[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 92°F  
Heat Advisory
Friday, Aug. 22, 2014

Wallingford files 'religious freedom' bill

Thursday, February 27, 2014

(Photo)
Wayne Wallingford
Cape Girardeau state Sen. Wayne Wallingford on Monday filed legislation that would allow Missouri business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for refusing to provide service.

In the last two days Wallingford and his bill endured widespread backlash from the public and fellow senators concerned that the bill could provide legal cover for denial of services to same-sex couples.

Wallingford on Wednesday said he did not mean for the bill to be taken that way, and that the legislation should be taken at face value.

On Wednesday, Wallingford posted on his Facebook page that his bill "is simply a measure to improve the Religious Freedom Registration Act by allowing individuals to have access to RFRA protections in private lawsuits, rather than having to sue the state for relief after their rights have been violated. This bill is meant to ensure that the government is not able to force individuals to violate their religious beliefs, and will provide protections to all. This is not a bill about discrimination. Indeed, it specifically says that the law shall not be construed to provide a defense in discrimination cases."

In a story published on the Kansas City Star's website Tuesday, Wallingford was quoted as saying his bill "is trying to provide a defense in those types of instances." The newspaper reported that Wallingford pointed to examples such as a case publicized in Washington state, where a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding and where a baker in Colorado refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.

About a decade ago, the federal government passed legislation that only covered the exercise of religious freedom at federal agencies, leaving the decision to do so in each state up to their own governments, Wallingford said.

"I wasn't aware of it until now," he said. "I'm surprised other people didn't raise the flag on that, as well. But for some reason it wasn't."

Religious freedom is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, and "it seems like it's coming under attack more frequently," he said. "At least in Missouri, we want to make sure that we follow the Constitution for religious freedom."

Senate Bill No. 916 is "loosely" based on Arizona Senate Bill No. 1062, the "anti-gay bill" that would allow religious beliefs to be a basis for refusing service to gays and others.

" ... Some of our language is similar, but not to the extent that Arizona went," Wallingford said, which goes "way, way, way further" than his when it speaks of nonreligious assemblies or institutions, religion-neutral zoning standards, suitable alternate property and unreasonable burden.

Mike Masterson, chairman of the Cape Girardeau County Democratic Central Committee, said the attack on freedom of religion is somewhat a recreation of Jim Crow laws. Stating his opinion as an individual and not for the local Democrats, he wrote in an email to the Southeast Missourian that "There is no war on religion as is being asserted by Mr. Wallingford. To me, this type of proposed legislation is camouflaging bigotry behind the shield of religion."

A.J. Bockelman, executive director of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organization PROMO, was quoted in a Kansas City Star article saying the bill is "a legislative attempt to legalize discrimination toward LGBT individuals."

Wallingford said he has heard some speak in opposition of the legislation who have not actually read the bill, in which sexual orientation is not mentioned.

"If you read it, and not try to put in all sorts of words that aren't in there -- it's not saying they'll still agree with it -- but I don't think [it's as] inflammatory as they initially tried to make it."

Wallingford pointed out a section of the bill that states "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any government authority to burden any religious belief," and "Nothing in this section shall be construed to establish a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution based on federal, state, or local civil rights law involving discrimination ..."

"It's not prohibiting anyone from objecting," he said of the bill.

The legislation is likely to be more controversial than others, but Wallingford said he enjoys the challenge of moving such a bill through the system.

Senate Bill No. 916 is a few weeks from it's third reading, and there is some time to pass it through, but maybe not enough time.

"We're cutting it close, but there's always a possibility," he said.

ashedd@semissourian.com

388-3632


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

A republican accused of being a bigot. Shame,,,,never intended this to be this at all. Sneaky politicians,,,,,

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 5:14 AM

Thanks for wasting legislative efforts on something trivial, Mr. Wallingford! We in the SE Missouri area are so afflicted with religious oppression.

Have you thought about doing something useful, such as investigating alternative energy sources in the state- or is that meddling in the free market?

-- Posted by justbenice on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 5:23 AM

Mr. Wallingford, you do not "represent" my views. Our Nation and state are blessed with religious freedom.

What you are proposing is freedom for some religions to take the freedom from others!

Another instance of judgement by people.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 5:41 AM

Just posturing, this has no chance. I am really struggling with this, however. I thought, for example, that Phil Robertson had every right to speak about his beliefs, that gay people had every right to boycott his show, that that couple out west (Seattle maybe?) had a right to not make a cake for a gay wedding, and that other gay people in that area had every right to boycott their bakery. Do I just have a problem with commitment?? I will say that I believe Jesus would not approve of this bill.

