You may have mistaken me for a progressive. I am not. I only take issue when people of any persuasion use half-truths to make a point. You create the impression that the sky is falling when it's only partly cloudy.

I'm not going to quibble with your statement that you stated a fact but you have to admit that you used those facts to demonstrate how the offended parties were protected for their religious beliefs. They were not. In all cases, they were offered other options, up to, and including, termination. The check-out clerk chose to take another position with the same company. Most of the taxi drivers complied with the directive but many quit driving taxis. I don't think that demonstrates unusual protection. I compare it to the 70's when people complained about working alongside smokers. Many of them were assigned to other departments and others chose to quit.

I also agree with you that banning the Easter Bunny is just plain silly. To suggest that it (the bunny) is a religious symbol just shows how ridiculous our society has become in order to be politically correct.

There are simply too many "protected" groups. I don't know, maybe someday the pendulum will swing toward a more common sense approach. If the bakery won't bake your cake, go to another bakery, or better yet, open your own bakery. If you want to exercise your religious beliefs, go to church/temple/mosque. If you don't want the police to arrest you, don't break the law. If you don't like society in general, stay home!

I do agree that Minneapolis is a fine city.

Yeah, super job. The old timers in GOP leadership are not going to have an unelectable such as Jindahl be their presidential candidate.

I think the misconception is that this is an attack on certain groups of people when in fact it is not. It is about a business owner (not necessarily the employees, but the employers) right to run his/her business as he/she sees fit and that should include a protection of HIS religious and moral beliefs. The bakery incident mentioned was not an attack against gays. I'm sure the baker(s) would have had any no problem providing service to customers who were gay, they were just not comfortable with providing a wedding cake since that ACT, not that person, would have been in their mind a violation of their religious beliefs. I see it not unlike a pharmacy I once worked in. The owner was a devout Christian. He did not believe that the morning after pill was something he would have been comfortable dispensing - obviously it would have been against his religious beliefs. So he never carried it in the store, but we would direct patients to other pharmacies that did. Now a pharmacist working in a chain may not be able to turn down a patient without getting fired, but why should an independent business person be penalized for that? Yes, he may be penalized by some people not using his pharmacy, but again I feel it was his right to do as he saw fit. We did not think ill of or were prejudice toward the person who brought that prescription in the pharmacy and certainly would not have turned them away for any other business they might have had, but it was the act of dispensing that medication that we were against - again, NOT THE PERSON.

I am confused on 2 points in your post....

1. Most major, if not all, religions view homosexuality in a negative light so it is hard to understand why you think this is an assault on Christians.

2. Not sure about the Obama connection as I was very vocal with my gay friends as his website clearly said he did not support gay marriage. In my experience most Christian black pastors and churches are very anti-gay.

If someone doesn't want to provide services to gays can select to do so, if it was me I wouldn't ask them to, but i agree they have to suffer the consequence(s).

This "religious freedom" act is not about religion or freedom. It is meant as a legal way to put down a class of people.

It very well could be the camel's nose under the tent to go back to discrimination of Jews in the same way Hitler did in Germany.

Dear Guest: Have you checked out the latest decision by the Supreme Court ruling against Abercromie & Fitch? the Muslim woman can wear her headscarf, yet christian religious displays are being removed on a continuum. A Texas football is criticized for a prayer before a game but fights back. Your missing my point. There is a concerted effort by progressives, especially secularist, to crush religion because it gets in the way of their agenda and anytime I read about such an attempt whether successful or not I get concerned...and it is not an overreaction.

Look at the state of Hollywood/TV. We have gone from an age of the Legion of Decency to the most vile and perverted acts that can be viewed in prime time by children. We could go on.

I miss the french fries they served at the Minnesota State Fair the best around.

Personal Best Regards:

Dear Guest: You might want to flip back to previous years because the Democratic machine owned Louisiana for a very long time and it was well noted for its graft and corruption blue machine. Jindal is good but miracles take a little longer.

Personal Best Regards:

Louisiana is well known as a state that is well known for its past tolerance of Democrat corruption. Historical fact

Very interesting. The poster is putting the blame on a previous administration and says that Jindal is doing the best he can but miracles take longer.

What is interesting is that posters blaming the Bush administration for it's many errors that have carried into the Obama administration always bring catcalls from conservatives. :popcorn:

A poster is upset over a Muslim woman being allowed to wear her head covering. Is it only the fact it is a Muslim tradition but how about other religious garb? Is he also upset about Sikh men wearing turbans or certain Jewish men wearing the large black hats and their hair in braids? These people are following THEIR religion.

Religious Freedom.

Just one mans opinion.

I think you have a valid point to a degree; the "catcalls" that you hear, in my opinion, is the response to the sheer volume and numbers. In 6 years, it seems, anything that is negative was caused by President Bush, including a few articles I read in progressive websites, saying he is responsible for much of the racial tension.

You must admit, that no matter the area from economics to social issues, we are basically to believe that President Bush is to blame for all things negative, and President Obama has saved the world. By the way, President Obama basically said that yesterday.

I know that I react without thought sometimes when I read the anti Bush rants. It is a simple way to blame someone or something for all our ills. I have eaten my words but hearing this used as an excuse just wears on you. It is NOT as black and white as progressives choose to make it at all.

The anti Bush rhetoric surely has some valid points, but nowhere near as valid as those who adjust history simply to blame someone AND emphatically not as simple as it is made.

Just my opinion.

I am a registered Democrat, but I did not vote for Obama, I will not vote for Hillary and if it comes down to Jindahl and Hillary, Jindahl will get my vote.

Dear Guest: I can understand your making the comparison but please re-consider. The Democratic machine has controlled Louisiana since the end of WWII. Just as Baltimore has been a blue city for forty plus years, Detroit, Washington DC Chicago and all have been corrupted by the blue machine

I will not argue the point here but many of the allegations made by progressives against Bush ae myths and these myths have been allowed because the mainstream media won't do their due diligence and moral obligations to be truth tellers but rather use their power to advance their self interested agenda which is a progressive agenda. I wouldn't mind so much be in a free democracy the only way you can stay free is with an independent and fair media to protect first speech rights. The mainstream media are doing there best to strangle fair debate .

Personal Best Regards:

Dear Guest: You may want to reread my post. I was not upset over a woman's headscarf. My point was that the law should be applied fairly. If the Supreme Court felt that a headscarf was not a problem and could be an accommodated in the work place I was for that. However in that same vein I believe the same accommodations ought to apply for Christians but there is a concerted efforts to crush Christianity. Believe it or don't believe it

This is not my first rodeo and I am quite well versed in requests for religious accommodations and the issues surrounding such requests.


Personal Best Regards:

Please elaborate on some of the Christian garb that accomodations are not being allowed. How are they different from the Jewish, Sikh, or Muslim?