Equal and Opposite Reactions

30 Mar

It is a law of hard science that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

It is a law of soft science (like social science) that every action has a stronger reaction. Put differently; you push me, I push you back harder. Furthermore, unlike in hard science, it can take some time for the reaction to manifest in any meaningful way.

What happened – and is happening – in Indiana, USA, is a good example of action-(stronger)reaction.

October-18-2011-20-12-49-DoubleFacePalm The situation as I see it is like this. A Christian bakery, citing religious beliefs, declined to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple. The couple sued; the Christian business was eventually ruined. In response, Indiana brought in new legislation designed to make it explicitly legal, in future, to deny service to anyone on religious grounds. Unsurprisingly, this has been met with a storm of protest and rightly so.

Why did this happen?

When I first heard about this, my sympathies were largely with the gay couple. I know what it’s like to face discrimination and it must have hurt, badly, to be told they couldn’t have a cake. At this point, they were morally in the right; they could have gone to another bakery (I’m pretty sure this bakery wasn’t the only one in town), ordered a cake and posted bad reviews of the first bakery online. I admit I have no idea just how large the gay community is in Indiana, but as most decent people – at this point – would have agreed with the couple, the business would probably have taken a hit for it. In short, the free market would have sorted it out.

Instead, they sued and crushed the business.

There’s something you might as well call a ‘law of proportionate response.’ (Put differently, the punishment must fit the crime.)  If you are being picked on by a bully and you shoot him, chances are that you will be viewed as the monster, not him. A gross overreaction twists the situation completely. By bringing in legal hammers and smashing the business into rubble, the couple made themselves the villains. Even people who started out on the opposite side had to face the fact that the couple and their backers had set out to smash all dissent, that they had ruined two people for daring to try to uphold their religious beliefs.

But they discriminated, right?

Consider this, then. Would it be legal or right to force a bakery owned by a black couple to bake a cake for a KKK party – and sue them into the ground if they refused? Would it be legal or right to insist that a Jewish or Muslim butcher sold pork – and sue them if they refused? Or would it be legal to demand ‘morning-after’ pills from a chemist – and sue him if he refused to provide a very quick abortion?

This wasn’t a case of two people in disagreement agreeing to get along. This was a case where the bakers saw themselves as condoning a lifestyle they disliked on religious grounds. Not everyone will see that argument as valid, but they took it seriously. Furthermore, whatever it looked like on the surface, it struck at a very uneasy situation and created a dangerous precedent. Consider this; if you sue to demand an abortion from a doctor who has religious objections to it, you are forcing that doctor to participate in what that doctor considers to be child murder. Can you see, even if you don’t agree with him, why he might take that badly? Or why he might support a law intent on preventing other absurd lawsuits from gaining ground?

The whole lawsuit not only made the gay community look like bullies, it opened up a whole new can of worms. If a bakery can be sued for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple, why can’t a gay bakery be sued for refusing to make a cake for blatant homophobes?

Tell me why not. Tell me why this would be illegal when the first lawsuit was legal.

What happened – the bill being signed – was the far stronger reaction, a push-back against a community that had managed to make itself look like bullies. But yes, the critics are right to worry; this too opens up a can of worms. Religious discrimination is as stupid as any other kind – and really, given the emotions unleashed, do you really think that petty idiots won’t hesitate to crack the whip?

The free market would have sorted this out. Shame it never got a chance.

How?

The gay couple would have gone to another baker and, as people do, spread the word of how they were treated at the first baker. The second baker would become more profitable than the first baker, as many people don’t approve of discrimination even though they don’t like the thought of [whatever is being discriminated against]. Eventually, the first baker would either moderate its stance or lose profits. As businesses are driven by profits, this would eventually prove decisive.

Most importantly, there would be no martyrs on the other side – and no sense that one side had become bullies.

Food for thought, no?

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Equal and Opposite Reactions”

  1. Gary F. York March 30, 2015 at 11:40 pm #

    Well said, Chris! And I expect that the gay couple in question will be plagued with unintended consequences of their act of aggression for the remainder of their lives.

