Violating The Rights Of The Religious By Treating A Wedding Chapel Like A Car Wash
I am an atheist and a strong supporter of gay rights (including the right to marry the one consenting adult of one's choice and get all the benefits that ensue from that), but I am also a civil libertarian who supports religious freedom.
I don't have to believe in god to think that people who do believe in god should not be forced to violate their beliefs to serve customers they are opposed to -- providing they don't run the only hospital in town or some provide some similarly critical service.
Law professor Jonathan Turley lays out the case in Idaho that "could be a critical showdown between anti-discrimination laws and freedom of exercise of religion":
At the heart of the controversy are two Christian ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, who own a Coeur d'Alene wedding chapel. They have been told that they must either perform same-sex weddings or face a $1000 fine. It raises a legitimate claim of the encroachment of state laws into areas of faith -- a question that has been previously raised in less direct ways involving bakeries, photographers and other businesses that has refused for religious reasons to service same-sex marriages....The city has an ordinance passed last year that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of housing, employment and public accommodation. As a for-profit business, the ordinance does not treat the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel any different from a car wash.
Of course, it is different in the character of its work. The controversy however has played out in a variety of different contexts. This is an issue that we previously discussed when Harvard banned men from workout areas to satisfy the demands of Muslim women as well as other accommodations at other universities. Conversely, cities have banned the boy scouts because they exclude gay scout leaders and were thus discriminatory organizations. We have also seen private businesses who have been forced not to discriminate against homosexuals such a bakeries, florists, and photographers. I have previously written on the growing collision of free exercise of religion and anti-discrimination laws. Where does one draw the line where a florist cannot bar a homosexual but a grocery can bar males? The inherent conflicts in these cases leaves us without a single cognizable rule.
That is why this case could be so important. While I have long supported gay rights and same-sex marriage, I am sympathetic with the Knapps. I have great concern over the state telling a religious business to violate the core of its religious values.
...I believe that the couple has a strong argument under the First Amendment as well as Idaho's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Regardless of one's view of the merits, however, this could be a defining moment for constitutional law.
Does the fact that a business earns a profit really decimate their First Amendment right to also refrain from speaking -- to not perform a ceremony that violates their beliefs?
Annie comments at Turley:
This is not a church. This is a for profit corporation. It doesn't matter if they are religious. They will need to become a church in order to be able to legally refuse to marry same sex people. I've never heard of a church (which is tax exempt) compelled to do anything which went against its religious tenets. If the religious baker and photographer can't claim their faith as a means to discriminate, why should these people? I think it's going to end up after the cout battles, an all or nothing doctrine. All bigoted business owners everywhere can discriminate against anyone they please, or none can, OR they can all apply for tax emmett status become ordained ministers and become churches who bake bread, or take photos, or sell shoes, thusly destroying the true meaning and redefining the meaning of a CHURCH.
Why is this an issue? If I was marrying a purple man from mars I just wouldn't involve businesses/family/religions against my union. This isn't Target refusing to sell you Made in China decor for your union.
Why the insistence on forcing anyone to do anything on your wedding?
Ppen at October 22, 2014 8:03 AM
"Oh, did our officiant sign your marriage certificate with the name "Mickey Mouse?" I guess that means you weren't legally married. It's too bad your partner just died. We would have been able to correct that."
Fayd at October 22, 2014 8:49 AM
Thugs forcing others is always wrong, I don't take exception to it being the only hospital in town. Any business should be allowed to refuse service for any reason they are not slaves, so we should not treat them as such.
There may be consequences,boycott/loosing customers and such, but no governmental sanctions.
Joe j at October 22, 2014 9:25 AM
Are hospitals funded with public money?
The government should not be allowed to discriminate. I have no problem with banning public money going to institutions that discriminate (I'm looking at you universities). I don't want a police or fire department that discriminates.
But once you are a private institution that should be the end of it. If you are a baker and don't want to bake a cake for someone you shouldn't be forced to.
And right now in Houston you can see the downside of term limits. Once the mayor got elected for her last term (by law) she went full loopy gay on us. She has banned gendered bathrooms and is now harassing churches that oppose her.
