Quantcast

In One Sentence, Michele Bachmann Proves How Ignorant Republicans are about the Constitution

bachmann-the-intellectualI often comment about how hypocritical Republicans are when it comes to our Constitution.  They’re usually the first to stand on a pedestal and speak about the importance of “Constitutional values,” yet they seem unable to even grasp the basic fundamentals of what that even means.

And while most people with common sense already know this, Michele Bachmann perfectly showcased Republican ignorance about our Constitution in one sentence.

While speaking with conservative host Lars Larson, Bachmann said that gay people have “so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere.  Well, not with the Constitution you don’t.”

Though almost perfect, her next sentence really showcased true Republican ignorance about the Constitution.

“If you want take away my religious liberties,” she continued, “you can advocate for that but you do it through the constitutional process and you don’t intimidate and no politician should give away my religious liberties or yours.”

And that’s the sentence that shows the true ignorance Republicans have about our Constitution.

Advocating for equal rights for homosexuals isn’t “bullying” or “taking away” anyones religious liberties.  It’s simply saying that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals based on religion – because that’s what our First Amendment says! 

First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”

Notice the whole part about not establishing religion?  That means it’s unconstitutional (be it on a state or federal level) to pass laws that are derived from religious beliefs.

End of story.

So, there’s no need to “advocate” to take away her religious liberties on a Constitutional level because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution already does that for us. 

What these “activist judges” and “lawless President Obama” are doing is simply adhering to the Constitution which says laws cannot be based on religion.

It’s also ironic that these judges, who are making rulings based on the Constitution (which the Supreme Court sided with when they overturned DOMA), are actually using the “constitutional process” for which Bachmann seems to be advocating.

But the real problem is conservatives like Bachmann just don’t like how reality is proving time and time again that their values don’t seem to be Constitutional.  They long for a version of our Constitution that exists in their minds, just not in reality.


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Forward Progressives
The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on both Twitter and Facebook. Have feedback, inquiries, criticism or compliments? You can email him as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • $80856350

    The Stupid Party.

    • Sunny Ray

      And the Party of the Stupid…

  • Gary Menten

    What would Bachmann know about the Constitution? What does it matter? The average Teabilly misinterprets he First Amendment, worships the Second and knows how to plead the Fifth. The others mean nothing to them.

    • Pipercat

      She’s a fraud and pandering to the base. She has a JD from Oral Roberts and an LLM from William and Mary.

      • Michael Dean

        Oh, God…Oral Roberts?! Well, that explains it., (partially.)

    • idumpedaload

      The only person I’ve seen take the Fifth lately is Obummers fall gal, Lerner, from the IRS.

      • John M

        You forgot to yell BENGHAZI!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        3 syllables,,,,,too intense for his limited IQ

      • Gary Menten

        I guess you haven’t been paying attention to the news from N.J.

      • Yolanda Acosta

        That was my first thought! TY for stating this!

      • Sheila Kotze

        You should hope the GOP would use the 5th more often. The more they speak, the more they show their ignorance. Like you with that statement.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey gerbil droppings,,,,,what about GOV chrsities worker??
        ,,,,,,,,,,,as that isn’t blasted on FOX “news” crybabies such as your white trash regressive self are un aware
        ===============================================

      • Ric Babel

        Ya, the Bush appointed Republican.

      • 2Smart2bGOP

        No, you have Alberto Gonzales: “I don’t recall, I don’t remember, I’m just not smart enough to remember things I’ve said, or things I’ve done, especially if remembering them will get me INTO JAIL!”
        Isn’t it painful to be that stupid?

      • invisigoth

        You can read more at the Atlantic

        Close to a third of the advocacy groups named by the Internal Revenue Service as recipients of special scrutiny during tax-exempt application reviews were liberal or neutral in political outlook, a leading nonpartisan tax newsletterreported after conducting an independent analysis of data released by the agency.

        All told, around 470 groups were flagged as “potential political cases” between 2010 and 2012, including 298 whose experiences were analyzed in a Treasury Department inspector general’s report. Because the IRS by law must not name groups that have not yet been approved or which were rejected, only a subset of their names was made public in May by the agency — 176 cases.

        Of these, “the majority of the groups selected for extra scrutiny probably matched the political criteria the IRS used and backed conservative causes, the Tea Party, or limited government generally,” wrote Martin A. Sullivan in a June 3 piece in Tax Notes, a newsletter published by the Tax Analysts group. “But a substantial minority — almost one third of the subset — did not fit that description.”

        Non-conservative advocacy groups given special scrutiny by the IRS in or after 2010 included the Coffee Party USA, the alternative to the Tea Party movementthat got a bunch of press in 2010, as well as such explicitly progressive groups as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Rebuild the Dream, founded by former Obama administration official Van Jones; and Progressives United Inc., which was founded by former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.

        Also included in the special scrutiny were Progress Texas and Progress Missouri Inc.; Tie the Knot, which sells bow ties to raise money to promote same-sex marriage; and ProgressNow, which describes itself as “a year-round never-ending progressive campaign.”

        The targeting also rolled up centrist groups, such as the Across the Aisle Foundation — the educational and cultural arm of No Labels, which worked to build momentum for an independent ticket for the presidency — and politically neutral ones, such as The East Hampton Group for Good Government Inc., formed to encourage better leadership and management of the New York vacation town, and the League of Women Voters of Hawaii.