  2. Ira Tabankin March 30, 2015 at 11:55 pm #

    Chris, your analyses is logical which is the problem. The lesbian/gay community doesn’t want to see the first baker earn less, they WANT to crush anyone who disagrees with them. Look at the uproar the new law in Indiana has caused, companies are canceling travel to the state, people are boycotting the state. No one mentions that President Clinton signed a very similar bill into law. Hence all of these people protesting Indiana should protest the USA. The very liberal media pushes their own agenda. They want to make the news versus reporting it. I feel sorry for the gay couple, however if it was me, I would go to the next bakery. One day people will realize there’s no guarantee that life is fair or equal. Why should a business be sued over the owner’s beliefs? If this is taken to the extreme people will be sued for not believing in the “right” God. America has gotten way to PC.

    • Dennis the Menace March 31, 2015 at 12:14 am #

      Are you THE Ira Tabankin whose book “2015 Second American Civil War, Book 5: WAR” I am currently reading?

      If so, I’ve read all your books. You need more editing tho…a lot of stuff gets repeated that you’ve already established, mostly.

      🙂

  3. Dennis the Menace March 31, 2015 at 12:45 am #

    “Consider this; if you sue to demand an abortion from a doctor who has religious objections to it, you are forcing that doctor to participate in what that doctor considers to be child murder. Can you see, even if you don’t agree with him, why he might take that badly?”

    That is just it. They don’t consider that at all. They have this chip on their shoulders that they don’t have to, that’s why.

    There is all kinds of reasons why, but William F. Buckley laid down one of two core reasons that all the others stem from:

    “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley Jr.

    Another core reason is that those who consider that they are oppressed don’t really want just the end of the ‘oppression’ but to impose oppression onto their old oppressors. The Left will never admit to this but that is the real truth of the matter. History shows these cycles over and over again.

    The Left will rue the day they started this. Esp the out of control thuggery of the Obama Administration and the ‘constitutional hardball’ played by the Democrats in general. The Right has had enough of this and when they get power back they will use it to do exactly as you claim happens: Dish it back out with plenty of interest.

    http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/07/constitutional-hardball-revisited.html

    In this case, the right will further erode the filibuster in order to get heir agenda passed, they will use their huge majorities in the state legislatures to do things like award EC votes on a congressional district basis instead of state-wide winner takes all (like Nebraska and Maine currently do) in the states that the Dems can not win the White House w/o all those EC votes no matter what, reverse immigration amnesties and deport thousands of illegals by the truck load back over the border, sick the IRS after all their bogus non-profits, tax the crap out of Hollywood and public sector union employees (“how about an income surtax of 200% of whatever dues they pay their unions? Yeah…sounds good. What? Make it 300%? Ok, if that is what it takes to get your vote, Congressmen…”), enact nationwide Right To Work & Right To Carry laws (apparently libs don’t understand what the word ‘bear’ means in the phrase ‘The right to keep and bear arms…’), and like the Left they will sign away blatantly illegal and unconstitutional executive orders and defy the courts like Obama has done, etc. etc.

    While I personally favor most of those hard ass responses except for perhaps the latter, I can see where it is going tho: The end of the Republic as we know it…and possibly another civil war. And like most civil wars and unlike THE Civil War, this one won’t be about secession so much as it will be about who gains control of the federal government and establishes a dictatorship in the open as the goal for taking that control.

    The solution to step back from this sort of brink for a federal system is to re-adopt a ‘live and let live’ approach. This is how four different ethnic regions in Switzerland have managed not to go the way of Yugoslavia for centuries now.

    Basically, this means that the big government policies that the Federal government now tries to dish out one-size-fits all will all get devolved back to the States. If a State wants universal health care and abortion on demand, let em have at it, I say. If another wants to do what Indiana just did, more power to ’em also. If another wants to get out of Social Security and force grandma to eat cat food, oh well — that’s their gig, not everybody else’s. If States want to do such things collectively that is what interstate compacts constitutionally created for.

    In other words, run a federal nation how it was supposed to run from the get go.

    Cut out the power of the feds and the massive taxpayer dollars that flow to them and people won’t be too upset who controls Washington so much, either. Repealing the 16th Amendment and re-establishing the constitutional requirement that the Feds can only tax incomes only by apportionment would be ideal for achieving this, too.

    I feel this is the only way that will stave off disaster down the road. I also feel that it won’t happen and the Constitutional Hardball Games will become the Constitutional Hunger Games as outlined, instead.

  4. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard March 31, 2015 at 1:01 am #

    A few thoughts.