Ben at October 22, 2014 10:05 AM
Amy tune into Canadian news!
http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video?playlistId=1.2065440&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&clipId=472781
wtf at October 22, 2014 10:18 AM
Why the insistence on forcing anyone to do anything on your wedding?
Because they're progressives? what's next? are they going to force the preacher who takes a stipend to officiate at non-church located weddings to perform same-sex marriages?
I'm thinking the answer is "yes". Eventually, a gay couple will show up at a Catholic/Southern Baptist/Mormon church and sue them when they refuse to give them the service they want.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 22, 2014 10:39 AM
There are good arguments on both sides.
On the one hand, people ought to have a right to their beliefs. If the baker doesn't want to provide a cake for a gay wedding, that should be their very good right. The concept of "public accommodation" is at odds with our rights to freedom of association.
But - and here comes the other side - if I have the right to choose who I do business with, then I have the right to choose. No gays. No muslims. No blacks. Whatever groups each business owner dislikes, can be excluded. It that the way we really want to go?
Frankly, I see nothing at all wrong with women-only clubs, or men-only clubs. We have racial clubs as well, not least the Congressional Black Caucus (but never for whites, that would be racist :-/). At the same time, we don't want to unnecessarily splinter society; hence the public accommodation rules. Where is the happy medium?
a_random_guy at October 22, 2014 11:06 AM
> Amy tune into Canadian news!
HurryHurry! Maybe Canadians are giving us savage Americans lessons in how to be kind and sensible and compassionate again! Don't miss out!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 12:07 PM
"Violating The Rights Of The Religious By Treating A Wedding Chapel Like A Car Wash"
Well then the business-owners violated their own rights first because they were running the Hitching Post as a business for years. Ferengi don't have religious freedom rights and have no use for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi
Jim at October 22, 2014 12:08 PM
Of course, that stuff about "you surrender your rights because you aren't a church" is just a dodge. Because the goverment has no problem with forcing churches to go against their principles. Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, etc. You know the drill.
It's the TSA principle at work... In theory you have rights, but if you want to interact with society and not live like a hermit, you must surrender them. How conveeeeenient.
Cousin Dave at October 22, 2014 12:17 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/10/22/violating_the_r.html#comment-5308062">comment from Crid [CridComment at Gmail]Crid, I'm busy -- out whacking strangers on the street with a broom -- or I'd do as you suggest.
Amy Alkon at October 22, 2014 12:33 PM
sorry... Didn't mean to interrupt... I'm pretty sure your surrounding neighbors should be grateful to you for your effort.
lord knows, news from Canada can wait.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 12:36 PM
Yes, because the alternative is worse.
(Remember, forcing an owner who hates group X to serve them means group X will get treated poorly there and get bad service in any case.
I'd rather see him simply boycotted, or even ignored as an irrelevant relic and a jerk.
This is simply never going to be a really major problem worthy of such compulsion and interference as a remedy; history shows us this by the way Jim Crow laws were required to force businesses to treat black people poorly in the South during their era.
You don't need laws to force people to treat customers badly, if they're really itching to do so the moment it's not forbidden.
If even in 1956 businesses in the South needed to be forced to stop taking black people's money as readily or treat them as well, we're not exactly going to see a giant tide of bigoted businesses in 2014 if we stop forcing people to Always Play Nice Or Get Sued.
Businesses are almost entirely about money, in the grand scheme of things; the exceptions are rounding error.)
Sigivald at October 22, 2014 12:44 PM
Driving to work, I was thinking about whether it was rude to mock Canadians in this most poignant moment of suffering.
Then came the recollection of their smugness towards the United States in so many tender moments, as well as mundane times.
And like, whatevs.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 1:20 PM
Via Balko: Point taken.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 2:05 PM
Crud- GO FUCK YOURSELF!
I hope you're next you ignorant prick! Just so you know, that soldier who was killed was in a friends regiment. Do you feel better about yourself now? Just so you know you waste of semen, it was a homegrown attack. If I ever get the chance, I'll be sending them to your door.
wtf at October 22, 2014 5:18 PM
Crud-you're a waste of semen.
Just so you know, the attack was homegrown. If I ever get half a chance you ignorant prick, I'll be sending them to your door. The soldier killed was in a friends platoon. Do you feel better about your teeny tiny dick now that you've mocked him?