        All of these groups were flagged by the IRS along with the Tea Party class of groups as “potential political cases” and were part of the 31 percent of groups given special scrutiny that were not clearly conservative.

        Sullivan’s Tax Notes piece lays out what we know about the cases that are public so far:

        Because the IRS is prohibited by law from releasing information on applications either denied or not yet approved, we will probably never know the political persuasions of all 298 advocacy cases selected for extra scrutiny and of the additional 170 or so applications selected since then. We can, however, try to assess the political persuasion of the 176 approved organizations that the IRS identified on May 15….

        As noted, 46 organizations on the May 15 IRS list had “Tea Party,” “patriots,” or “9/12” project in their name. Tax Analysts conducted Web searches of the other 130 organizations on the list to determine if the groups were conservative organizations. In 124 cases, we found what we believe is sufficient information to make a good faith determination whether a group was conservative….

        [T]the results of the Tax Analysts review of these organizations are the following: 46 with “Tea Party,” “patriots,” or “9/12 project” in their name, 76 other conservative organizations, 48 nonconservative organizations, and six organizations about which we can make no determination….

        Ultimately, to address the question whether the IRS’s review of applicants for tax exempt status had a disparate impact on one side of the political spectrum or the other, we will need to know more about the overall pool of advocacy groups applying for tax exemption. For example, if there were a surge in the creation of potentially political conservative organizations in the last few years (that was disproportionate to the creation of nonconservative organizations), more conservative groups would be targeted than nonconservative groups even if there were no political bias among IRS officials. Looking at the makeup of exemption-approved groups tells us nothing about bias unless we know the makeup of the group from which they were selected.

        A spokesman for the Treasury inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA), David Barnes, said he’d not heard anything about a list of progressive groups targeted by the IRS and referred me to page 8 of the inspector general’s report for his office’s understanding of the matter.

        It stated: “approximately one-third of the applications identified for processing by the team of specialists included Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names, while the remainder did not. According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.”

        The TIGTA decided that there was bias because “we determined during our reviews of statistical samples of I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) tax-exempt applications thatall cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists” between May 2010 and May 2012 (emphasis added).

        Though the Treasury inspectors found that one third of the groups given special scrutiny probably should not have been, they declined to say in their May report what the political leanings of theses improperly selected groups were: “We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention. However, we did not identify any indications of significant political campaign intervention for 91 (31 percent) of the 296 applications that had complete documentation.”

        Most likely, these improperly selected cases were — like the selected cases that the IRS has released data on so far — a mixture of liberal, conservative, and neutral (civic pride, good government, etc.) in outlook.

        More flawed than the selection process — which flagged groups that should not have been given extra scrutiny as well many that appropriately received it but which were selected using improper criteria, according to the TIGTA report — were the lengthy delays in processing applications and the excessive and intrusive questions asked of the selected groups. According to the report, 58 percent of inquiries asked of those groups were later deemed unnecessary.

      • Reynard Vulpes

        Shhhh….llisten up. Here’s the secret to her pleading the fifth.

        Start with this…. she’s a republican. OOooo.. surprise, eh?

        Then this…she was sic’d on some right wing applicants in a false flag operation by set up with her by GOP operatives. If she spills that, of course she’d take down the fool questioning her, but HE was not in on it, so he doesn’t know what he’s doing. He came damn near having his head handed to him on a plate. The real GOP behind the operation would NOT allow that stupid idiot anywhere NEAR a black flag operation.

        She cannot speak for fear of what can be done to her for CONSPIRING WITH GOP OPERATIVES TO CREATE AN ILLUSION OF RIGHT WING GROUPS BEING TARGETED. She could go to prison for a very long time, as well as blacken the GOP handler, who may be very high in the power structure of the GOP. I think she may have been afraid of even worse happening to her than just a charge of conspiracy and some jail time.

        The GOP has been practicing these very kinds of deceptions now for some time.

        My bet is that in the short period of time her attorney assured the committee she would show up and testify she opened up to her attorney and give him, finally, the truth. I imagine he near shat himself when he found out and cautioned her to take the fifth for fear of her freedom, safety, and his too. Once HE knew, and if the GOP operators found out … ooooeeee…….

        Can yah dig it? Grok it maybe? Get jiggy wid it?

        You know damn well it’s the most likely scenario of ALL.

      • terribletwos

        Boy did you just dump a load.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        onanistically he did dump a load

      • terribletwos

        A very smelly one at that…

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        gian keys homunculus ————— hows the FOX “news” crybaby status?

      • republic84

        Bahhhh bahhhhh theres a sheep in the room folks.

      • fifthdentist

        You already forgot about Scooter Libby, who pleaded the Fifth in order to avoid testifying against Dick and Dubya?
        Must suck to be old, senile AND stupid.

      • Rick O’Connell

        load,why is it that the 2nd amendment is, in the cons eyes, more important than the 5th, it is also a right guaranteed by the Constitution! you don’t get to pick and choose what rights a person has, thank the gods!

      • Cathryn Sykes

        And you don’t get to claim that it is an ABSOLUTE right…because no Constitutional right is. Not freedom of speech, or assembly or religion or the “right” to pull out a gun and shoot someone ……because–and this is something people like you just don’t seem to get–the rest of us have rights too….including the right to not be shot because you “felt” threatened…….by, say, an unarmed kid.

      • Richard Hayner

        Yes, you did dump a load. I suspect you do every time your mouth is open.