    As a person who was bullied, I hate bullies and by using the “Power Of The State” against the baker, this couple showed themselves to be bullies.

    Too many Liberals have a narrow black & white view of the world. So if a person is a member of one of the Liberal “victim groups”, then that person’s actions are “always correct because he’s a victim”.

    Too many people have a very narrow view of Religious Freedom. IE it’s something that prevents those “evil” Christians from forcing them to become Christians. Never mind that Religious Freedom in the US and Britain means that the Government can’t suppress one branch of Christianity because the Government prefers another branch of Christianity. These sort of lawsuits are being used to “suppress” any forms of Christianity that doesn’t like gay marriage. It may not be the Government directly doing it but it’s being with the support of the Courts (ie part of the Government).

    I have long believed that these law-suits aren’t because of “feeling oppressed” on the part of the gay couples but because these gays (not meaning all gays) want to force everybody to approve of them.

    Too many Liberals believe that there’s only “one correct way to think” and support such actions (by gays and others) in order to suppress other points of view.

    Finally, I really feel sorry for the majority of gays. From what I’ve heard from people who personally know gays, most gays just want to live their lives in peace *and* don’t go around “picking fights” (which is what these law-suits are). I fear that some day the gays who go around “picking fights” will provoke major backlashes and all gays will suffer. The Liberals who think this Indiana Law is bad may see worse if the major backlashes happen.

  5. lamparty March 31, 2015 at 1:33 am #

    I kind of thought we had that settled in the 60s. https://kdh4.wordpress.com/2007/04/23/the-sit-insgreensboro-nashville-atlanta/

    • Dennis the Menace March 31, 2015 at 8:18 pm #

      Not the same thing. We didn’t fight a civil war and amended the constitution with the equal protection clause for gays.

      This is why many African-Americans get pretty ticked off about the gays being ‘latched on’ to this. In fact, the dirty little secret as to why Prop 8 passed in California was because Obama got the African-American vote out in droves and they mostly voted for Prop 8 while they were there in the ballot booth voting for him as well.

  6. Steven March 31, 2015 at 1:39 am #

    For a start Chris the “free market” is not a real thing that exists but simply a goal for some much like “true communism” was for the Soviets.

    Those people making a cake were not causing the marriage to take place, merely making a cake with some words on it. It would be very easy (and previously has happened) to say that it is against your particular religion to serve people who have the curse of Ham and refuse to serve blacks at all or to continue this on to caste discrimination.

    Segregation of businesses has been in place before in both the Southern US and South Africa, it did not automatically trigger the free market to cover the excluded instead it resulted in a loss of access to goods and services or at best a near or total monopoly which as always results in higher prices and lower quality of products and services.

    Your example of chemists and doctors is concerns me as services are not being provided to large groups of people who need them as a result of these “professionals” being able to choose to embargo their services, from the abortion example you gave to Catholics refusing to sell condoms. In many areas (including Australia where I live) due to rural isolation people do not have alternative options so are unable to access services which wider society says they should have a right to access. Meanwhile these people work in industries who are heavily protected by government regulation but are able to hide behind religion to avoid performing what the job requires. Do you also think a muslim worker in your supermarket should be able to refuse to serve women? Some will try but it will not be protected by the government.

    If bakeries, chemists and doctors do not want to have to perform tasks which they feel steps on the toes of their religiously guided ethics then of course they have a choice in the matter, the choice to find another career where they do not have to inflict their beliefs on others.

    Finally Chris, I hate to get personal but the example is too relevant to ignore, A LOT of people in the past objected to miscegenation. Can you imagine the hurt and anger it would cause you and your partner if you tried to get a birthday cake for your son and were told that your union was wrong and that the business would have no part in condoning it? Or your son being excluded from another activity when he is older? I truly hope this never occurs but please try to put yourself in their shoes and it will be easier to understand why the gay couple in question took the route they chose.

    • chrishanger March 31, 2015 at 10:26 am #

      This isn’t actually the 1950s. My point is that most people would probably have supported the gay couple at the start (I did), which might not be true of anyone who cited the ‘curse of ham’ back before Civil Rights. Furthermore, the legal background in both 50s America and Apartheid South Africa encouraged discrimination. It was not a free market.

