« Scattershots – 25mar15 (updated 26mar15) | Main | Sandbox - 30mar15 »

30 March 2015


George Boardman

Taking advantage of his new-found freedom, the co-owner of an Indiana pizza parlor announced he will not cater gay weddings.

Pizza? At a wedding? Of course, this is Indiana.


Posted by: George Boardman | 02 April 2015 at 09:11 AM

They did say however that if a gay couple walked in and ordered a pie that they, of course, would gave been served!


Posted by: Jon | 01 April 2015 at 09:13 PM

Hi jeffy.......!

Patricia Smith

Well, one positive outcome from the Indiana fallout: The Church of Cannabis has been established in Indiana where marijuana is currently illegal for medical or recreational use. The church may skirt the law under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which limits the government from intervening with a person's exercise of religion.

I guess every cloud does have a silver lining!

PS Bessee, so glad to hear that you've become enlightened and have renounced SAM for NORML (at least one day of the year).

Todd Juvinall

So ethics and morality are truly situational then Patricia?

George Rebane

GeorgeB 911am - "... the co-owner of an Indiana pizza parlor announced he will not cater gay weddings."

A closer examination of this quote reveals that what really happened was that the pizza lady was asked by a reporter the pointed question of whether she would cater a gay wedding. She responded that she would not, but would serve pizza to any gay person visiting her establishment. This exchange was the sum and substance of what a group of lamestream reporters were attempting to dredge up by going from retail store to retail store fishing for some response that fit their template of what a typical hayseed Hoosier felt about gays. Your wordsmithing their achievement was exactly their desired result. A response to a reporter's planted question became a gratuitous "announcement".

Russ Steele

Over $255,000 Raised for Christian Pizzeria After Threats Force Owners into Hiding


This 7:30AM this morning it was $100,000. At 2PM it was $200,000 and at 3:45 it is $255,000 and counting. There is growing support for the Pizza Man and his family.

Todd Juvinall

If the thugs want a fight I guess the best way to fight without violence is to beat them economically.

Patricia Smith

Todd, weren't you the one who told me to lighten up? Try your own advise. My comments about the Cannabis Church were truly tongue-in-cheek.

Todd Juvinall

If so use something like a LOL then. T and C is hard to know in print.

Don Bessee

Pattie when you are out there throwing around terms like American Taliban, thinking you were being tongue in cheek does not immediately come to mind as your intent.

George Boardman

It didn't take long for the Republican leaders of Indiana to capitulate. They may want to pander to social conservatives, but when Wall Street jerks the chain, they always respond like the good lapdogs they are.

Todd Juvinall

Hey at least we get three squares and a warm lap.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: George Boardman | 03 April 2015 at 07:11 AM

I really think this whole episode illustrates just how out of touch with American culture the Republican party is on certain issues and why in many places younger voters are leaving the party to adopt the equivalent of a 'decline to state' stance (albeit many for an even more strident brand of libertarianism)..

Really, what did Indiana and Arkansas expect to happen? The laws they passed were not mirrors of past religious freedom laws which targeted government activity--these laws targeted private activity--and the private sector responded in kind, stating clearly that they won't tolerate intolerance as a legal standard.

Look at the example of Arkansas, who has put millions of dollars into a statewide economic development strategy to attract Tech, Talent and leverage Territorial Assets as the underpinning of their next economy. The big story here is that you cannot attract the "Three T's" without the fourth "T" that has emerged, tolerance.

For those of you that will state that corporate America is bullying Indiana and Arkansas into changing their laws, I would point out that the private sector is exercising the very choice you embrace. As private entities the NCAA, APPLE, dozens of sponsors of events in Indiana and companies like Angie's List looking to stay and grow their business there, have a perfect right to vote with their feet, and at the end of the day their vote is overpowering the vote of a narrow band of social conservatives who fail to see that he ground has changed under them.