    • idumpedaload

      And talking about the First Amendment, I suppose you Sandanista’s are all in favor of the FCC’s “monitoring” program in news rooms. Typical Stalinists.

      • GOPmakesmesick

        Yes actually. Because it’s not the government there to regulate what they put in the news, they are there to see how news networks get and select the stories they run. It would easily be the biggest fucking punchline in the history of man, to see how fox news selects it’s stories. (AKA imagination)

      • ziggywiggy

        you forgot Hitler!!

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        hey crybaby———– U spun away from topic
        ==========================================
        well-trained lemming ; aren’t you?

      • invisigoth

        Typical troll tactics, change the subject when you are confronted with facts.

    • Andrew Gault

      They don’t “worship the second”, they misconstrue it and bastardize it, and it, being an originally brilliant concept, becomes something the left wishes to destroy simply because it’s painted red to them.

      No concepts in the Constitution belong to either party. All are relevant.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        None are ABSOLUTE. Especially when “absolute” seems to mean the “right” to shoot anyone who looks at you and frowns.

      • Andrew Gault

        All are absolute. I have a right to bear arms. In bearing arms, I become leveled with all those who wish to harm me – often through the most modern, and most effective means: with arms. In leveling myself with them, I make them think twice about assaulting me because of my sexuality, which is my main reason for bearing arms (being part of a sexual minority).

        I can pick up a rifle, and I can operate it. You cannot remove that right without removing my limbs. There are no individuals or groups that have any pull that think you should be able to shoot anyone for the reason you stated. You need to realize that the country isn’t red or blue. It’s full of moderates, and those moderates are all humans with aspirations, fears, loved ones, etc.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      worships HALF of 2nd

      • Gary Menten

        I’ll bet I know which half….

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        the profitable one
        ………………….. “Christians for guns”

      • Gary Menten

        “White Christians for guns. They aren’t all that keen on brown people of any denomination having guns…or voting rights for that matter.”

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        agreed,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but they luv’ em’ as military casualties; then calling them “brave americans” and ” wounded warriors”

      • Gary Menten

        They’ll support any system that provides the government an alternative to drafting well-off white kids to go do the fighting and dying.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        FOX “news” will now call U a commie.
        best bet? send kids to war based upon wealth…. if U daddie be wealthy U go get shot at

      • Gary Menten

        I’ve been called worse by better. I’ll just call them “retarded bible-thumping fascist warmongers.” Ask yourself which definition is probably the more accurate.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I prefer to call them white trash regressive VOODOO/superstition crybabies; but our mutual sentiment is ironclad!
        bible? mad magazine more accurate; and better looking chix

      • Michael Dean

        No. They only say that about the ones that look like them. Look at all the t.v. ads and promotions for donations.

    • Linkster13

      Bachmann aside, this article is flawed. The Constitution prevents the govt from imposing an official religion and prevents govt from infringing on the free exercise of religion. Essentially, the govt has no control or authority in matters of religion. Sexual preference is not affected in any way by Constitutional religious guarantees. The author’s interpretation of the Constitution is even more flawed than that of Bachmann’s. Those provisions have no bearing on sexuality in any way. Those guarantees are more rightly protected by the Bill of Rights preventing discrimination based on religion, gender or race, though those provisions did not originally contemplate sexual orientation. Those protections were established by extrapolation of the law and the jurisprudence on discrimination. The author discriminates against conservatives by condemning the whole group as intolerant, when in essence it is he that is exhibiting ignorance and intolerance. It is a shame that polite discussion and rational thought have given way to name calling, partisanship, and intolerance, in particular, by progessives that now seek to condemn and silence anyone with an opinion that does not agree with their own.

      • terribletwos

        The problem with your theory is that you are blaming all progressives for name calling, partisanship and intolerance, making YOU guilty of doing the same thing that you claim the author of this article is doing? How’s that work?

      • Zachary Zasquatch Gangemi

        linkster there is a major problem with what you just said. The majority of those fighting against equality for homosexuals, do so on a platform of religion. they say, as Mrs. Bachman is quoted, that allowing gays to marry infringes on their 1st amendment rights, when in reality, the 1st protects us from having laws that exist because of religion. Like not allowing gays to marry. Stop acting like you dont know that. There is no bigotry in this article, just a cogent argument as to why those who argue against equality are missing the point.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        And yet, the LAWMAKERS who are trying to allow discrimination against gays are basing it on the “religious freedom” of the discriminators.

      • Turnipblood

        lol. ummm…wot? The government certainly does have authority concerning religion – it must exclude it. These are civil matters. If your opinion of civil law involves religion, it is unconstitutional. The end.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state….” That’s the stated goal of the Second, and the phrase universally ignored by the NRA and it’s followers, especially when it comes to the term “regulated.” We almost lost the Revolutionary War a number of times because initially, all we had were state militias that were badly disciplined, ill-trained and yes, ill-armed. After independence was won, this was a tiny, poor, and broke nation, with potential invaders on all sides. We needed a quick-response nucleus of fighters, with a basic level of training and decently armed, who could buy us time to raise an army if we were attacked….not a bunch of yahoos who think that they have a “right” to take their guns wherever they choose and do whatever they choose with them, up to an including shooting anyone who gives them so much as an angry look!

      • Gary Menten

        No argument from me on any of what you say.

