he isn't owned? If he is not owned who has the right to force him to do anything?

This is retarded and ignores the definition of atheism. Theism defined "the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism )." The prefix "a" form the neo-clasical means "without".

atheism properly defined means without a belief in god.

so nice to know that freedom doesn't include making distinctions about who you must work for.

reserving the right to refuse service to someone isn't necessarily bigotry. And besides, America is about freedom. The freedom to be an idiot, or the freedom to be intelligent. The freedom to be a bigot or the freedom not to be a bigot. I'm getting sick and tired of people telling me that America is about accepting this or accepting that way of life. That's just bullshit. Freedom isn't everyone holding the same values as you, or holding no values at all. Freedom is about being able to choose your own values. You have the freedom to choose your values and act accordingly, but not the freedom to escape the consequences of your value choices and actions. If you choose to sleep with other men, go right ahead, I couldn't care less, but you don't get to demand that your actions are free of consequences just because you want them to be. You are going to offend people. You are going to make some sick if they see you tongue kissing another dude in public. When they have gay parades with folks wearing assless chaps, people get offended and unnerved about it and guess what? They have every right to be offended. NO BODY IN THE USA HAS A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED! Its not anywhere in the constitution, and neither is forcing someone to work for you when they find you and your beliefs offensive.

Freedom, its a double edge sword. You have the freedom to make stupid choices, but you don't have the freedom to avoid the consequences.

you are right, someone shouldn't be forced to the back of the bus, that is assuming that the private business operating the bus chooses to allow the person on the bus in the first place.

By definition, "Religious Freedon" trumps any man made law in contradiction to the constitution. Sadly, our legislators have virtually no understanding of the Constitution any longer and the vast majority of Judges in all jurisdiction have become activists and are following their teachings received from socialist and communist influenced professors. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3nXvScRa...

Fred

Re: Hiraghm,
You are of course correct and my comment was directed more at the fact that the Constitution is being disregarded more every day. Of course since they are god given rights and the Atheist don't believe in god, one could argue that since they don't believe in god those rights don't exist for them either. Just joking.

Fred

no sense in trying to "discuss" this with you any further. your posts make that clear.
Ciao.

And that's not bio 101... that's "facts of life" for a five-year-old's brain.
Ciao, again. Game over.

no sense in trying to "discuss" this with you any further. your posts make that clear.
Ciao.

With all due respect to you as a person, you have no clue on the subject of Christianity and it is frankly a waste of time to engage in a debate with someone who hates so much. Please alolow me to make one small point, Christians do not oppose or want to subject anyone to anything. we are willing to discuss the concept of God and Christianity with anyone who seeks information. We'll pass it on and then that person can decide what they will. If they decide agains god, then any Christian that I know will wish them "God speed" in the persuit of their life. you however seem to work very hard to impose your view on everyone.

Furthermore, I would be happy to write you a civil union contract that will stand up in any court in the land, this land that is. As "uncommon sense" has tried to tell you, try and get married in any Muslim Mosque anywhere in the world. why is it that these protests are always directed at Christian and their churches in this nation of tolerance. that does not mean that everyone is as tolerant as you want them to be. On the other hand I seldom see tolerance exhibited by militant LGBT's and whatever other acronym you want to be known as. I would wager that you didn't loose your job as you claim because you are gay or whatever else you wish to be, but because of your militant attitude towards everyone.

Having written those words, I again wish you god speed and a happy and successful life. Perhaps you should try a little better and more lighthearted attitude. you can't change who and what you are, but you can keep it out of everyone's face at all times.

Fred

Maph, that is where the whole "discrimination" thing falls apart. It is a relative term, based on your own bias. If a KKK dude walked in there and wanted a cake with a black man hanging from a tree, and the baker refused, would he also be subject to sanctions? There cannot, should not, ever be rules or laws, forcing anyone to do anything, for another, or in specific favor to a certain group. You would just as soon have a painter be forced to paint objectionable pictures every day, objectionable to his morals. What these people probably did (because there is no record of the actual event), was go in together, and tell the baker that THEY wanted a CAKE, and THEY wanted it for THEIR WEDDIING, and rubbed their issue in his face. Rather than one go in and order a wedding cake. The bottom line should be: If they do not agree with what the baker says he will do, go find another baker. The baker is not the government baker, he is not the legal baker., he is not the licensed, sworn to uphold bakery freedom baker, he is a businessman who is offering his services for a set fee. Would he have been just a guilty of immoral activity if he had just said he would do it but wanted a $1,000? The may have gone to a different baker then. The point is, you cannot force a person to do anything they do not willingly decide to do, and still have "freedom". Just like they could not decide to beat up the baker because he would not bake, not damage his shop. It is a simple "will you do this?":"No":"THank you" (exit stage left) equation. No judge, no ruling, no "discrimination". Granted, the baker may be someone who does not approve of homosexuality, but the real issue is "Does the baker have the right to refuse work he does not want to perform?". Nothing else matters here.

so where do you draw the line? are your feelings on where the line is drawn more valid than mine?
do we push things to the point of majority rules? cuz in the 1800s I think you'd be pretty disillusioned with the majority rules. there must be an objective standard and it must not include force for grievances that are not happening via force. YOUR perceived right can only exist separate from force. Meaning: a right is natural. you own yourself. BUT if you tell me I must support your views or lifestyle- that is something different. that is at the point of a gun you are telling me I have to agree with your view or lifestyle. OUTRAGEOUS! Gays, under the law, can hold any job, associate with whomever, live the exact same life as anyone else- legally. Marriage is governmental contract(which I abhor btw) that gives rights to one group over another-which you advocate all day long for as long as its your group-why won't you support my group (for argumentative purposes-I'm completely fine with gay marriage)..

your decision. the bakers made another decision. let's work hard not to limit private citizens and businesses' decisions! new year resolution

so what

I associate with a lot of people that I would never call a friend or comrade. I've done a lot of business with those I call friends.

Please don't try to confuse or conflate.