Todd Juvinall

Sorry Frisch you are just plain wrong as usual. Polls show Americans by a strong majority say a person or business should be able to have a religious exemption to serving someone or something their religion is opposed too.,

Here is a good example of Americans standing up against these LGBT fascists in Indiana regarding the Memories Pizza Place. You can see the fascists Channel 57 info broad here and then after you are outraged at her donate. It is up to almost $600,000 for these good Americana types. Frisch is in LaLa land if he thinks real Americans are going secular.


It is now been shown that the LGBT fascists are only a few in n8umber but have mastered the multiplication of numbers by phony internet and Twitter algorithms. The backlash for their overreach is coming.


Thank you, Steven Frisch, for a classic Bandwagon appeal. "We must not tolerate the intolerant" and encourage others to not tolerate the intolerant by encouraging companies to flee lest they be hit by the chunks that have hit the fan.

If that's a preview of Democratic Party activism for the next election cycle, this isn't going to be pretty. I personally can't stand Carly Fiorina, but she pegged this one correctly:"“I think this is a ginned-up controversy by people who play identity politics that has divided the nation in a way that is really unhelpful".

Also from today's WSJ: CEOs like Apple Inc.’s Tim Cook, who publicly objected to the Indiana law, have engaged in “a level of hypocrisy here that really is unfortunate... When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia... But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

There is a plethora of bakers who will bake and decorate any wedding cake that is desired... there's no need to use the power of the state to ruin bakers who really don't want to put two grooms or two brides up top.

George Rebane

I draw your kind attention to the 3apr15 update to this post in which I have responded to calls for defining 'religion' in the context of the current debate.


"If that's a preview of Democratic Party activism for the next election cycle, this isn't going to be pretty.'

It won't be in any case. While the Republicans certainly have their problems, the pro-immigration party and business leaders vs. the mostly anti-immigration base fer instance, the Democrats seem to need to define themselves as anti-Republicans. Since the US political Left appears to be a coalition party made up of a bunch of special interest groups, without a bad guy you have nothing to accrete around. A ginned up controversy works as well as something that matters. The War on Womyn is the gift that keeps on giving.

Once the Republicans are gone (or have evolved into something completely unlike the modern day party), largely due to demographic pressures, then the Democrats can have their civil war. Hopefully it won't look like Yugoslavia, but that would be my best guess. Perhaps the ongoing rush in technology will break the Wheel of Fortune.


Ok, lefties, remind us in exactly which states the people have approved gay marriage at the ballot box?

Logically, then, there will be an even larger majority opposed to the strong-arming of believers to accommodate the LGBT crowd and the enablers.

The only way this could have happened is through the social engineering of our corrupt left wing "legal" system. Or do libs not know that?

As for drive by's thoughts, when the donks get their way in all things, it won't look like Yugoslavia but the Third Reich. L

Paul Emery

Oh Righties remind me why the government is in the business of sanctifying marriage anyway?

Paul Emery

You are attempting to quantify a definition of religion for what purpose? My religion changes daily and is very personal and does not subscribe to many of your attributes. it is indeed my own inspiration and I feel no need to join in with others to celebrate, drink symbolic blood or engage in group chants or rituals. Religion is to me a personal celebration of consciousness and inspiration.


Posted by: Paul Emery | 03 April 2015 at 11:10 PM

You are attempting to quantify a definition of religion for what purpose? My religion changes daily and is very personal and does not subscribe to many of your attributes. it is indeed my own inspiration and I feel no need to join in with others to celebrate, drink symbolic blood or engage in group chants or rituals. Religion is to me a personal celebration of consciousness and inspiration.

Because you asked for an attempt at definition upthread.

Given the description of your "faith" I believe that you would qualify to not cater a gay wedding were that your inclination.....I mean if "freedom of association" was still a right in the United States.


Oh Righties remind me why the government is in the business of sanctifying marriage anyway?

Ask those who endorse omnipotent and comprehensive government Paul.....most conservatives I know would prefer that government not be involved in private/ personal matters.


....most conservatives I know would prefer that government not be involved in private/ personal matters.