      • EnufAlready

        You would do well to learn English. well-regulated means “in practicable condition; trained; in good working order”. The militia is the body of the people; at that point in time, all able-bodied males from 16-40 (plus or minus a few years, depending on the state).

  • idumpedaload

    I guess you guys missed the second half of the phrase “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” That’s where the legal tension lies, and that s what Bachman was referring to. Don’t throw stones children.

    • C.A. Kingsley

      Your right to swing your fist ends where MY face begins. Your right to free speech ends when you shout ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater and cause a panic, killing innocent people in the ensuing stampede. Your religious liberty ends where MY body begins. You can be as religious as you want, but you cannot use YOUR religion as grounds to deny ME basic human rights like deciding who I can and cannot love, who I can and cannot choose to spend my life with and who I can and cannot choose to inherit my property.

      No one is trying to prohibit these idiots from practicing their bigotry on the PERSONAL level. It’s when they pass laws on ME and MY people that it becomes a problem. You want to see REAL persecution in the United States?? Are Christian Bigots being curb stomped? Are they being killed because of who they love? Are they being assaulted just because they don’t identify the way society says they should? NO!

      • republic84

        Absolutely amazing. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      • Noni77

        Bull shit.

      • ziggywiggy

        how?… please explain any lie you perceive in that comment. Just trolling?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        brilliant reply,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        as stevie wonder said in song……..
        ” there is superstitious,,,,,,,,,,,,writings on the wall”
        ( see: religion/VOODOO)

      • buricco

        “Very superstitious – writing’s on the wall
        Very superstitious – ladder’s ’bout to fall
        13-month-old baby – broke the looking glass
        7 years of bad luck – good days in the past
        When you believe in things you don’t understand, then you suffer.
        Superstition ain’t the way.

      • James Govoni

        Right on!

      • PRIME79

        I second all of that.

      • joynlife

        BRAVO

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        reeeeeeeeeeeeeee-ligion===== VOODOO

    • swimmer

      You can practice whatever crazy religion you choose until it starts infringing on the civil rights of others.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Who is preventing Bachmann from exercising her religion, pray tell?

      • Sandy Greer

        Gays. Because they won’t get back in the closet.

        Crazy RWNJs think because gays are outta the closet they’re in our faces.

        ^^^THAT’S what they’re mad about. They’d have them all back in the closet, like in the ‘good ol’ days’.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        perhaps she is awakening and wanting to EXORCIZE her “religion” ( see” VOODOO)

    • ziggywiggy

      free exercise of religion…. can you: pray anytime, go to any house of worship, wear a Crucifix or Star of David around your neck, say “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, have God on our money, have religious schools and bible camps, celebrate religious holidays as Federal holidays(day off!), donate money to the church and deduct from your taxes, etc,etc,etc? I guess you missed the part where free exercise does NOT include the right to discriminate in a free society. Does practicing your religion include: serving food for profit, selling crafts for profit, judging other’s lives because you think God said you could? That’s one freaky religion.

    • TattooHero

      That’s the problem. She’s still able to practice her religion. Where in the bible does it say Thou shall not do business with the LGBT community?

      FYI-these were the exact same arguments given for not allowing interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws.

  • Edward Krebbs

    LGBT folk push to have the same rights as we do. By definition that is bullying politicians and taking away Bachmann’s rights ? Next they’re gonna want to ride in the front of the bus and sit at our lunch counters.

    Forbidding her from discriminating is taking away her religious liberties. Yet she wants to institute a theocracy.

    • Learjet

      And lest we forget she is married to a gay man.

    • buricco

      “It’s not taking your rights away to give others the rights you have had all along.” Right?

  • Grumpmaster_Zz

    Most of these ass-clowns would really loove to repeal the 14th Amendment. Y’know, the one that says that no one can be denied equal protection of the law (among a few other things)

    • TheHBD

      Wait..isn’t “ass-clown” an anti-gay slur?

      • Nick

        I’m gay, I’ve never really thought of ass-clown as anti-gay, and it doesn’t offend me when people use it. I dunno though, maybe it is.

      • TheHBD

        From the Urban Dictionary:

        Ass-Clown

        1. One whose stupidity and/or ineptitude exceeds the descriptive potential of both the terms assand clown in isolation, and in so doing demands to be referred to as the conjugate of the two. 2. A male who engages in homosexual behaviors. Seebutthole surfer

      • Michelle Rhoades

        That’s why I prefer asshat. It implies they wear their asses on their heads and have shit for brains. Less potential misunderstanding

  • sfwmson

    Methinks she doth protest too much (because of her hubby.)

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      beeeeeeeeeeee-cause she aint getting no sex,,,,,
      so————– her volcanic repression is on display

  • republic84

    Maybe its time we dump the TEAparty in the Boston Harbor…

  • Jason

    I’ll believe Gays and Lesbians bully people when they show me groups of them beating the snot out of kids for being “breeders”. Until that happens, look at how you portray them as bullies and subversives for just wanting the SAME rights. Don’t talk to me about the sanctity of marriage if
    1: You’ve ever been divorced
    2: Have no intention or ability to breed
    3:Have never picketed a taping of Who wants to marry a millionaire, or shows that truly do undermine the seriousness of marriage.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      dude,,,,,,,,,,,, that’s excellent
      =================================
      Im stealing it!!!

  • real_world_truth

    What Bachmann et al want is their version of Sharia law.

