule one persons rights for another persons sexual orientation. The constitution is clear about religious rights whereas it has no mention of assuring someones sexual orientation. That are has been defined by case law.
Since there are many businesses that would give the gay couple a cake, they are still being provided a service. If the market decides to not support the person who refused, then so be it. That is a neutral punishment that isnt supported by a government that is required to defend the rights of that business owner.

In short laymens terms... the gay people may want a cake but they have no damn right to walk into anybodies business and tell them how they have to run it. Just like they have no right to walk into a church and demand to be married by them. Both are PRIVATE entities that use federally funded infrastructure. All have rights to use infrastructure without strings.

(03-31-2015 10:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:47 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The answer to all of this, not just the Indiana law is quite simple. The federal government has been overstepping their bounds for quite some time. They have no reason what so ever to regulate marriage. None. Marriage should be an act between two people.

Now the church, which is an private entity, can choose to either condone and allow within their establishment or they can deny. It is freely their choice. The government cannot. Unfortunately too many people believe this country to be a democracy. It is not. It is a Republic. The key and significant difference is that the government is required to protect the rights of all citizens to a level of equality even if a small or large faction comprising of either a minority or majority chooses to fight against it.

The moment the government put laws into place saying that one group could get married and the other could not, it created a minority and gave that group a legal status and a point of argument.

As far as a business owner... I was one and there is nothing more annoying then having the government come in and tell you what you must do. If baking a cake for a gay couple for their wedding is a violation of the owners first amendment right then how is it the governments position that they must make the cake in order to not be discriminatory. That very position is discriminatory against religious freedom.

Just because someones religious position does not align with the political movement of the day does not mean it does not have validity and deserve protection within a Republic. Allow the market to decide. I personally would not purchase from that cake maker and I believe many others would not.

Our country was founded upon freedom. Not religious freedom or any other specific type. Just Freedom. If were going to create laws and many of which will have errors, then I say let us error on the side of freedom.

When it comes to this issue... your opinion is very close to being in line with mine. Whether you're a Christian business owner or gay couple... the gov't needs to get out of it altogether. Period. End of story.

If a gay couple wants to get married a church shouldn't be forced to marry them but they should be allowed to be "legally married in the eyes of the government."

If a gay couple wants a cake, a business owner shouldn't be forced to make them one. There are plenty of other bakers that would be more than happy to bake a cake for them but you can't infringe on somebody's religious beliefs.

I agree. My only difference would be the marriage is a religious institution. That if we need a legal definition for a gay union so that a gay couple can be legally recognized as a single entity in the eyes of the government, I'm okay with that but that is not a marriage. Actually I think by having a legal definition for gay couples would solve other issues like access to see partners in hospitals, tax issues, estate issues, and in some cases insurance issues not currently defined.

While it is only a word to some people - marriage has special meaning to all Christians. Quite simply the definition of true marriage goes beyond a legal union and speaks directly to the organization of the Church.

And of course everything in politics is about compromise. For me the compromise on this issue is to have a legal entity definition, but also respect the Christian definition of marriage.

Wavefan12, I ask you this. All aspects of life and business in this country is impacted by a government run or paid for service. At what point does a person have freedom? At what point does a person allowed to operate as they wish? Where is that defined line?

The problem that you open up is that if government is allowed to regulate based upon the fact that they provide some type of service then you have essentially become a state run nation, which is de facto communism. True free choice has only one recourse and it is the open market. Government regulation in matters like this require the government to prioritize one persons wants over another persons rights.

Each person has a right to live their life as they see fit, but they dont have a right to do it wherever they want. A business owner pays rent and is therefore given rights within the space they now occupy. To come into it and demand that you have rights to live your life on their property is WRONG.

Our countries foundation is freedom and it is very scary thoughts like the ones you posted above that threaten that very foundation. In order for freedom to truly work, it must be given both ways. You can be who you want. You just dont have a right to do it on the property that I pay for.

Also, to anyone that really wants an education on what this bill in Indiana truly means, this is an exceptional write up.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your...-answered/

(03-31-2015 11:15 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:47 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The answer to all of this, not just the Indiana law is quite simple. The federal government has been overstepping their bounds for quite some time. They have no reason what so ever to regulate marriage. None. Marriage should be an act between two people.

Now the church, which is an private entity, can choose to either condone and allow within their establishment or they can deny. It is freely their choice. The government cannot. Unfortunately too many people believe this country to be a democracy. It is not. It is a Republic. The key and significant difference is that the government is required to protect the rights of all citizens to a level of equality even if a small or large faction comprising of either a minority or majority chooses to fight against it.

The moment the government put laws into place saying that one group could get married and the other could not, it created a minority and gave that group a legal status and a point of argument.

As far as a business owner... I was one and there is nothing more annoying then having the government come in and tell you what you must do. If baking a cake for a gay couple for their wedding is a violation of the owners first amendment right then how is it the governments position that they must make the cake in order to not be discriminatory. That very position is discriminatory against religious freedom.

