No, it is not.
Academics and their use of language.
We won’t force you to provide that service. We’ll just mash you with a lawsuit and fines if you refuse.
Actually, the threat of, and/or imposition of a fine is force. Dipwit.
And Jews had to follow anti Jewish laws in nazi Germany. If they didn’t, it was their choice to die in the street.......
I wanted to share my thoughts on Indiana, RFPA, and 'Freedom of Conscience,' and specifically the incident regarding the Pizza Establishment:
'Freedom of Conscience' is the foundation to all freedoms we deem essential in this country. You cannot have 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of assembly' without 'freedom of conscience.'
In the example of the "Memories Pizza' establishment in Indiana, the owner said they would NOT discriminate against ANYONE who wanted to come in and purchase pizza; that is, if someone came in and wanted an immediate item to consume, they would provide it regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Then, a 'theoretical question' was asked, "Would you cater a Gay Wedding?'
At this point the owner is being asked, at some future date, to participate in a 'Rite' or 'Ceremony' they may disagree with, and as such, they have a right, under their freedom of conscience to not participate.
I was asked once by a friend to be a 'Godparent' - I told the friend I did not share their beliefs and said they would be better served by someone who did share their beliefs. This is the same answer I would give if I owned a 'business establishment' and was asked to involve myself in a 'ceremony' I did not believe in.
Freedom of speech means people are going to say things you don't agree with; Freedom of conscience means people are going to BELIEVE and DO THINGs you don't agree with; But you can't have one without the other. If a person can't act on their beliefs, because you disagree with them, then WE have no freedom and no liberty.
In each case above, as long as they don't harm others in what they believe or do, we need to accommodate the speech and beliefs of those we disagree.
In the case of a Business Establishment refusing to participate in a 'Rite' or 'Ceremony,' NO HARM is done to anyone - there are plenty of pizza shops, florists, cake bakers, etc. to accommodate you if they personally don't want to be involved in your ceremony.
In fact I would argue as artisans, 'cake makers', 'florists', and 'others' need greater freedom (than say the guy that does your laundry) with respect to whether they want to participate in a 'ceremony' - I've always wanted those I've contracted out for weddings to 'feel the vibe' and 'spiritually connect' when they are asked to perform a service. Why even approach someone to involve themselves in a ceremony if they don't want to participate?
If however, you believe (as many seem to be suggesting) the State should have the power to compel someone to act against their conscience, and force them to participate in a 'ceremony' they deem 'religious' and don't believe in, then you're setting the cause of Liberty and Freedom back 500 years; when mobs and lawyers were more than willing to haul citizens before magistrates if they dared to defy laws and teachings over 'freedom of conscience'.
When President Palin and Attorney General Cruz execute the laws enacted by the Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn led Congress forcing the Men Seeking Men media to only print stories favorable to Conservatism or "suffer the consequences", I'm sure we won't hear a peep out of Sally Kohn.
So, in countries where people are killed for being gay, or for not being sufficiently Islamic enough ... it’s OK because “it’s following the law”.
Got it.
In other words: If you choose to make a living, you have to follow the laws. If you don't, then die.
“If you want to know, Sally Kohn is also a distinguished Vaid Fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.”
And also, it would seem, a moron.
“Obey the law (no matter how reprehensible the law is) or suffer the consequences.”
Invites direct action from those who love liberty.
Say, Sally Kohn, wasn't slavery "The Law" at one time?
So in other words, according to very liberal “logic,” the government isn’t forcing you to do anything.. But if you don’t do it, you should expect the government to punish you.
Um, in one state (New Mexico, I think) a business owner was cited for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ceremony (I think it was a photographer, which would include being present at the event and honoring it). Thing was, same sex marriage wasn't even recognized by the laws of that state at the time the owner/artist was cited.
I find it whimsical that a lesbian like her seems to think an Indiana law is 'just for conservatives.'
Interpret the law in Indiana courts and let it proceed. If full redress for her ilk isn't sustained, then litigate it higher. But don't rewrite the dictionary, honey (and, yes, I meant to be as offensive as it can be :0) ).
“The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law.”
Nice tautology. What’s at issue is whether the law is Constitutional or just.
Backwards. Private businesses pay for and support the government.
The word force is in law enforcement for a reason, Sally. You mindless twit.