  • Noni77

    No, they are perverting the Constitutional process. Big difference. Bullying is quite right. They are seeking to suppress other’s rights by making theirs superior. I read the quite numerous articles on abusive lawsuits, don’t pee on my leg and try to tell me its raining.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Did you read them from anywhere besides right-wing sites? No one is suppressing anyone’s rights. Discrimination is not legal. Get over it.

    • Sheila Kotze

      And how is it that they “suppress other’s rights by making theirs superior”. Please do tell how anyone can make a right superior? People have rights… THE END. When a group of people are denied the right of most all other people, they fight for it, AS THEY SHOULD. And “abusive lawsuits” you want to talk abusive.. talk to the families of those killed every day just for being who they are. The kids who kill themselves over the bulling they got. I suggest you get your head out of Fox news land and maybe see what is actually happening in the rest of the world.

    • PRIME79

      I know right. Crazy how us black folks wanted our rights to be superior to white folks. I mean we wanted to be able to do the exact same things they could as guaranteed by the constitution which would obviously make us superior to them(however that works). Gays are now wanting the same things. How horrible. How dare people want to be treated as equals under the law as other people! Lol!! You and your kind are a joke. The people that want to be allowed to shame, ridicule, and discriminate against complete strangers that have done nothing to them are the ones calling others bullies…Lol!….seriously? Allowing people to be treated equally is superiority? And no intelligent person alive is buying yalls religious freedom BS, its nothing more than an excuse to hate people that are different from you. Proof? The exact same religious freedom BS arguments were used to justify segregation and to keep interracial marriage illegal. How’d that turn out? And if your religion teaches you to hate and discriminate against people that are no factual threat to you or anyone else what so ever then your religion and your god are seriously fucked up. Grow up, get over yourself and leave people alone. Stop crying all the damn time. Dont hit me first and then get mad when I whip your ass.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I get to emcee when U are whipping them,,,,
        you and I split profits from UTUBE video

    • David_in_Houston

      Who exactly are the ones doing the discriminating? The baker who secretly wants to discriminate against gay customers without letting their straight customers know that they want to treat their bakery as if it were an anti-gay church? (I’ll help you out here: a bakery is not a church) …or is it the gay customer who walked into a bakery not knowing that the owner willingly forces their CHOSEN religious beliefs on everyone that walks through their doors; and that the gay customer simply wanted the same exact treatment and service that every straight customer receives? So, again, who exactly is in the wrong here?

    • ziggywiggy

      please explain what part of your religion is being denied? Did not know the Bible includes “judge others, don’t leave it to God”

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        you didn’t read the new amendment to the “21st century schizoid man” bible.
        now on sale at all tax free churches

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      the right to NOT provide service(s) in a public ( domain) business because someone is “gay”?
      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,how about I claim my reeeeee-ligion ( see: VOODOO) allows me the “right” to not pay for the product/service acquired by me at that scumbag religious business?
      bite that one for a while

  • diggler

    As a conservative, my only issue is with how we codify rights. “All men are created equal”, as in mankind, should be sufficient. If we begin to say such things as straights are permitted this, gays are permitted that, and blacks are permitted such and such, we are setting precedents for divisiveness and removal if rights from unnamed parties. Its the difference of an inclusive vs exclusive law.

    Ample recourse against the violation of our individual rights exists. No new laws need to be made to protect anyone.

    As for if I were a business owner, I would definitely reserve the right to serve whomever I chose. If I make enough people angry, I won’t be in business very long.

    • John M

      And what if you live in an area where you are a minority? What if you’re gay, lesbian, black. Hell, what if you’re catholic in a baptist area and you don’t have the means to just up and move? Does that mean the local stores can block you from buying food? I own a bank. Can I block people from getting loan? Your reasoning is exactly what enabled the south to discriminate for as long as they did. I agree that as a business owner, you shouldn’t be forced to do anything special (i.e. produce a special item for an event) but just telling people to leave because you don’t like their religion, ethnicity or sex, is and should be illegal.

    • Sandy Greer

      So – as a conservative – you believe all men are created equal; we shouldn’t say straights are permitted this, and gays permitted that, etc, etc.

      Does that mean – as a conservative – you believe gays SHOULD be able to marry??? Would you – as a conservative – be so inclusive???

      Because right now, straights ARE permitted to marry. And gays…are NOT.

      We even have the conservative Michelle Bachmann argue that gays ‘intimidate’ straights (conservatives) simply by asking for the exact marriage straights are permitted.

      Do you – as a conservative – think her wrong to want ‘exclusion’ for gays?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I do notice that clown diggler failed to reply,,,,,,
        …………mustve been praying!!

  • Grand1

    Somebody, somewhere, has got to be writing these lines. No one is that dumb.

    • Michelle Rhoades

      While I do think someone’s hand is up her ass making her mouth move, that doesn’t mean the puppeteer isn’t just as stupid.

  • Barbara421

    At least she’s smart enough to call it quits………….she’s not running again! She’ll live her nice little comfortable life with her gov’t retirement, medical and the farm subsidies her family gets………she’s a taker all right! And we all know she’s in a same sex marriage, so it’s pretty crazy for her to make these claims anyway. Bye, bye Shelley B………………..

    • LateNightLarry

      She’s not in a same sex marriage… she’s in a SEXLESS marriage with her gay husband.

    • Michelle Rhoades

      Although she says she won’t run for Representative again that doesn’t mean she won’t try for higher office.