Just because someones religious position does not align with the political movement of the day does not mean it does not have validity and deserve protection within a Republic. Allow the market to decide. I personally would not purchase from that cake maker and I believe many others would not.

Our country was founded upon freedom. Not religious freedom or any other specific type. Just Freedom. If were going to create laws and many of which will have errors, then I say let us error on the side of freedom.

When it comes to this issue... your opinion is very close to being in line with mine. Whether you're a Christian business owner or gay couple... the gov't needs to get out of it altogether. Period. End of story.

If a gay couple wants to get married a church shouldn't be forced to marry them but they should be allowed to be "legally married in the eyes of the government."

If a gay couple wants a cake, a business owner shouldn't be forced to make them one. There are plenty of other bakers that would be more than happy to bake a cake for them but you can't infringe on somebody's religious beliefs.

What you are missing is that the gov't funds the roads, courts, safety workers etc. who protect the businesses. Since the US gov't has a responsibility to ensure all citizens have equal rights and the businesses could not function without the protections funded by the gov't, businesses cannot discriminate, this is what the civil rights act was built on.

Finally, people who want to use the free market (which I generally support) as this cure all fail to recognize that humans are fallible. This is why we set up the checks and balances to reduce fallibility in the officials we elect to govern our republic. Free market cure all's is a lazy political position that is all too typical in today's GOP (I am an independent btw). Similar to giving everyone easy access to a gun to solve gun violence.

So I guess your are with Obama and Warren "You didn't build that". I hate to tell you but the business owner pays for those services via taxation and would be just fine without the government mandating who he must serve.

If the business owners religious belief that homosexuallity is wrong, then why should the government law mandate that the business owner participate? Easy answer is the government shouldn't. You are trampling on the business owners first amendment rights. I guess in today's politics, prioritizing who wins and who loses rights based on political correctness should be expected.

Bad business but perfectly legal.

(03-31-2015 12:07 PM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 10:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 09:47 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  The answer to all of this, not just the Indiana law is quite simple. The federal government has been overstepping their bounds for quite some time. They have no reason what so ever to regulate marriage. None. Marriage should be an act between two people.

Now the church, which is an private entity, can choose to either condone and allow within their establishment or they can deny. It is freely their choice. The government cannot. Unfortunately too many people believe this country to be a democracy. It is not. It is a Republic. The key and significant difference is that the government is required to protect the rights of all citizens to a level of equality even if a small or large faction comprising of either a minority or majority chooses to fight against it.

The moment the government put laws into place saying that one group could get married and the other could not, it created a minority and gave that group a legal status and a point of argument.

As far as a business owner... I was one and there is nothing more annoying then having the government come in and tell you what you must do. If baking a cake for a gay couple for their wedding is a violation of the owners first amendment right then how is it the governments position that they must make the cake in order to not be discriminatory. That very position is discriminatory against religious freedom.

Just because someones religious position does not align with the political movement of the day does not mean it does not have validity and deserve protection within a Republic. Allow the market to decide. I personally would not purchase from that cake maker and I believe many others would not.

Our country was founded upon freedom. Not religious freedom or any other specific type. Just Freedom. If were going to create laws and many of which will have errors, then I say let us error on the side of freedom.

When it comes to this issue... your opinion is very close to being in line with mine. Whether you're a Christian business owner or gay couple... the gov't needs to get out of it altogether. Period. End of story.

If a gay couple wants to get married a church shouldn't be forced to marry them but they should be allowed to be "legally married in the eyes of the government."

If a gay couple wants a cake, a business owner shouldn't be forced to make them one. There are plenty of other bakers that would be more than happy to bake a cake for them but you can't infringe on somebody's religious beliefs.

I agree. My only difference would be the marriage is a religious institution. That if we need a legal definition for a gay union so that a gay couple can be legally recognized as a single entity in the eyes of the government, I'm okay with that but that is not a marriage. Actually I think by having a legal definition for gay couples would solve other issues like access to see partners in hospitals, tax issues, estate issues, and in some cases insurance issues not currently defined.

While it is only a word to some people - marriage has special meaning to all Christians. Quite simply the definition of true marriage goes beyond a legal union and speaks directly to the organization of the Church.

And of course everything in politics is about compromise. For me the compromise on this issue is to have a legal entity definition, but also respect the Christian definition of marriage.

Marriage has been around far before monotheism and was widely believe in by the celts and norse who didnt believe in a christian god. It even has deep eastern religion history.

So I would say that the government just allows all people to define their beneficiary and then a church can call it whatever it wants. The title should be the same for all citizens since we are one nation.

The Governor has just asked the State Legislature to fix the bill or create some anti-discrimination language bill for Indiana... so that the law as was originally intended, Federally, won't be corrupted and used for discrimination locally, while saying he doesn't believe in discrimination on base of color or whom a person loves.