-- Posted by ssnkemp on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 5:50 AM

Bigot. Why, just a week or so ago a commentor here just wanted to know how the LGBT were persecuted against. Just look at this bill. If Christians are so hard up on enforcing the bible the start railing against shrimp and tattoos, the bible denounces both. Oh and divorce too. This is no different than the civil rights movement of the 60's. Basic, civil human rights for all.

-- Posted by cognitive77 on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:18 AM

We have other pressing issues that need immediate attention by our law makers but they always seem to get tied up on these social issues all the time, we can deal with that later let's get to the pressing issues that we all face for once, like infrastructure overhaul, texting while driving, stricter laws regarding sexual offenders and Obamacare etc etc.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:49 AM

We shall name it the "religious bigot bill."

I find it interesting that that Wallingford comes out with this bill just a few weeks after endorsing a candidate for circuit judge who has history with using the n word on the job.

Birds of a feather?

-- Posted by bebacksoon on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:56 AM

Take a look at how that played in Arizona.........one's religion does not give them the right to discriminate against others ever, period.

-- Posted by luvbball15 on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:59 AM

All the important things in our state to address and Wallingford wastes his time being a bigot. Way to go Wayne you are a tool. Withdraw this bill immediatly and save the state the embaresment that Arizona went throug.

-- Posted by 3forone on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:22 AM

Welcome to Wayne's world. We have a bill here that Wayne now says, does nothing. If so, why is taxpayer money being wasted on it? I have not read this particular bill, but there is an inherent danger in this type of legislation. Who's religion is being protected and against whom? Is it mine? Yours? The guy's across the street? Is it being protected from The Government, (already done in the U.S. Constitution), from gays, from other religions? Does this type of legislation open the door to discrimination by one sect against another? Will it pit Jew against Muslim? Protestant against Catholic, agnostic against all other? All from a bill that is said by it's instigator to do nothing? Wayne, Wayne, Wayne. What were you thinking when you did this most stupid and foolish thing?

-- Posted by foxtrot007 on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:26 AM

Hey Wayne, either you are an idiot or just plain out of touch!...How about doing something useful and support a bill that would legalize marijuana and create a huge revenue source for schools and infrastructure (bridges and roads etc.) This religious freedom bill will not and does not have the support of the voters in my opine. Like I said, do something timely and important and earn your keep!

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:40 AM

Thanks for taking a hard and important stand, Wayne. This bill is more about religious freedom than restriction. You speak for me.

-- Posted by fightingindian on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 8:12 AM

I saw a meme going around facebook and I'm going to paraphrase here. Elected officials put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible. Also, I thought is was freedom FROM religion as much as freedom of religion.

-- Posted by fairandbalancedincape on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 8:16 AM

so are we going to be on tv like Arizona

-- Posted by falcon2412 on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 9:00 AM

I actually campaigned for Wayne, and I can say, I have never been so disappointed in a choice I have made for an elected official. All he seems to want to pen his name to anymore are bills that cost tax payers in order to make some political statement to please some special interest. Wayne, this sort of trivia should be billed back to you and your political party, not paid by the taxpayers.

-- Posted by wrcactus on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 9:03 AM

Wow, ignorance and myopia are bliss in this forum topic.

Answer this question, should the Jewish owner of a Jewish deli be forced to make/deliver food for a neo-Nazi gathering?

Read and learn folks:

http://www.cato.org/blog/marriage-equali...

-- Posted by bbollmann on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 9:21 AM

So it is assumed we have a huge problem with neo Nazi groups in Missouri, or is it that you are comparing gay Americans to neo Nazis? Funny I had not heard of this big issue between the Jews and Neo Nazis before here in our state. Of course it could happen, just like a being from another planet could appear who hates Christians. Should Wayne be filing a bill to protect us from that? Reality is, your argument is just silly.

-- Posted by wrcactus on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 9:39 AM

nothing but a headline grab by Wallingford. This bill has no chance but he will hear his name mentioned by the national media as a result of the embarrassment he has brought upon his senatorial district. Once again we look like buffoons to the rest of the country as a result of a local politician's personal agenda. I voted for Wallingford once - never again!

-- Posted by chinook on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 9:42 AM

The exact same law exists at the Federal Government Level. Businesses in other states are being sued for exercising their religious discretion. Senator Wallingford files a bill to protect Missouri businesses. Kudos.