  • MadMan

    Should we get her a cross to climb up on?

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      how about a rudely tall and well built cactus?

  • Andrew Gault

    so they get neither the first nor second amendments

    jesus christ i never wanted to consider myself liberal but i think i might be

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      join the club!!! flawed; but we do have better flexibility.

  • Rev. Tom

    I’ll consider that the RepubliCONs are honestly interested in anything the US Constitution has to say about religious freedoms being protected when they start defending Wicca and other Pagan religious beliefs, many of which recognize and preform same sex marriages.

  • almahix

    She is accusing the LBGT spokespersons of doing to “Christians” as these so called “Christians” have been doing to the LBGT community for a long time. The shoe is on the other foot and it doesn’t feel so good! Boo friggen hoo.

  • Willow C. Arune

    The religious right actually believes that they are “victims”, forced to live with Gays in their midst…

  • Tiredofpoliticalcrap

    Learn your history and the constitution people. The founders did not want a Church of America. Great Briton had the Anglican church. They wanted no laws to be made to allow states to form a church or stop a church from forming. You were being freed to worship in your own way.

  • disqus_baOCQXOaoT

    Is this PAC the party of hate? Seem this is designed to specifically promote hatred towards a political party. And we all wonder why this once great country is now viewed by what were once our friends and supporters as just another banana republic who can not be trusted or depended on in time of need and it goes without saying applies to the youth that we all look to as our future leaders. Apparently continuing to divide this country is the primary mission of this organization. History and the Constitution are not the strong points of the people responsible for this organization. The laws of the country, your city, county and state appear to mirror the Ten Commandments which predate this country by a couple of thousand years. Don’t believe it? Try murder (Thou shall not kill), thievery (Thou shall not steal), perjury (Thou shall not bear false witness) etc. If what you proclaim as truth.”unconstitutional (be it on a state or federal level) to pass laws that are derived from religious beliefs”, then I propose that a major portion of the laws we all abide by are unconstitutional according to your interpretation of our Constitution. I am aware now of some of the newer minted coinage in circulation that the phrase “In God We Trust” has been eliminated. By error or by design? Whether you believe in God or not is your right. Because the founding fathers were religious and made their beliefs known and structured our Constitution on that faith does not require you to be a member of any religious group to be a citizen. The same freedom applies to your sexual preference and it goes without saying that you should not attempt to promote your preference on any one else. Simple logic would dictate that if you do not approve of Gay Marriage, then by golly don’t marry one. As far as ignorance is concerned, try “we have to pass this law so we can find out what is in it” or “if you like you Insurance (Doctor) you can keep your insurance (doctor), period”. There are many “blunders” out there by both parties. To sensationalize one opens a can of worms for all the others. Why can’t we just try to heal our misfortunes and make this country the great nation we are capable of becoming.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      im stoooopid— so can U explain to me why the so-called “10 commandments” have –as a MORTAL sin— using “gods” name in vain; yet does NOT mention rape??
      Hmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      • disqus_baOCQXOaoT

        Your question is not germane to the subject at hand. Yours is a theological question best answered by someone versed in the subject of biblical and/or christian history. However, while “rape” is not mentioned specifically, you may want to consider the 10th Commandment. References were made to the Ten Commandments in my original post because as noted in this organization’s interpretation of the First Amendment that “it is unconstitutional to pass laws that are derived from religious beliefs”. Considering the founding fathers were religiously oriented, it only stands to reason our laws would mirror their beliefs along with safeguards to prevent abuse. They also gave us the motto of the United States of America “In God We Trust”.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        first of all; YOU brought up the 10 BS commandments– man made 10 commandments– and TRYING to ally the 10th with rape is totally non sequitur to rape. “coveting” someones car/pet/wife/job/income/physical attribute/ et hoc genus omne is SUBJECTIVE,,,,,rape is OBJECTIVE.
        secondly– IN GOD WE TRUST appeared WAAAAY after they were all dead– perhaps U are confused with ‘e pluribus unum’ which means ( latin) ” out of many,,,,ONE”
        in god we trust 1st appeared on coin in 1864/ paper 1956/7. it was to add color to the secular threat (??) of “godless” communism
        I have NO problem with GOD; as GOD cannot be defined by a FINITE flawed entity such as humans. GOD and spirituality are NOT RELIGION- religion ( SEE: superstition/VOODOO) are man made dogmatic control mechanisms which also generate great sums of wealth to those who bestow the mantra to those lemming who don’t have what it takes to think for themselves.
        the founding fathers also knew ( unlike todays imbecilic republicans and tea party trash) that interjection of religion into legislation was one of the scourges they were running from in mother England. Hence john adams letting tripoli ( treaty1796)know that our country and government is NOT based upon ANY religion.( Christianity was specifically mentioned)
        I do find it laughable that the only things U mention derisively are Obama laws/ statements. I guess(??) that the bavardage that GW bush and subsequent republican offal which has either attempted passage ( federal level) or passed (state level) is immune from your myopia?
        BOTTOM LINE– the hatred I have for religions ( all; yes) is escalated by regressive white trash tea party scum who poorly bring THEIR JEEEEESUS into the so-called “smaller GOVT” which they cry for on said federal level; yet attempt to calcify into state strongholds . U wanna practice VOODOO? that’s is YOUR right!!!
        ========================================
        you wanna force it upon others? let me beat your skull with a tire iron