      You’re right, I would go ballistic if someone discriminated against my son. BUT … at what point would my retaliation turn ME into the bully? If I get a teacher fired for making racist remarks, most people would agree with me; if I brutally beat that teacher to death, most people would call for me to be locked up.

      This whole problem is a legal and moral headache because the first victims managed to turn themselves into the bullies. In doing so, they have provoked a reaction that will lead to more discrimination and more bullying.

      Chris

      My Site: http://www.chrishanger.net/
      My Blog: https://chrishanger.wordpress.com/
      My Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherGNuttall

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard March 31, 2015 at 3:26 pm #

        For that matter, the “crime” that the baker was “guilty” of wasn’t “didn’t sell to gays”.

        The baker was guilty of “not wanting to create a gay wedding cake”.

        The baker believed that “gay marriage isn’t right” and believed that “making the wedding gay” meant that he was “supporting/taking part in something he believed to immoral”.

        We hear all this talk about religious people “forcing their religion onto others” but nothing about religious people “being forced to partake in something they find immoral”.

        So the message that the Left is sending out is “Religious Freedom For Me But Not For Thee”.

        Does the Left/Liberals really want a country where the Government makes it “illegal to have religious beliefs that the Government does like”?

        For all the talk about “poor little gays”, these gays were “punishing somebody with different religious views than theirs”.

        These law-suits are no different from Muslims forcing non-Muslims to not eat pork.

      • Duncan Cairncross March 31, 2015 at 9:44 pm #

        Hi Chris
        The company did not go bankrupt because they were sued
        The could have paid nominal damages to the couple they “damaged” and that would have been the end of it
        They went bankrupt because they fought the case – and lost
        They went down all guns blazing
        It was a disproportionate penalty – but it was not really for refusing to bake the cake – it was for refusing to apologize and move on
        And it was not the gay couple that applied the penalty it was the “system” that hammered them for fighting it

      • TGreen April 3, 2015 at 4:56 pm #

        Chris?

        It’s worse. There are indications that the customers didn’t just happen to wander into a bakery at random, but specifically sought this one out to provoke the confrontation.

        It appears their mission from the git-go was not “buy a wedding cake”, but “force these shop owners to publicly endorse their lifestyle”.

        That would make them bullies from the moment they walked in the front door of the bakery.

  7. Rodger Owen March 31, 2015 at 1:44 am #

    America is being overtaken by the extremists – or, at the least, it’s their voices which are being heard these days. That is, all we hear are the opinions of the ultra conservatives or the ultra liberals, regardless of the issue. I say that first because the centrist part of the American psyche/public is usually silent. I belong to that centrist group of America, and, will come out of my shell and provide a rather non-emotional, objective viewpoint on this issue. The 1960’s in the US saw the Civil Rights movement, which produced the Civil Rights Act and the 24th Amendment to the Constitution – both in 1964. Basically, they ended lawful discrimination in this country based on race, religion, sex, color, and national origination by the workplace and by facilities that served the public. So, if a company provides a service or product, it must make that product or service available to all without discrimination. That’s the issue. Did the bakery discriminate against a member of the general public? – Yes, it did. It broke the 24th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, it was punished through a lawsuit. Now, the state of Indiana, through its legislative and executive branches, have passed a state law that is also (in my humble, objective opinion), in violation of those two laws. I would be surprised if we don’t see this go to the Federal Courts very soon, if it hasn’t already been filed. Will it reach the Supreme Court? – only if a lower court doesn’t overturn the Indiana law first, making a Supreme Court review unnecessary. I don’t know if my response helps any, Chris, but the US Constitution is the penultimate law of the American land, and it clearly addresses this issue of discrimination based on religion. – I suppose there’s someone out there that can dispute this basic fact someway, somehow, but it would be a twisted argument, probably based on the false assumption that a business owner can choose to serve whoever he/she wants.

  8. Nunya Biznes March 31, 2015 at 1:48 am #

    I love how everyone who is in favor of the right to discriminate based on religious principles states with total conviction that “they don’t care” and “they want to crush” and the like. Not only applying these comments specifically to the gay couple, but to all gays and probably liberals everywhere, in the bargain. Yes indeedy, all gays are evil people bent on the complete destruction of life as we know it. *rolls eyes*

    They can’t possibly be ordinary people who walked into a business and were humiliated by the owners for something that is beyond their control. No, they have to be the enemy, even though the Bible says that people are never the enemies of Christians.