...and trust me, I disagree with Senator Wallingford ALOT

Logik:

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/up...

-- Posted by bbollmann on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:04 AM

Wayne work on more productive legislation which the majority of the people expect you to do and stop working on less productive legislation. Work on something like improving Missouri job creation numbers, infrastructure and Obamacare. Be productive

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:07 AM

WOW, something must have frozen over. I agree with swamp. See, you never know.

-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:27 AM

This thread is a pretty good advertisement for Southeast Missouri. Not a single soul can be found for bigotry except the head of the local Tea Party.

Congratulations to all.

(but where is Dug?)

-- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:28 AM

The concept of property is so alien to us that our entire political system is built on the dipersion of "rights" that don't exist, by a government that shouldn't either.

You don't have the "right" to be served by a private business. The only discrimination laws that should exist are those that pertain to the government. A private business owner does have a right to be as lousy, or as pleasing to a customer as they choose for whatever reason; religious or otherwise.

Wallingford's derp is another example of the conflict that the state has introduced into our lives. We have allowed the state to determine that private property is "public". That is insane, and until we as a society reclaim our property the conflict will continue until it finally collapses.

But let's be honest. This is just a cheap political stunt by Wallingford to get some attention. He took some bad advice obviously. The GOP already looks like a bunch of cranky old homophobes. Wayne Wallingford is proving it.

Unfortunately he is taking the people of this state on his race to the bottom with Kansas and Arizona. Congratulations Wayne Wallingford! Thanks to you Missouri won't be out-dumbed in the eyes of the rest of the country!

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:35 AM

WHEW! Wallingford's got the libs upset today.

Where were all of you when muslim cab drivers refuse to transport infidels with alcohol on them?

Can I demand that a gay-owned sign company print an anti-gay sign for me? Maybe "Die Homosexuals" or "Gays are sinful"? I would hope not.

Can I demand that a Baptist sculptor create a statue of Mary for me?

Your outrage is empty. The few democrats around here will do anything for a vote. Now answer those questions above.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:36 AM

Our state legislators seems to find ideas from bills filed by politicians from other states such as Arizona and Kansas. There is not an original idea being conceived anywhere near the capitol in Jefferson City.

-- Posted by sunshine77 on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:38 AM

(but where is Dug?) -- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:28 AM

Why? You going to get your gun out and "shoot me up"? More from the tolerant left. You're the bigot. Another lefty.

Granny was putting homophobic comments on here a few weeks ago.

Looks like the left has a violence and homophobic tendency on these threads.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:40 AM

Sorry to disappoint you Dug but, all of these complaints are not from liberals. Many who voted for Wayne have posted negative comments on his FB page but, they seem to disappear quickly. You can try to create all the hypos you want but, the bottom line is it's still bigotry IMO. If the govt chains Wayne's church doors shut or attempts to keep him from going into church, I'll be the first to stand beside him. But, my suggestion is cut the BS and get on with the people's business.

-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:46 AM

Please answer the questions above. Or can you?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:49 AM

all of these complaints are not from liberals. -- Posted by left turn on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:46 AM

I saw that right away and agree. I'm just asking some questions about what is / isn't "discrimination". My examples are no different than what wedding cake makers and flower shoppes are being forced to do.

Should a gay sign maker be forced to print a sign with serious anti-gay messages on it?

Can I demand a Baptist sculptor chisel out a statue of Mary?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:56 AM

I will answer both questions Dug...same answer for both! NO....However, the Baptist may need the money and so might the sign maker! I read a sign yesterday while waiting for a friend who needed smokes. The sign on the front door said, please do not wear your hoody on your head when entering store. Not verbatim but same message. Is that discrimination?

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:59 AM

Business owners can certainly discriminate on what services they provide. The issue is discriminating on providing the SAME services to different customers depending on who those customers are.

If I request a generic cake from a baker who normally bakes such cakes it should not matter who the customer is or what they plan to do with said cake. If I request a weird erotic cake or some kind of giant specialized cake and that baker does not normally take such requests then they can certainly turn down that business.

Dug: If a Baptist sculptor makes a living making and selling statues of Mary he should be willing to sell you one regardless of who you are or what your personal beliefs might be. If you go to a sculptor that only chisels Jesus statues then you cannot demand they create a special product that caters to your specific needs.

-- Posted by Nil on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:59 AM

Nil - the cake makers weren't making a "generic" cake. They were asked to decorate it and top it with a same-sex figurines. The cake maker refused.