I hope Islam shoves a scud up your ass.
wtf at October 22, 2014 5:21 PM
This is the boy who gave his life so you could mock him you son of a bitch. Just to put a face on it.
https://www.facebook.com/CanadianHeroes/photos/a.10150833075979554.512164.190791324553/10153253305839554/?type=1&theater
And just so you know, your own government disagrees with you you backwater motherfucking daddy sucking brainless one step below a jellyfish hick!
You wanted a reaction, you got one. How bout you come out of your fucking hole and say that to a Canadian's face you fucking coward. Or don't you have the fucking balls? Oh, that's right, you don't!
wtf at October 22, 2014 5:28 PM
And just so we're clear, how many people did we lose? How many people have you lost?
Thought so!
wtf at October 22, 2014 5:30 PM
OK, I feel a little bad.
> the attack was homegrown
Well, y'know, Islam is where confused, rootless young American men go when they wanna get violent. POPULAR MEDIA HAVE CONVINCED THEM THAT'S WHAT ISLAM IS ABOUT, so that's where they go. If this nightmare is indeed "homegrown," the United States isn't so distinctively violent after all, right?
After all the mockery, THE YEARS OF MOCKERY, that have been brought to us from other countries as we defended their borders and sustained their socialist fantasies, I don't mind saying so.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 6:06 PM
While your non-apology is marginally appreciated, I still think your mother conceived you with her brother, and you should go sodomize a porcupine.
And yes, the US IS distinctively violent, and distinctively arrogant and meddling. All the gun violence by your own people against your own people in everyday life should be able to convince the smallest amoeba (ahem) of the fact that you muricans need to get your guns under control.
In addition, if your government would learn to mind their own fucking business, we wouldn't be in this mess. This boy died because we just yesterday sent six F18's, two surveillance planes and logistical personnel to fight YOUR war, which YOU started. AGAIN. Answer this, why the fuck should anyone in North America care if all the Middle East blows themselves to hell and back? It's not our fight!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsCVlM1CSPU
wtf at October 22, 2014 6:29 PM
I am saddened that one of my fellows with arms has died in combat.
"This boy died because" he carried a weapon without ammunition. Perhaps he may have been able to kill the aggressor if his weapon was loaded. Also, he was not a boy, he was a soldier and from what I've read today a very good one.
We were soldiers, young and brave.
Dave B at October 22, 2014 6:49 PM
Dave;
I appreciate the sentiment. Thank You. My friend and her family are beside themselves with grief. Also fear, as but for the space of three weeks, it would have been her; she had just finished her tour at the post, which is considered a high honor.
This boy was unarmed because the post is ceremonial, not tactical, and the Cenotaph he was guarding (The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) was not once considered to ever be a target, as it is smack in the middle of many, many more strategically important targets; Parliament and DND, the Governer General's office, and many more are two streets down. It's the hub of the Canadian government. Why the HELL would you attack a grave, when you can take out the whole damn government? The attacker gunned him down on the way, just because he was there. He never even saw it coming.
On a side note, it you watch the clips of the attack, I counted at least 30 separate shots fired at the assailant, some from about twenty feet away. I think they got him!
wtf at October 22, 2014 7:18 PM
> distinctively arrogant and meddling.
Yeah, the United States Navy has been "meddling" in the patrol of your borders for you since I was in grade school. For 2009-2013, your defense spending has been about one percent... Or half the (paltry! token! laughable!) investment the US demands of NATO members for their own military.
Then there's a tragic and loathsome assault on your nation's capital. And you come breathlessly to Amy to breathlessly demand an American's attention. (As you put it, "!")
Well, we've been there.
Hours later, you wanna say mean things to blog commenters, and we're all cool with that. The timbre of commentary from the touk comment brigade has always maintained that there was something golden in your character that was protecting you from the need for violent force. You backhandedly imagine that American losses never had "faces."
But I'm wondering what you'll do now, which is something which Amy's reflections about Islam never describe... Events in the present, or even the future.
…More mumbling that America is the source of your trouble, I'd wager, rather than gratitude for, or participation in, your own defense.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 7:38 PM
> It's not our fight!
Golly! How did I know that would be your tack?