I'm going to retract this statement.

As currently practiced "conservatism" is just as interested in your personal life as proggie/leftists/liberals....just different aspects.

Todd Juvinall

Actually fish I have no interest in what you do in your home or business as long as you are not hurting others.


Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 04 April 2015 at 07:14 AM

There has recently been a fairly vociferous debate here recently surrounding the sale and consumption of marijuana and the degree of punishment associated with an activity that "doesn't hurt others".


There has recently been a fairly vociferous debate here recently surrounding.....

Yuck! I still need an editor.

George Rebane

PaulE 1110pm - As Mr fish points out in his 543am, it was you who asked us directly (in your 1135am on 1apr15) to put down some words that give a coherent definition of what most of us would call a religion.

You apparently did not read my 3apr15 offering very carefully, because your definition of religion does away with the very rich and specific semantics historically connected with the term, and instead vacuums up another batch of liberal 'it means whatever I want it to mean'. That tactic, of course, detracts from the information carrying capacity of our common language, and, as universally applied by you and yours, relegates reasoned discourse about issues to somewhere between very difficult to impossible.

However, in the process you have asserted that you do not have a belief system that endures in time, a considered belief system that is mostly stable (updated parsimoniously), that can be learned by compatriots, and therefore used to reliably predict your social behaviors. All of that is required of members who want to contribute to a stable and workable society.

Despite your protestations, I know you well and long enough to reject such a picture that you paint of yourself.

Patricia Smith

My family was not religious, but I have been a seeker all my life. When I was as young as 5, I would take the bus to Sunday school by myself. Later I went to whatever church my friends attened and have experienced services of many different religions including Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Protestant, and Jewish. Later I tried out Buddahism, New Age & Wicca. What I learned is that all religions have some version of the Golden Rule and I think that sums up what religion SHOULD be all about.

I have soured on the religion of Christiany mainly because they are so vocal at telling us all how we should behave while rarely behaving according to the tenets of their religion themselves. (To be fair, the same can be said of every religion.)

George Rebane

PatriciaS 353pm - thank you Patricia for sharing a bit of your path. Given your last statement, have you equally soured on all the other religions with which you are familiar? If not, why do you reserve the most soured position for Christianity?

In the final analysis, it is a function of religion to unabashedly prescribe correct behavior (see #3 above). Only in recent decades has our decadence IMHO reached a level where 'doing your own thing' should no longer be subject to criticism by others - today we are taught to be 'non-judgmental'.

Happy Easter!


"Oh Righties remind me why the government is in the business of sanctifying marriage anyway?"

Look it up, Paul. "Sanctifying" marriage is precisely what the government *doesn't* do.

Paul Emery

Well corrected Gregory. Let me change that to "licensing marriage"

Patricia Smith

George, I stated why I have soured on Christianity in my post. Some Christians are very vocal at telling others how to live while ignoring the tenets of their faith themeselves. So many like to cherry-pick what is "gospel" while choosing to overlook the major commandments of Christ (loving one another, helping the sick & poor) and instead use the Bible as a rationale to hate and discriminate.

I think Paul Emery stated it best - religion is your personal relationship with the Creator and one doesn't need an intermediary to practice their beliefs. So it's not the religion I have soured on as much as it is the hypercritical practioners.

Same applies to star-spangled patriots who wrap themselves in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but don't embrace everyone's rights - only their own.


Hey look.....not electing to bake gay wedding cakes......now 100% SJW Warrior Outrage Free!



SJW Warrior

Curse the redundancy curse!

Todd Juvinall

Patricia Smith seems to think hypocrisy lies only in a Christian belief system. Wow! Who knew? I guess one can believe in nothing and never be a hypocrite? Paul Emery is her hero? Jeeze, when one has a belief system as he stated he does that can change from day to day I can see why Smith would think that is so great. Never having to make a commitment is very secularly safe isn't it?