If a gay sign company makes signs, are you saying I should be able to force them to make a sign against their beliefs?

I think gay sign makers should be allowed to refuse business that violates their personal beliefs.

I think a Baptist sculptor should be allowed to refuse business that violates their personal beliefs.

I also think that a Christian bakery should be allowed to refuse business that violates their personal beliefs.

I agree 100% with Simon's statement.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 12:03 PM

The other day, I forced poor old Dug to say he is not a racist. (For which I did, and do, congratulate him.) Obviously, that cost him his stipend from the Koch brothers. Just as obviously, he is desperately trying to get it back.

Bad news, Dug. The Kochs won't accept your general bigotry. You still aren't going to get your check.

-- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 12:40 PM

And, by the way, all of Dug's 'examples' fail for the same reason. Discrimination, to be actionable, must be against a protected class of people.

One may not discriminate against black people or women or gays because we protect 'status'. That means that a class of people who are similar as a result of their inherent nature cannot be discriminated against because of that nature.

The Muslim taxi driver is not guilty of discrimination because uncovered hair is not a 'status'. However, he is subject to discipline by the licensing authority for not making himself available under the normal rules.

The Baptist sculptor cannot be held accountable for not making a unique sculpture but would be accountable for refusing to sell the sculptures he makes to a black person or a Jew. (This is a particularly offensive 'example'. We Baptists have no objection to sculpting the Virgin Mary. We disagree with the concept but are not bigoted against Catholics.)

The wedding cake case is nothing like Dug suggested. The business refused a same sex couple because they were a same sex couple. The objection was to their status. The refusal had nothing to do with not putting a statuette of a same sex couple on the cake. Does Dug claim the business had those little statuettes of two men sitting on the shelf and refused to sell them? Silly. And not true.

Can gay sign painters refuse to paint signs of bigotry? Of course. It has nothing to do with the status of the requesting bigot.

Dug's only defensible point is that I am intolerant of the intolerant. Guilty.

-- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:03 PM

Dug the bible also says judged lest you be judged. meaning you don't have the right to judge other people!

-- Posted by E.A. on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:11 PM

A few years ago I met Wayne and I thought he was O.k.. The past couple of years I'm starting to rethink that.

-- Posted by E.A. on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:13 PM

Dug after reading some of your posts lately, i think you need a time out. Go stand in the corner and when you can play nice we'll let you out of the corner. Lol

-- Posted by E.A. on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:15 PM

Can I demand a Baptist sculptor chisel out a statue of Mary?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 10:56 AM

What is it with you in Baptist, Dug? Baptist believe in Mary!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:18 PM

Hang in there, Dug. This is only the "generation of vipers" the Bible mentions doing most of the whining on this thread.

-- Posted by RELee on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:56 PM

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Matthew 12:34

-- Posted by RELee on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 2:01 PM

Well, that's going a little far, blender. Dug and Senator Wallingford have some serious problems but I'm not sure they are vipers.

And the Tea Party bigots don't speak any good things but, again, I really think Matthew was referring to the scribes and Pharisees. So your reference is actually to the religious bigots of our time who condemn those who do not toe their particular line.

-- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 2:17 PM

I know so many Christians who accept homosexuality, and most of the gay people I have met are Christians. Some are using Christianity to justify what is just their personal distaste for a lifestyle.

-- Posted by ssnkemp on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 2:42 PM

This is off subject, but does anyone remember during the government shutdown, that Rep. Jason Smith promised to donate his salary to charity. The Washington Post published a list of representatives who donated their salary during the shutdown, and his name was not listed.

-- Posted by sunshine77 on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 5:19 PM

I knew better than to vote for this loon. Premarital sex is a sin but you wouldn't be doing business with anyone if you pick and choose your sins. The politicians in Missouri won't even expand Medicaid in Missouri because they are too worried about gay people instead of the poor and sick.

-- Posted by Thinking for myself on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:09 PM

Dug, Its time to get back on your meds.

-- Posted by Shellback on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:34 PM

Please keep in mind while Sen. Wallingford is busying himself and staff with this type of bill, Missouri has failed to comply with the Tobacco Settlement of several years ago (which was so lucrative a Mo. Supreme Ct. Judge resigned to join a firm which received millions in fees and then Sen. Peter Kinder sued to prevent the alotment of the huge fees) and now Mo. has lost an arbitration decision requiring MISSOURI TO RETURN APPROX. $70 MILLION THIS YR. WHICH IT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED and PROBABLY $10 MILLION MORE FOR EA. OF NEXT 7 YRS.

2 Attorney Generals have warned both Mo. Senate and House leaders, but the Mo. Legislature did nothing. Instead, senators like Wallingford apparently didn't learn the concept of federalism in high school or won't recognize the role of U.S. District Courts in enjoining and violations by governments and enforcing of all federal constitutional rights. The Mo. state legislature should stay focused on its role and do it well. If Sen. Wallingford has other agendas to advance take them to the appropriate forum as a citizen (on his own time) and others of like mind have a right to join him.

-- Posted by RGarms on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:52 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a business who deals with the public is allowed to refuse to serve a customer for any reason, unless it is a "prohibited basis" under federal or state law, which would include race, marital status, religion, nation origin, sex, disability and a few others (sexual orientation is not a prohibited basis in Missouri). Do we really want to allow a business to reject a customer's business because they fall into one of these categories? I don't think this legislation is necessary.

-- Posted by tom on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 6:59 PM

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Seems the Apostle Paul was quite clear in this verse.

-- Posted by RELee on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:07 PM

Yeah, Paul also said women should be silent in church.

-- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:24 PM

BLENDER: Why don't you and Wayne go and hang an ox head on the tabernacle door together. Seriously, Jesus also said prayer should be done in private. Where does the General Assembly stand on that?

-- Posted by wrcactus on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:48 PM

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught this:

When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

-- Posted by wrcactus on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:55 PM

Your quarrel is with Martin Luther who brought singing into church services. Very popular. As Will Durant (a famous historian) said: Even the tuneless love to sing in the anonymity of the crowd.

-- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 9:17 PM

Right, let's go back to the establishment of Jamestown, where the early fore-fathers, set up the community so that ONLY those MEN, who were landowners AND Episcopals, could vote! Of course this did all change, when they realized, upon setting up the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States, that there should be NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION and that all citizens deserved to be free from religious preference and any abuse! Jesus Christ dealt with bigotry, when the Jews brought Jesus a woman a woman caught in adultery - The intent of the Jews was to stone her death, as Moses ordained; but Jesus wrote in the sand what we assume were the sins of the people self-righteous enough to believe they were "qualified" to stone the woman. As the would-be "stoners" left one, by one, on seeing their sins written in the sand, Jesus finally said that, since no one remained to "judge" this woman, Jesus would not condemn her or judge her either. Bigotry has no place in faith practice.

-- Posted by renewableenergy on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:19 PM

Posted by wrcactus on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 7:48 PM

Well, it seems pretty obvious that you don't know Jesus, doesn't it?

-- Posted by RELee on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 11:44 PM

Blender, I believe there is something about letting God be the judge in the bible somewhere also.

-- Posted by ssnkemp on Fri, Feb 28, 2014, at 3:22 AM

Posted by ssnkemp on Fri, Feb 28, 2014, at 3:22 AM

True, but you are allowed to observe their words and actions and compare them to the Fruits of the Spirit.

-- Posted by RELee on Sun, Mar 2, 2014, at 2:23 AM

Repubs dont support expanding medicaid because it's a democrat idea. Hell with poor folks, they dont send money.

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sun, Mar 2, 2014, at 6:02 AM

-- Posted by Pythagoras on Thu, Feb 27, 2014, at 1:03 PM

So says the "Koch Brothers" conspiracy loon. You've got those party talking points down.

Very telling that you don't include Christians in your group of "protected" status. Many people need protection from bigots like yourself. Just listen to the bigotry and hate of this person toward Christians:

Pythagors the bigot: "The Baptist sculptor cannot be held accountable for not making a unique sculpture but would be accountable for refusing to sell the sculptures he makes to a black person or a Jew."

A Baptist can't be held accountable for making a statue of Mary for a Christian but could be held accountable if that person were a black or a jew".

About as biased and bigoted as you'll see on these threads. From the only person I've ever seen threaten to shoot someone on this web site. Pythagoras the shooter should be your handle.

And finally, I can cut and paste the discussion on racism. I refused to answer your question until you answered my about racism. You capitulated first and said you were not racist. Then I gave you my answer.

Comprehension isn't your strong suit. Liberal bigotry, hate and political correctness clearly are. Have you threatened to shoot anyone else lately? Simply amazing.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Mar 2, 2014, at 4:27 PM

This is the same guy that sponsored and passed a bill named after a convicted felon. It really makes one wonder just who is pulling his strings?

-- Posted by Cogito on Wed, Mar 5, 2014, at 10:51 AM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.