I must be some kind of mind reader!
Or... Canada has chosen to withdraw from the adult responsibilities of civilization --like her Bitchmother Britain-- and let the United States do the spending and the bleeding. You wanna live like a dope-smoking teenager over Dad's garage.
Well, OK, we'll be in touch.
But from now on, go easy on the criticisms, 'K? Truffaut once said the best critique of a film was making a better film. In international affairs, the best critique of American global leadership would be offering some global leadership.
Or at least some participation.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 7:54 PM
We can have this argument all over, again, as we have a few times before. We'll just be deadlocked, again. But I will point out, again, that this attack was in response to our aid for your war.If we really are as ineffective as you say, and so dependent upon your superior firepower, why request our aid? AGAIN?
Have you also taken into account that perhaps, just perhaps, your military is more powerful because we are able to fit our entire population into the State of California? If you take financial contribution and fatalities per capita into account, we've probably contributed more to the war then you have.
What I really want to know however, dearest Crud, is why you seem to suffer from such an inferiority complex. Why is it so important to you that I bow down to your imagined American superiority? At one point you even had the lunacy to suggest I wish I was an American. Why would that thought even occur to you? Why is it so important I agree with you? Is this the political equivalent of small penis syndrome? If you really detest us Canadians, why do you even bother insulting us? Aren't us lowly Canucks beneath your mighty American notice?
Don't presume, Crud, to speak for your fellow muricans. Or me for that matter. I am not stuck in an igloo dependent on dog sled, contrary to what you seem to think, I do have friends in the States, none of whom agree with you. Your own President does not agree with you,the White House does not agree with you, and did you see the Flyers game tonight?
I never "wanna say mean things" to legimate blog commenters, just ignorant bigots like you. And you spell it Toque you crackhead.
wtf at October 22, 2014 8:05 PM
Oh, and in reference to your bitchmother Britain comment, I'm sorry, unless you aren't a born and bred American, our "bitchmother" birthed you too you stupid fuck!
And we proudly honour our motherland, unlike you, who treats Britain like you were the ungrateful dope smoking teenager living in MOMMY'S BASEMENT! See what I did there?
wtf at October 22, 2014 8:11 PM
"It's not our fight!"
It is now! From within! See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfgoJzOCgg
Dave B at October 22, 2014 8:13 PM
It is now, we don't have a choice. But my question is still pertinent. Why would anyone in North America give a shit if all the Middle East blew themselves to hell and back? Why are we involved in any politics over there in the first place? I am speaking pre 9/11, of course. And then there was the bombing of Iraq, which I never understood because 9/11 and the Taliban started in Afghanistan. There was the whole weapons of mass destruction thing, but they were NEVER FOUND!
I am unsure, Dave, of your point at large other than the title of the song, as my mother would have been 13 years old in 1969. I do agree whole heartedly with the points given at 1:52 and 2:34 however.
wtf at October 22, 2014 8:31 PM
If your point is that we have to protect less fortunate nations from tyrants, I will remind you that Canada has a peacekeeping force that is world renowned.
wtf at October 22, 2014 8:36 PM
See link above. The United States has about 200,000 thousand out of 300 million, roughly one for every 1500. Canada has 1500 people serving overseas out of 33 million, about one for for every TWENTY TWO THOUSAND.
"Renown" ain't the coin of the realm.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 22, 2014 8:40 PM
You still have not addressed my questions Crud.
Runnin A-sceered?
And I said financial contribution and fatalities. Not active servicemen, as we are not as gung-ho on the military crap as you are.
Also, ever notice your military attacks, ours protects? And if Renown ain't coin of the realm, neither is condemnation. It ain't American flags people slap on their backpacks!
wtf at October 22, 2014 8:47 PM
"Oh, and in reference to your bitchmother Britain comment, I'm sorry, unless you aren't a born and bred American, our "bitchmother" birthed you too you stupid fuck!"
I can tell from your invectives against Crid, that you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion.
You need to read a bit more history.
The United States was formed out of several independent colonies, not all of which were peopled in the majority by people from what is now termed "Great Britain"
German is probably the largest Anglo ethnicity in the US.