    Now, on the one hand, were it me who experienced this, I would have done as you suggested and just gone to another bakery. Of course, there would be no guarantee that I would have been served at the second bakery, either. And with this law, the likelihood of that happening has just gone up exponentially. I understand how that feels: I was a scraggly looking, long-haired hippy type in the 70s and I went to the garage where I’d accompanied my father all my life to get my first car inspected, but this time I went alone. The owner of the garage came up with all kinds of stupid reasons why my car was not inspectable. It was quite embarrassing. Even though I was able to go to another place and get my car inspected right away with no difficulty, the experience STILL makes me cringe inside. And for what?

    There is no reason for a Christian to treat someone like that for such stupid reasons.

    It would be wonderful if all religious individuals who owned businesses were both familiar with the doctrines of their religions and adhered to them. Since the Bible has a lot to say about the positives of associating with sinners, and nothing at all to say about rejecting their business, we know that is not the case. The fact that I will probably get a lot of flack for saying so is all the proof necessary for my point. (Not that it will do any good, but just to head off a good half of the comments, I am an evangelical Christian who has a degree in theology from a well-respected conservative Christian college in Texas.)

    It would also be wonderful if all religions could agree on what is and what is not against their religion. These days, one would require a checklist to know both which business owners were sensitive to their religious beliefs, and just exactly what of those beliefs one would likely offend with one’s business. It’s not like people post signs announcing that they are likely to be offended by certain things.

    Along those lines, let us not forget that this door swings both ways and a Christian might well find him or herself in a one-horse town with only one business of the type they desperately need, only to find that the owner doesn’t serve Christians because of his religious beliefs.

    Next, let’s not pretend this is about abortion or any of the other issues that have been waved around. All this came about because of marriage equality. It’s like pretending the Civil War was about States Rights and not Slavery.

    A woman doesn’t go to her gynecologist to get an abortion; she goes to an abortion clinic. One would presume with some degree of confidence that no doctor working at an abortion clinic would have religious objections to preforming abortions.

    With that in mind, most of the people who fought for slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws claimed biblical backing for their racist practices. Now, don’t give me the “But the Bible doesn’t support racism” 20-20 hindsight argument, because anyone who has even a passing familiarity with American history knows that ministers across the south were decrying the end of these things because they *claimed* the Bible supported them.

    Which takes me back to my first point, that it would be wonderful if the people who called themselves followers of a religion actually knew and agreed on what that religion says to do in any given situation.

    And let us never forget that it wasn’t all that long ago, in my lifetime, in fact, when gays were imprisoned for something that they cannot change. Gays are still being murdered, and not just in other countries, either. These are some of the best arguments for making people serve gays, and for not making gays serve homophobes. I mean, when was the last time–heck, when was the FIRST time–you heard of a gay killing a straight person because they were straight?

    The long and short of it is that God never promises that the world will accommodate our Christian beliefs. In fact, just the opposite, He promises persecution. If a Christian wants to stand up for his or her beliefs, he or she must be willing to take the consequences. There is a certain subset of the Christian community which swears that nothing bad will ever happen to a Christian who “really” believes the “right” things and “really” acts in the “right” manner, but one only has to notice that there are such things as martyrs to understand the fallacy of that belief.

    If you want to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds, prepare to take the consequences.

  9. Daniel March 31, 2015 at 3:03 am #

    Also this law doesn’t automatically give businesses the right to refuse services for religious objections. It gives those businesses a legal avenue to gain the ability to refuse service but they will not automatically get that right. The main difference in this law from the similarly worded federal law is that it allows for these cases to be tried even without a government actor involved in the suit. The federal version and other similar state laws only allowed for suits to be filed by private citizens or businesses against the government.

  10. Frederick CWO3 USCG (ret) March 31, 2015 at 3:38 am #

    Sueing the practitioner of discrimination does not make them a victim. The victims in this case sought legal redress, as is their right. Had the bakery owners refused service to a Jew, a Catholic, or a Black no one would bat an eye over the lawsuit.But the victims were gay, so it seems to be OK to turn them into the bully, the victimizer and to give the bigots a pass.