George Rebane

PatriciaS 8040pm - You are illustrating why the Left and Right will NEVER have a meeting of the minds. We each use language wholly differently. Your confirming that each individual's unique spiritual belief system should be termed a 'religion' gives us upward of 7 billion religions in the world.

If I attempt to come along with that approach, and still seek a reasonable discussion with you about the recent Indiana legislation, then what term would I use to efficiently differentiate the kind of belief system that is commonly understood and that I defined in the 3apr15 update to this blog post? Do you see the problem?

Your "some Christians" assertion does not make a well-founded point because one can say that 'some xx' for any religion (my definition), and given the retreat of Christianity in the western countries, it is hard to conceive that in recent decades Christians have had much impact on social behavior; in fact, the evidence points to exactly the other direction.

Patricia Smith

George, that is exactly my point. People are deserting Christianity because of the antics of the vocal fringes (many of whom are Republican officials) saying ridiculous things like a woman's body shuts down during a rape making it impossible to get pregnant. Maybe you should demand that your party retreat from the phony baloney "religious" arguments and stick to policy issues. It would benefit the Republicant's (not a misspelling) and Christianity. Religion is supposed to bring peole together rather than divide them.

I might be able to support pro-life choices if they really were concerned with the life of the unborn fetus, but that baby and mother are on their own once the child is born. It is unconscionable to force a woman to have a child she has no way to care for and then remove support for pre-school programs, daycare so the mother can work, food stamps, or health care.

As far as trying to define religion in context for your Indiana law arguments, just say organized religion (rather than the lossley defined religion of people like Paul E and myself).

George Rebane

PatriciaS 1127am - I haven't found that your cited "antics" (voiced by an insignificant minority of Christians) are the important reasons for Christianity's decline. Please see under the Religion and Critical Thinking categories for a fuller discussion of these issues.

And your conception of how a woman is "forced" to have a child is peculiar to collectivist thought - if government doesn't pay for it, then it is considered denied by society. It might surprise you that there are altogether different ways of interpreting government's involvement in such personal affairs as abortion.

Alright, adding 'organized' as a modifier may be effective yet still cumbersome, but then other modifiers are needed for personal or politically mandated belief systems that will still fall under your (and PaulE's) broad definition of religion as anything that anyone believes. Since most of them already exist, why not use them or give them their own unique words?


Posted by: Patricia Smith | 06 April 2015 at 11:27 AM

Religion is supposed to bring peole together rather than divide them.

Funny....that's what the Former Union Editor says about politics!

Todd Juvinall

I think Patricia Smith is a fine example of the current culture. Anything goes, no rules and no morality. I am no prude but goodness, citing one goofy Republican about rape and claiming that is the position of the rest? Arne;'t Liberals always preaching don't judge? Anyway, I bet she and the liberals of her ilk are the same ones that tell us all that those terrorists murdering under Islam are really not representing ALL the Muslims. What do you want to bet?


"Well corrected Gregory. Let me change that to "licensing marriage""
- Paul Emery | 05 April 2015 at 12:55 PM

Let me pull a Paul and answer your question with questions... Generally, relatives closer than 2nd cousins are forbidden marriage by law. Why is that? Were those laws unconstitutional?

Michael R. Kesti

I don't know about constitutional but the idea was to prevent inbreeding. Now that it is acceptable to bear children outside of wedlock it is no longer effective.


So, it's now acceptable to for a man to choose his 1st cousin or sister to be his babymomma?

I'm also reminded of a Tom Lehrer song:
There once was a man named Oedipus Rex,
You may have heard about his odd complex.
His name appears in Freud's Index 'cause he
Loved his Mother!...
Yes he loved his mother like no other
His daughter was his sister
and his son was his brother
One thing on which you can depend is
He sure knew who a boy's best friend is!

I'm not sure how acceptable childbirth out of wedlock is; calling someone a bastard is still considered ugly even if they really are a bastard (to remind the semiliterate...it's a person born of parents not married to each other).

**a weather report... my skylights are covered with snow, 2400' level downstream from Nevada City**

The comments to this entry are closed.