I suspect a number of my English ancestors came here as convicts, before we fought the revolutionary war, (which forced the relocation of the dumping ground for undesirables half way around the world to Australia)
Never have I been less proud to have English ancestors than in the last 20 years.
Their hysterical nitwitted response to everything from guns, to Islamists has made them the laughing stock of most of the world.
Mix in the laughably incompetent NHS, staffed primarily by Pakistani doctors and nurses, and in 20 years, they will be a Banana republic with a climate too shitty to grow bananas.
The only really good reason for the American military to just sit home with their thumbs up their asses, is to watch people like wtf come unglued, when they find out what kind of protection they can get from the Canadian Armed Forces.
Isab at October 22, 2014 11:10 PM
(including the right to marry the one consenting adult of one's choice and get all the benefits that ensue from that)
Why only one? So polygamy or polyandry is not ok, and if not, why not? Before you get upset about my point, bear in mind I'm basically libertarian.
I think:
1) No government or institution should have any fucking business in your personal life unless you allow them to. That includes state sanctioned marriage of any kind. Power of attorney and wills exist for a reason. If their were no laws that recognised married couples as different to roommates none of this argument would exist.
2) There shouldn't be any damn benefits to being married. That should be something you do because you want to,.
3) But your point that private businesses shouldn't be under any obligation to people they don't like is good. See point 1 above, however.
Ltw at October 22, 2014 11:50 PM
Tweet, and tweet.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 12:42 AM
They want it both ways, the protection of a religious institution but the profits of a business. Pick one.
NicoleK at October 23, 2014 12:57 AM
TYPO CITY!
So sorry if anyone was confused.> You still have not addressed
> my questions
You were serious?
> why request our aid? AGAIN?
Because you get all butthurt when we don't:
> your military is more powerful> because we are able to fit our
> entire population into the State
> of California?
First of all, it'd be funny if you'd try.
Secondly, as noted above, in no sense is your nation a proportionate military power. You got nuthin'. You have the most shoreline of any planet on Earth, and you haven't floated a carrier since I was in sixth grade.
> Also, ever notice your military
> attacks, ours protects?
Who have you protected? You don't protect YOURSELVES.
> If you really detest us Canadians,
> why do you even bother insulting us?
Because you talk like ungrateful assholes. You imagine yourselves to be fearsomely "renowned," but are proud that cowards falsely fly your flag.
Listen, I think you're a blog-visitin' child, just trying stuff in sentences... When nobody bothers to correct you, you presume your daydreams are authenticated. But the infantile, daddy-issues mentality of resentment you express is popular (if not predominant) in every slice of Canadian thought and commentary I've bothered to sample. There have perhaps not been enough slices, but here we are.
Terribly sorry this happened in Ottawa... But it's a nasty planet. Apparently you guys can grow up and solve these problems ANY TIME YOU WANT. World civilization would certainly welcome a strong, principled Canada.
I'll not hold my breath.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 3:42 AM
Holy crap! A post about a business that wants to discriminate by hiding behind religion and a lot of the comments are all "Blame Canada!" WTF?
Charles at October 23, 2014 5:14 AM
I'm with you Ltw. The government should get out of the marriage business. There is no compelling state interest in people's relationships. There is a compelling state interest in children. But more and more that has nothing to do with marriage. So the government should focus on it's real interest of children and leave the adults out of it.
Ben at October 23, 2014 7:02 AM
" lot of the comments are all "Blame Canada!" WTF?"
I know, right? If we're going to blame Canada, can we start with Ted Cruz?
Jim at October 23, 2014 9:56 AM
Also, ever notice your military attacks, ours protects?
First off as crid pointed out you dont even technically protect yourselves.
Second, how does a military protect without committing a single attack? Is it even a military if it has no offensive capabilities?
lujlp at October 23, 2014 10:51 AM
> A post about a business that
> wants to discriminate by hiding
> behind religion and a lot of the
> comments are all "Blame Canada!"
> WTF?
Who're you, the topic police?
OK, fair enough.
Quoting the post:
> people who do believe in god should
> not be forced to violate their beliefs
> to serve customers they are opposed to
The first time I saw Amy post something like this --AFTER YEARS OF BITTER, INARTICULATE STONEWALLING for gay marriage-- my jaw dropped. It was instantly apparent she'd had no idea of the forces she was stirring with her rhetoric.
I thought it was an individual thing in Amy's nature, a bit of personal naivete which might be corrected through experience, or might appear as some charming beneficence in another context.
But now Balko's doing it to, and we might have a real problem here.
Guys, That's how civil rights works. It's intrusive and it's coercive: YOU ARE TELLING OTHER PEOPLE HOW TO LIVE, always.
You've already told people to honor the marriages of blacks with whites, or the needs of the handicapped for access, or the needs of the retarded for education, or the enthusiasm of college girls for athletic participation.
Don't pretend for a moment to be pearl-clutchingly embarrassed that someone might have had their liberties foreshortened, or their economic opportunities constrained.
Libertarian principle is not what this is about for you. It NEVER was. You ought to carry the courage to say so out loud, and if you can't, you perhaps shouldn't have been so blithe about "rights" in earlier years.
OK, how's that for on-topic?
Whatcha got, Charles? Show us your tits.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 12:12 PM
Even more rhetoric! ---
> people who do believe in god should
> not be forced to violate their beliefs
…OK, I did that par already…
> providing they don't run the only
> hospital in town or some provide
> some similarly critical service.
This is demented. I seriously get the sense that Amy, and perhaps Balko, thought the civil rights movement began the moment they started paying attention to it. They perhaps read of nothing that came before, and saw no lessons from it.
Why are "critical services" exempt from your intrusion? Some college students study microbiology, others study kitchen crafts... If government is going to punish only doctors with civil rights regulation, and let the pastry chefs work as they please, which industry will attract the brightest minds in the years ahead?
Who's going to draw the line between a "critical service" and a guy who just wants to make money? What kind of person would be attracted to that government office?
This is a ludicrous line of thinking for anyone who pretends to be libertarian.
It's obvious you've just not given this a lot of thought, and are too eager (too late) to disguise hamfisted policy as delicate and girly.
No.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 12:21 PM
"Show us your tits."
>
>
pointy, no?
Charles at October 23, 2014 3:22 PM
That thing where one of them's higher than the other.
I mean, to have read that far and then be mad that someone changed the topic suggests you've been forming an opinion during the exchange...
?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 4:29 PM
Here's a blog post from Reynolds that changed my opinion by 180°, and it only took him two paragraphs.
It's all about state power and individual morality. But even when I was wrong, I knew who was who and what was what... I just can't understand how Balko and Alkon could be feeling any surprise about this, if they'd been thinking about that topic at all.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 5:35 PM
To be clear, the wedding chapel in this case is a business. It is not a church, and was not organized like a religious organization. It has been renting out facilities since 1919 for civil and religious ceremonies to all comers, no matter their faith or lack thereof.
Second, the claim that they were threatened with a sanctions or fines has turned out to be entirely false. No complaints against the business were filed by anyone and no charges were brought.
What you have is a very anti-gay organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which advocates criminal laws against gay people, putting out statements that make it sound as charges were brought. None were and the city said none were contemplated. But, ADF has been arguing that gay marriage violates religious freedom and you can't have both so they manufactured this case. If you read their briefs carefully you find that the whole law suit is based on a "what if" the city prosecuted scenario not on actual charges. This is a PR campaign for the religious rights and it is working.
I will, however, note a lot of sites have exposed them for lying about the case and they have backtracked somewhat including admission that no charges have been filed.
This was a case where the facts were rather ho-hum so ADF spiced them up for the media which reported what ADF claimed and from there it spread.
JPeron at October 23, 2014 7:04 PM
Golly, JPeron, that changes everything for Amy!
…Except that I don't see what it changes at all.
> the Alliance Defending Freedom,
> which advocates criminal laws
> against gay people
Really? That's almost good enough to check. But I'll take your word for it.
> It is not a church, and was
> not organized like a religious
> organization.
Not seeing how this matters.
> DF has been arguing that gay
> marriage violates religious
> freedom
Didn't you just say they weren't a religious organization?
> This is a PR campaign for the
> religious rights and it
> is working.
You guys are awfully eager to pretend this is shell game.
> the facts were rather ho-hum so ADF
> spiced them up for the media which
> reported what ADF claimed and from
> there it spread.