    • Dennis the Menace March 31, 2015 at 8:26 pm #

      “Had the bakery owners refused service to a Jew, a Catholic, or a Black no one would bat an eye over the lawsuit”

      Uh, because the Constitution and constitutional precedents protects those groups, for discriminated by sexual orientation not so much.

  11. Andy March 31, 2015 at 7:22 am #

    A lot of the comments which are less supportive of the route the gay couple took are speaking as if this is the first place that homosexuals were discriminated against and thus their reaction was disproportionate.

    Unfortunately for the conservative narrative, that’s just not the case. “No Gays” signs in stores may seem like a personal choice that should be respected now, but back here in Europe we still recall the impact of letting this sort of thing get out of hand, and very soon you have “No Gays, No Jews and No Blacks”

    Society cannot allow discrimination of this nature – segregation based on gender, race, sexual preference – they are all barbaric practices that we should have left behind now.

    Sure, suing a small bakery was a harsh response – but how many bakeries had they been too? How many times would you be discriminated against in your life before you would kick back?

    I understand the sentiment of this article, but I have to say I find its tone disapointing.

  12. lamparty March 31, 2015 at 8:37 pm #

    Discrimination is Discrimination, for whatever reason they profess! If they got sued for their actions and lost, then they were doing something wrong in the first place. Good thing that the worship of Baal is no longer practiced, they’d be all over this law!

  13. Dilbert April 1, 2015 at 6:49 pm #

    Your example of the doctor and butcher has a flaw in that they would be forced to perform an abortion or sell pork “which they didn’t already do for customers”. Now the example of the KKK cake is a little different but if you consider it an issue of decoration content and the bakery had a publicly posted rule about objectionable content then yes. The big problem here is the lawsuit (which should have only covered the cost of the couple getting another backer) and the stupid and unnecessary law politicians came up with.

  14. Mark April 3, 2015 at 4:14 pm #

    A similar thing occured in Northern Ireland recently

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3014666/Christian-baker-sued-refusal-make-gay-marriage-cake.html

  15. ruopp April 8, 2015 at 1:39 pm #

    After read all comments I have a question:

    What if the bakery was owned by Muslims and not Christians?

    It’s well known that muslims refuses services to/from who they think violates their beliefs. I don’t know much about US cases but in Europe (UK specially) there are a lot of examples.

    Steve (from AUS) asks “Do you also think a muslim worker in your supermarket should be able to refuse to serve women?”

    The answer is yes, and worse, if she’s buying pork he’ll probably sue her for trying to contaminate him or something like. These guys can even refuse to do certain jobs based on their religion.

    I remember that a couple of years ago, a muslim went to a CATHOLIC hospital in UK and almost sue the hospital because there was a cross in the room. Muslims males refuses female doctors and females, male doctors, and NOBODY says a single word about these discrimination.

    Accuse a muslim of discrimination is wrong in the book of all western countries. Very few people do that and they are all considered right-wing extremists, just because they state the truth.

    What does that have to do with the case? Simple: Depending on the owner’s religion you can sue him or not. If the baker was a muslim, he would probably have killed the couple because they offended his holly bakery (it’s well known that muslims kills gays just because they are gays and that offends them and what the western countries says about that? Nothing!).

    My mother family side is Italian and as such I was raised as a good Catholic but today I’m just an agnostic. I concluded that religion is just the worst thing the human being have invented. Because of religion billions of people have died and much more will die and for what?

    About the baker: He was just stupid, the Catholic Church does not forbid you to make business with gays or jews or muslims or black or white and I think, despite my lack of knowledge, that Protestant Churches doesn’t either.

    The Politically Correct in US is just passing the limit. I don’t know when this started but when I read the a black people says “I’m an Afro-American…” that sounds discriminatory. Why not say “I’m a Swiss-American…”, “I’m an English-American…”, “I’m a Chinese-American..” and so on. Why they just don’t say: “I’M an AMERICAN…”.

    I’m Swiss and live in Switzerland. The day a black Swiss says to me that he’s an Afro-Swiss be sure that I’ll sue him for discrimination. In Switzerland the nationals are all SWISS.

    It’s my opinion that the US is sinking very deep because of his excess of liberties and the lawsuits industry (well let’s not forget the Liberals, specially those from the left-wing).

    The only reason the baker lost his case was because he was Christian, if he was muslim he probably had won.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: