IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.   
   BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov   
      
   On 4/11/2015 5:46 PM, wy wrote:   
   > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 5:11:27 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:   
   >> On 04/11/2015 03:52 PM, wy wrote:   
   >>> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 4:47:51 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>> On 04/11/2015 03:18 PM, wy wrote:   
   >>>>> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:10:41 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 4/11/2015 11:15 AM, milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 7:42:33 AM UTC-7, Steve wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:21:49 -0700 (PDT), milt.shook@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 4:55:50 PM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 04/09/2015 04:12 PM, wy wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:59:11 PM UTC-4, David Hartung   
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/09/2015 11:17 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:41:05 PM UTC-4, David Hartung   
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2015 09:52 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately that exception will mean different things for   
   different   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. For most "mainstream"(which can also be described as   
   apostate)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christians, providing creative services to celebrate things   
   such as same   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sex weddings, divorces and the like would be no problem. For   
   many more   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservative, Bible oriented Christians, to assist in the   
   celebration of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which they believe to be wrong, would be a huge   
   confessional   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          Sounds like they should not go into business then.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not your choice to make.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> If they make the choice, then they agree and promise to   
   following the *civil laws* regarding a public business.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> laws which must conform to the Constitution. In denying a   
   business owner   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> the right to choose their customers, the government violates   
   several   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> parts of the Constitution.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> There's a Constitutional law that says "nor deny to any person   
   within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Which applies to government interaction with the people, not   
   >>>>>>>>>> interactions between people.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Yes it does. Now think about this...   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> If the government protects the baker's religious beliefs and   
   discounts the customer's religious beliefs, how is that "equal protection of   
   the laws"?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   ..and here's the dimwitted Shook once again stupidly claiming   
   >>>>>>>> that the customers religion has any bearing in him/her being denied   
   >>>>>>>> service for being gay.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If the owner brings his religion into it, the customer's religion DOES   
   have a "bearing"on it. If the owner is claiming his religion as a basis for   
   discrimination, he's MADE the customer's religion an issue.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So what is the customers religious right to shop on private property?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Practically all businesses don't own their property, so stop being   
   stupid with that stupid question.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Actually, it is your response that is stupid.   
   >>>   
   >>> Go to any store in your neighborhood, go to a mall, go even to any medium-   
   or large-sized business and ask them if they actually own the title deed to   
   their property on which their business operates.   
   >>   
   >> Means nothing, as the renter, that store is their private property.   
   >   
   > No, it's not.  The property may be private but it belongs to the proprietor   
   or landlord, not the renter, so the store owner can't claim that he's doing   
   business on his own private property.  His arrangement is with someone who   
   deals with the public who    
   himself can't discriminate as to who he rents his space, so therefore the   
   religious wacko's business can't discriminate as well.   
   >   
   > "A landlord is legally free to set whatever conditions he wants for a   
   tenancy as long as they are reasonably related to his business needs and don't   
   violate antidiscrimination laws."   
   >   
   > http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-righ   
   s-book/chapter1-2.html   
   >   
   You are saying you have no 4th amendment rights unless you have a clear   
   title to your property?   
      
   NO... think again a rent,lease or a mortgage is NOT a lack of ownership.   
      
   Otherwise Castro would be telling the USA to close that prison at GITMO.   
      
   They would be telling the USA that we have targeted Muslims to put in   
   GITMO and that's discrimination and Cuba won't stand for discrimination.   
      
   Since that isn't happening then congress and the Federal Government must   
   assume that renting or leasing land is the same as ownership for the   
   designated rental or lease time.   
      
      
   --   
    That's Karma   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)