Those media types sure are gullible, right? Especially about the gay stuff! And the religious stuff. And and and...
And Amy's surprised she cannot, through policy punish precisely the right meenpeople for being meen.
Who cares whether someone who doesn't want to serve gays doesn't want to because of a "sincere" religious belief or a mere teenage twitchiness?
Is it really any of your business? Really?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 7:24 PM
"You need to read a bit more history."
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081202160842AAWg64h
Your point is what? That you can split hairs?
So the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against Nigeria?
wtf at October 23, 2014 8:13 PM
"The only really good reason for the American military to just sit home with their thumbs up their asses, is to watch people like wtf come unglued, when they find out what kind of protection they can get from the Canadian Armed Forces."
I only come unglued when faced with ignorant pricks like Crid. After yesterday, his comments were childish to say the least, and hypocritical.
wtf at October 23, 2014 8:15 PM
Hold the phone, i'm getting some popcorn.
Okay, now ya'll carry on.
gooseegg at October 23, 2014 8:38 PM
:Because you get all butthurt when we don't:"
Can you provide a link that isn't over a dozen years old? Jezuz!
I used that exact same argument when I said we shouldn't have to fight in a war you started, and you told me I was full of shit. Convenient no?
"The U.S. is not interested in letting anybody else into the inner sanctums of joint command."
Good, because we aren't interested in having joint command. We just want to be left in peace. And you aren't arrogant? Quoi?
"First of all, it'd be funny if you'd try."
And childish to boot, especially when you know damn well I was speaking in terms of population. Californians alone outnumber the entire population you twit.
Who have you protected? You don't protect YOURSELVES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_military_operations
"You got nuthin"
If it weren't for you, we wouldn't need anything. Thanks to 9/11, we've had to make drastic spending increases to the military. Thanks!
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/09/10/playing-soldiers-the-coming-boom-in-military-spending/
"Because you talk like ungrateful assholes."
Pot, meet kettle!!!
"Listen, I think"
Awww, ain't that nice! Listen you old geezer, I'd give you a penny for your thoughts, but I'd get change back. Actually, continue!
wtf at October 23, 2014 8:44 PM
"Terribly sorry this happened in Ottawa.."
No you aren't, or the words immediately following you first comment would have been
"I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that."
I'll not hold my breath, but you can be sure that when, (you'll notice I did not say if) you are attacked, I will be sure to drop you a line.
wtf at October 23, 2014 8:50 PM
'Second, how does a military protect without committing a single attack? "
And there you have it. You just proved my whole point about violence in America for me.
It is possible, I assure you.
While we will fight if necessary, our definitions of necessary differ vastly, I'm afraid. For instance, we like to stay out of internal conflicts. Like, oh, say, NAM?!?!?
wtf at October 23, 2014 9:01 PM
No you aren't, or the words immediately following you first comment would have been
"I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that."
Yes, socialist nitwits think every utterance that doesn't align with their sensibilities requires an apology.
"So the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against Nigeria?"
Posted by: wtf at October 23, 2014 8:13 PM
I think the messy details of the American revolution and the interesting points be be drawn from the fact that the Boston Tea party occurred in one city of only one of the 13 colonies, is lost on someone who apparently gets their history from Yahoo questions and answers.
Isab at October 23, 2014 9:18 PM
My favorite from the Wiki page is
We could bicker some more, but it's important for you to understand that I believe in you... I sincerely believe that your tone of entitlement, timidity, resentment and incomprehension is a substantive, if incomplete, sample of adult Canadian political character.
Canada.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 23, 2014 9:24 PM
"While we will fight if necessary, our definitions of necessary differ vastly, I'm afraid. For instance, we like to stay out of internal conflicts. Like, oh, say, NAM?!?!?"
Vietnam Nam wasn't an internal conflict, as you call it. It was a proxy war between France and Communist China.
Love to hear your definition of *necessary*. Especially if you have any examples that are not retroactively applied.
Isab at October 24, 2014 12:15 AM
It's important to "Participate"!
…"Periodically"!
To engender "renown"!
I learn things about human nature every time I come to this blog.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 24, 2014 12:52 AM
Leave a comment