      • disqus_baOCQXOaoT

        im stooooopid–hmmmmm guess I hit a nerve with one of the main liberal junkies.. Typical response from a lib. Yell—attempt to display superiority–portray liberalism, socialism as superior– blame somebody else–attempt to pass yourself off as all knowing–deride those who do not agree with you–and threaten bodily harm where no attempt to force anything on anyone is even mentioned. You made the first inference to ignorance on something someone said which is misinterpreted in my opinion. As I said , when you sensationalize someone’s remarks you open up for retaliation what someone else has said. Appears you have violated some of the rules of your hero, Saul Alinsky, and you have become sensitive to criticism just as badly as he was. Hmmmmm

        No further responses will be forthcoming from me. Your holier that thou attitude does not deserve further discussion from me.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        I agree,,,,,,,,,, after all: all of those TRUE facts are ostensibly quite annoying to losers such as you. ,,,,,,,,,,, saul alinski a hero? nope– I have no heros unless I visit la spadas near the beach for a large turkey and swiss hoagie.
        please enjoy the crushing– and SLOW– atrophying of the doomed regressive ( whig) republican party.
        (BYTHEWAY,,,,,, when did I mention socialism?)
        OH– I didn’t! poor little man,,,,, lachrymose thou art
        =========================================
        superior to U? Hmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,,
        perhaps in how I frame colloquialisms!!

      • Baron Von Keyser

        No further responses because you just strait up made him/her look like a total dumbass. Not that it was very difficult, but good show anyways sir

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        the baron is my hero today!!!
        ,,,,,,,,,to give U something back: please GOOGLE ” Marilyn lange photos”,,,and enjoy the most beautiful woman ever to walk planet earth

      • nunna

        I totally agree with you about religion, but you really should try Jesus he died for your sins so you could go to heaven and b with the father. That is all there is to it…no religion just a spiritial relationship with Jesus. God Bless Your Soul. Politics are just that..Politics.

      • regressive teaparty trash

        im appreciative of your sincere candor and can assure U that I have a very personal spiritual relationship with GOD
        =======================================
        I personally know that GOD isn’t jesus. jesus isn’t GOD–
        jesus was a pretty sharp guy- probably sought GOD and ( after he turned 31) started living according to what he had found. That’s why he was killed– the people in charge( romans and jewish elders) didn’t like his ability to move people in a peaceful way- similar to why MLK was killed in 1968: they both preached PEACE
        =======================================
        I have read a ton of spiritual and religious literature including the tao and bhagavad gita and many many others————
        that has taught me that GOD cannot be defined by “MAN”,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, so I stopped wasting my time and simply listen and try to learn
        *********************************************************
        I find all religions lacking and because of that I abhor them all
        spirituality — personal– is the only way. No one can tell me what GOD is

  • John Neubauer

    She’s a self righteous person who sits and judges society from on high. Honestly one of the least Christ Like people out there. Jesus instructed us to love one another. Michelle prefers to love those who meet her litmus test and rework the constitution to say whatever fits her perception of the ideal world. Thank you to the people of Minnesota for making it clear that she needs to vacate her house seat and hopefully go home and sit in her house, obviously afraid of all the gay bullies out there.

    • nunna

      Amen That is what we are suppose to do LOVE one another.

  • TommyNIK

    If you debate these people you will find some consistencies; they believe the Establishment Clause was meant to be what I like to call a “one-way check valve” (I spent my career in the power generation industry) i.e. the government cannot mandate a national religion or interfere with the church (that’s correct) BUT the CHURCH can and must interfere with the government. The influence can flow only one way….from the church to the government. This, of course, is TOTAL BS.

    Because of this, these people have a far different definition of “religious freedom” as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. They believe they have a “God-given” right to tell others what to do and how to live their lives based on a religion that they truly believe is the only correct way to live.

    Religious freedom was intended to be a shield…NOT a sword.

    And please do not make the mistake of thinking that folks that believe in this way are on the fringe…..they most certainly are not. They could easily be your neighbors, teachers, your mayor or councilmen, governor or senator or your representative. Many of them have run for president of the United States.

    The religious Right is doing more than making this country a world laughing stock, they are a danger to our republic and to the TRUE intent of the Constitution.

  • Rob

    People who have no idea about the Constitution and expend every effort to violate it criticizing others about the Constitution. That is beyond rich! I’m ready to go now, I’ve seen it all.

  • Tom Edwards

    >> That means it’s unconstitutional (be it on a state or federal level) to pass laws that are derived from religious beliefs. <<

    No, that is not correct.

    In the first place, that would be impossible to prove or disprove. In the second place, the two (law and religion) frequently intersect. "Thou shalt not kill" is a religious belief. It also dovetails 100% with civil laws against murder. Arguably, this is therefore a law that is "derived from religious beliefs." However, it is also defensible by objectively verifiable means — it does not stand on ONLY religion.

    The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing an official (state-sanctioned) religion; from showing favoritism to one religion over another; and from abridging the rights of citizens to engage (or not engage) in religious worship as they please.

    Ms. Bachman fails to understand that anti-gay discrimination is largely illegal (the laws do not yet offer full protection for sexual orientation in all areas as they do for religion, sex, national origin, etc., but that gap is closing steadily). Bachman further does not understand that you cannot do an illegal thing simply because you feel it is within the scope of your religion's membership requirements. (Her interpretation of Christianity also happens to be half-nuts, but we'll leave that for another time.)

    The author of this write-up suggests it is, quote, "unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals based on religion – because that’s what our First Amendment says!"

    It says no such thing. The only non-discriminatory provision of Amendment One is directed at the GOVERNMENT, and it only covers religious discrimination — not discrimination of any other kind.

    Federal, state, and local laws, to varying degrees, prohibit discrimination of various types, whether it be in housing, employment, financial dealings, etc., and whether the basis for the discrimination should be skin color, religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. There is no basis by which any of these laws can be challenged through the First Amendment.

    There isn't much of a First Amendment issue involved in ANY of this — it's much more centered on the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Sorry…. I'm gay, and I certainly agree with the INTENT behind your article. But the chief premise — Republicans and their ignorance of the Constitution — is utterly flawed, in that you yourself have shown a poor understanding of the Constitution.

  • Dan Trigoboff

    I’m no fan of the dim Bachmann, but the writer should study the Constitution before criticizing others ignorance. It is NOT unconstitutional to pass laws that are derived from religious beliefs.” That’s absurd. And “there’s no need to “advocate” to take away her religious liberties on a Constitutional level because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution already does that for us”?!!!. Ridiculous. The First Amendment guarantees religious liberty it does not take it away. The Establishent Clause keeps government from promoting religion, but many of our laws are derived from religious beliefs.

  • David Shelton

    Want a religious reason to support same-sex marriage?
    Here you go: “Let My Worship be within the Heart that rejoices, for
    behold: all acts of Love and Pleasure are My rituals.” ~Charge of the
    Goddess

    Before you go off on me for it not being a
    CHRISTIAN reason, I should remind you that the American Constitution demands
    the free exercise of ALL religions, not just Christianity. Since
    Wiccans define marriage as a life-union based on love (irrespective of the
    gender of its participants), the Constitution demands that our marriage rites
    be recognized.

    But because a marriage license is necessary for
    anyone to be married in the United States, that means that marriage licenses
    need to be available to same-sex couples. Religious freedom requires nothing
    less.

  • Robert J. Crawford

    The sad things is, it doesn’t matter that she’s ignorant and wrong. I experienced the same frustrations when arguing history and economics with marxists in the 1970s.

  • LoverofLife

    Bachmann isn’t worth analyzing. When hate is the priority, any expression of (inventive) religious belief and (twisted) government values will be conflicting. She is a perverse enigma desperate for media attention, not worth trying to understand. Same goes for Palin by the way.

  • Tex

    “That means it’s unconstitutional (be it on a state or federal level) to pass laws that are derived from religious beliefs.” This statement isn’t an accurate statement of the law.The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence is a little more subtle than this, and they have approved numerous laws influenced or derived from religious beliefs.

    • Danny

      You do err . Read the words Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion, not laws concerning religion, against religion, but establishing religion, there is to be no religion that is run by the state. How clear does it have to be for you Read the rest s-l-o-w-l-y or prohibiting the free exercise of said religion!!!!

  • gskorich

    ive never understood why she is so against gay people. her husband has admitted to being one but doesn’t act on it. she should be happy for gay marriage, her marriage is finally legal

  • cjtinie

    Another bonehead!!!! It says that nothing shall be done to prohibit the free excercise which is exactly what the gay agenda is doing. By taking sueing people by saying that if someone doesn’t agree with gay marriage they are spewing hate, etc. Churches are losing their facilities because of lawsuits. A gay couple wants a baker to make them a cake but it conflicts with the baker’s religious beliefs, do they go to another baker? No! The sue him/her. That is an infringement. That is against the constitution. It is activism on the bench. Wow! Were your mom and dad brother and sister?

  • sfwm.son

    I’d love to ask her husband how he feels about denying rights to gays.

  • bobbolduc

    Brain not included !!

  • fairness_rules

    An endless supply of laughs! “Word salads” don’t make you look very intelligent, just ask Sarah!

  • Michelle Grasz

    Don’t preach the constitution if you’ve never read it and if you are an elected member of Congress then shame on you!

  • Altreg01

    Every time she opens her mouth the collective IQ of the nation drops one point. My dog deserves a spot on the intelligence committee over this brain fart.

  • frank

    Base on this article, almost every law would need to be repealed…. Any politician who is not an atheist will have based at least some of their decision on morals and beliefs formed from their religion. On top of that, things like murder and theft are part of the ten commandments, and therefore derived from religion.

  • bfg

    I wonder if the current Supreme Court can find an actual right to discriminate in the constitution,

  • Danny

    To who it may concern. You certainly can twist the constitution to say it as you wish. We will have to assume the culture at that time was written by men of reason and men who were Christians . You can rewrite the history books but you cannot change the original intent. The intent was that the government shall not make a state religion, since the original settlers left England and the king because the King was forcing a state run or if you will country run religion. the constitution states that the government cannot set up its own religion that is true Also you forget

  • Kay Price Burlison

    Allen Clifton you are an imbecile and a liar. And you seem to be illiterate too. You don’t seem to be able to comprehend english when you try to read it.

    ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” –

    If you notice it says “an” establishment….meaning an existing established religion – not establishing a new one. And being gay or bi is not a religion. It is a lifestyle choice so it has no place in the First Amendment religious argument anyway. Go back to school.

  • Pingback: GOP Candidate Ben Carson: A President Can Ignore the Supreme Court on Gay Rights - Forward Progressives()