Don't blame Sanford, blame Joe Riley. He was the one that traded the clean up of the new aquarium site for the transit system. Before that it was taken care of by SCE&G. People seem to have short memories. So now it belongs to the gov't which it shouldn't.
There is no ignorance at all in my opinion, in fact the ignorance is the people who are against it. My opinion is based on a willingness to accept and be tolerant of other people's beliefs, even ones that I disagree with. I am not in favor of forcing someone to do something that they are morally opposed to, even if I do not have the same moral opposition to it. And there is a tremendous difference between refusing to sell somebody something because of their sexual orientation (or race or whatever) and asking someone to participate in an event. Not selling someone a cake is very different from not making a custom cake. The distinction between the two is clear no matter how much others want to muddy the waters, but it doesn't really matter because the folks who want to push this are blinded by their inability to accept other peoples opinions and move on. And, the clear and obvious logic aside, I go back to the other part of the argument. If you know the person providing the service has a distinct distaste for you, why in the hell would you 1) go to them in the first place and 2) try and force them to provide a service to you? It would be like me going to one of the whack job commenters who disagree with me and asking them to write my biography. Hmmm...another great example, we should force gay writers to write glowing biographies of Fred Phelps.
Looks like we need our lives protected based on the following report. This is clearly an incitement to commit genocide in the name of god as quoted in the bible:
Regular Matt Barber (Associate Dean at Liberty University School of Law and spokesperson for the Liberty Counsel, an anti-LGBT legal outfit) Columnist again calls for the death penalty for homosexuality.
"The Law of God, that says that homosexuals must be put to death, must be enacted against this evil. You say that this is inhumane, that it is cruel, but it is not. What is truly cruel is giving freedom to caretakers and disgusting parents the 'freedom' to force children to watch this sickness manifest before their innocent eyes. Any parent, or adult, who brings children to a sodomite event should be arrested and punished, for those that 'have pleasure in them that do them' 'are worthy of death' (Romans 1:32), as we learn from the sublime words of St. Paul. This is true love, to destroy evil where it stands, to cut it off before it grows like a weed and consumes all of the nurturing love of righteous truth. The state must be slaughter these wicked reprobates or else they will continue to flood the world with their gloomy darkness." - Theodore Shoebat, writing for his father's Shoebat Foundation.
RELATED: Theodore Shoebat also enjoys compiling YouTube clips of gay men being brutally beaten by Christian mobs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1BVyFjEYn…
Sanford has been working to destroy the Regional Transportation Authorities since he was governor.
No one paid attention as he transferred most DSS and Medicaid transportation to private crony capitalist contractors, leaving the RTAs to wither away.
A lack of public transportation is one of the main criticisms of Charleston. Leave it to Congressman Sanford to finally introduce a bill and of course have it disproportionally hurt the working poor.
Perhaps you're right, Driver Eight, maybe I should take a break.
But even if I can't convince folks that troll this site it doesn't mean that a logical argument won't convince others that aren't so hard over on it, or spur a reasonable conversation. I wasn't always in favor of gay marriage because I'd never really given it much thought. I read well-conceived arguments in support of it and I was sold. The guy that filed the discrimination claim against Azucar bakery for refusing to make a "God Hates Fags" cake represents a portion of the population that doesn't get the difference, but perhaps could be brought around. After all, it seemed not only like a "turnabout is fair play" idea on paper, but enough to take it to court and lose.
That's a good explanation. In summary:
If you normally sell the product or service, you have to sell it to anyone that wants to buy it.
Ex - If you are a barber that does mohawks, you have to give a mohawk to any customer that asks, no denial.
You do not have to sell non-products or non-services to anyone, as long as you are consistent in not offering that product or service.
Ex - You do mohawks, but never flattops. I want a flattop, and you can deny me since it's not a service you offer to anyone.
In the hypothetical gay wedding catering scenario, if they were asked to make a pizza in the shape of a big cock so the grooms could eat it, they wouldn't have to. Jewish bakers wouldn't have to make a swastika care. Muslim florists wouldn't have to make an arrangement in the likeness of Mohammed. And so on.
Factory, you can explain the difference between the product and the customer until you're blue in the face, and the likes of Native and Nofaith will continue asking that same question over and over.
It's either willful ignorance... or astonishing ignorance.
"The State Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it will hear a lawsuit over a split in the Episcopal Church involving more than $500 million in church real estate."
If taxes had to be paid on that $500 million in real estate, it would certainly help fix a lot of problems in this state. And that's only one denomination. Churches need to be taxed. It's time. Render unto Caesar and all that.
Tell the fools to go protest in NORTH Charleston...LOL
Car repairs are now a "Closely-held" religious belief.
Via the Grand Rapids NBC affiliate:
The owner of a Grandville auto repair shop says he won’t hesitate “to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons.” Brian Klawiter, the owner of Dieseltec on Ottawa Avenue in Grandville, posted the statement to his company’s Facebook page on Tuesday because he says the voices of those who have Christian, conservative values are often overshadowed by those who do not. “I want to have a voice about this,” Klawiter told 24 Hour News 8 Wednesday. “I want to be heard about this. It’s challenging to decide to say I’m on the opposing side of what’s seen as the popular view.” The line that’s drawing the most conversation is the one that addresses “openly gay” individuals. “I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period,” Klawiter wrote. “If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.”
Sounds like a veiled threat that he wants to put a gay owners car together wrong so they will possibly perish in an accident.
Let's ask the Muslim baker to bake a cake that says, "Muhammad is Evil and Only Our Christian God Reigns Supreme - Hallelujah - Praise the Lord God Almighty!" Bet they won't do it. And they would be within their legals rights to do so because they would not bake a cake with that message for anyone requesting the cake, whatever their faith or lack of faith may be. With that said, it's not right for a for-profit business to pick and choose their customers for all kinds of humane reasons but if they do, I want to know where not to spend my hard-earned cash. I wish not to have part of my contributions to a business go toward fighting against my human rights. To do so would be hypocritical. That is why any business that pushes a religious agenda (Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Cracker Barrel, etc.) will never see a penny of mine. And churches are on that list too for similar reasons. Business profits are given to anti-gay rights organizations and politicos (to legislate discrimination) and the same thing happens to part of the money donated to the coffers of churches. My donations to non-profits go to institutions that help EVERYONE and not just the righteous. If you are actively fighting against LGBT HUMAN rights and dignity, then you are off my list, period. And, I will add that any networks that push a religious agenda (A&E and affiliates) with debasing programming are, too, off my list.
If you'll sell your widget to customer A but not the same widget to customer B because, you claim, your religion forbids it, then you're discriminating against customer B. The baker that will make a three-tiered, buttercream-frosted spice cake with piped-on pearling and fleurs-de-lis for me and my wife but not Adam and Steve is discriminating against people, not protecting their religious practices.
If customer A asks for a special widget and you won't sell it to him or customer B or anyone else because of your religious beliefs, then you're exercising the protections intended in the original RFRA. The baker that was asked to make a bible cake with "God Hates Fags" written on it would not have made a "God Hates ____" cake for anyone. No discrimination against a subset of customers.
Native76: no Muslim baker would make an image of Mohammad for anyone, period. Just like a Christian baker probably wouldn't make an image of "Piss Christ" for anyone. Discrimination against customers is the problem, not products.
So who is going to go ask the Muslim bakery to make the cake with a picture of Mohammad on it? Or are you just against Christians abiding by their religion?
Cid95, how about we loosen the requirements for the job that way more people can get the job.
Further, if we do that, then we need to define who is "black". One black parent? One black grandparent? Can you prove that? We'll need better racial documentation.
South Africa had a very detailed system in place pre-1994, are we to emulate that?
Or, maybe we just document quantifiable requirements to do the job and whoever best meets those requirements gets the job?
And are they supposed to establish a quota system of how many blacks are needed? If you can't get that many what do you do then? Draft them?
If you are behind on your child support payments, you should be locked up or your possessions should be taken away. Ask a single mom who has panic attacks in the middle of the night if it is fair that her ex can come and go as he wants while she worries where she will find enough money to feed, cloth and shelter the kids. Do you take your sick kid to the dr when you can't afford the visit or the medicine? She is the one that has to say no. She is the one that has to go to work when she has been up all night with a sick child. She is the one who has a limited job selection because she has to be home during certain hours to take care of the kids. She can't travel for work and get that higher paying job! She is the one who has to run around and look for sales. Scott had FOUR kids! His number one priority should have been to provide for those children. He wasn't there 24/7 taking care of them. Did he deserve to be shot - no. Should he have ran - no. Should he go to jail if he is behind in child support? Absolutely.
"the company has fueled enormous economic growth in the area"
Ah yes, the economic growth argument. It sounds good. Until people realize economic growth means things like more hotels that will price out working class residents, more traffic which will cause more damage to already crumbling roads, the expansion of 526 which will destroy the environment and only make traffic worse, and higher property taxes for those who can still afford to live here. And then everyone gets mad because their taxes are going up to pay for bullshit that they don't want and is not making their lives better.
But the taxes have to go up because the corporations need more handouts to provide more economic growth which will cause more problems for people to bitch about. Meanwhile no one is seeing an increase in their standard of living, the government is as broke as ever, but corporations like Boeing are enjoying record profits. Funny how that works.
Ummm those people actually doing the work are very well paid and the company has fueled enormous economic growth in the area. As a fucked up liberal I would think that you would be happy when the government invests in a business. Oh wait, I forgot, you would only be happy if the government owned all of the businesses. Because that has worked so well whenever it was attempted in the past.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2015,
Charleston City Paper