State labor investigators have determined a Gresham bakery violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple when it refused to make a cake for the women's wedding.
The Bureau of Labor and Industries said Friday that it has wrapped up its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Spokesman Charlie Burr said investigators found substantial evidence the bakery unlawfully discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation.
Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries.
The controversial case began a year ago. Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman of Portland say they were denied a wedding cake by the bakery's owners, who cited their own religious beliefs. Cryer and Bowman, who are domestic partners, soon lodged a complaint with the state.
The state will now oversee a conciliation process between the two parties to see if a settlement can be reached. If not, the labor bureau may pursue charges before an administrative law judge.
Paul Thompson, the Portland attorney representing Cryer and Bowman, said the women consider the investigation’s findings bittersweet. He said the two are about as pleased as they can be, given that state investigation ultimately determined they were discriminated against.
Herbert Grey, the Beaverton attorney representing bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein, said the investigation’s outcome was expected. He said the Kleins will participate in the conciliation process, but are maintaining their original stance.
The Kleins have contended they weren't discriminating against the couple, who were customers in the past. Instead, they say they were practicing their Constitutional right to religious freedom. They have said baking a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate their Christian beliefs.
A post on the business’ Facebook page about the investigation’s findings had attracted nearly 200 comments late Friday, most in support of the owners’ stance.
"They’re being punished by the state of Oregon for refusing to participate in an event that the state of Oregon does not recognize," Grey said.
In the months after the case unfolded, Sweet Cakes by Melissa closed up shop on the edge of downtown Gresham, and the Kleins moved the business to their home.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/sweet_cakes_by_melissa_investigation_wraps_up_as_state_finds_evidence_that_bakery_violated_civil_rights_for_refusing_to_make_same-sex_wedding_cake.html#incart_m-rpt-2time for somebody to out these two trouble making queers that bought the suit
Soon it will be criminal for a Christian or a church to refuse to give the homos whatever they want.Yes they can. They are real close.
The left is so close to realizing their dream of criminalizing Christianity they can taste it.
Yes they can. They are real close.sounds like though Christians could have a real bacis for a lawsuit against the ACLU if they could prove that only Christian business are being targeted by these lawsuits.....I don't see any Muslim ,Jewish etc business being sued
Under Oregon law, accepting a license to do business in the State means you have to comply with this kind of mandate, or else.Religious beliefs do not trump civil laws in America.
And this is all in accordance with State law as written by liberals.
Under Oregon law, accepting a license to do business in the State means you have to comply with this kind of mandate, or else.Yet the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution, along with Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution, prohibit the passage of laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. So any compliance requirement that inhibits any reasonable free exercise, as this clearly does, is invalid.
And this is all in accordance with State law as written by liberals.
Religious beliefs do not trump civil laws in America.so a muslin bakery should be forced to bake a wedding cake for bleep then?
Religious beliefs do not trump civil laws in America.
Yet the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution, along with Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution, prohibit the passage of laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. So any compliance requirement that inhibits any reasonable free exercise, as this clearly does, is invalid.there are other bakeries these two bleep could have gone too
Under Oregon law, accepting a license to do business in the State means you have to comply with this kind of mandate, or else.
And this is all in accordance with State law as written by liberals.
Yet the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution, along with Article I, sections 2 and 3 of the Oregon Constitution, prohibit the passage of laws that inhibit the free exercise of religion. So any compliance requirement that inhibits any reasonable free exercise, as this clearly does, is invalid.
That argument is extremely unlikely to fly. Engaging in a trade or business is generally not the sort of expressive speech that the First Amendment addresses. Furthermore, the constitutional provisions go to what the state can force someone to do; if one freely consents to restrictions on one's First Amendment rights, then one has no one other than one's self to blame.they did not refuse to sell them backed goods etc,just make them a wedding cake
Soon it will be criminal for a Christian or a church to refuse to give the homos whatever they want.
The left is so close to realizing their dream of criminalizing Christianity they can taste it.
so a muslin bakery should be forced to bake a wedding cake for bleep then?
Really? Even when those "civil" laws are made up well after your religious beliefs?? Whatever happened to Grandfathering??
Using that reasoning, a diner that was open for business prior to Rosetta Parks should still be allowed to refuse to serve Negroes. :whistle:
IIRC Robert Kennedy had to use interstate commerce laws to overturn "for whites only" policies such as the ones you described (Boynton v. Virginia).
The difference (as I see it) is that we all individually have the right to discriminate on a personal level, but that does not necessarily allow for the right to discriminate in the field of commerce.
IIRC Robert Kennedy had to use interstate commerce laws to overturn "for whites only" policies such as the ones you described (Boynton v. Virginia).
The difference (as I see it) is that we all individually have the right to discriminate on a personal level, but that does not necessarily allow for the right to discriminate in the field of commerce.
Exactly, Luis.
Except "Ladies Nite" when they can get 50% off alcohol. :laugh:
or
Senior citizen pricing providing discounts.
Why not? I should, for example, be obliged to make and carve an altar for a Satanic cult? Someone comes in and asks me for one, I'll send them to a colleague who doesn't mind doing that. He gets the money, they get what they want, I get to keep my peace of mind.
Your business is licensed by the State, and there are laws that govern how you conduct that business.
Those laws do not apply to your behavior as an individual, but then again, you need no licensing to be an individual.
Would the world be a better place if we all generally lived and let live?
Absolutely.
Then again, "our side" is not good at that either.
My oh my! you debate just like a liberal.is name calling your answer?? ,they didn't refuse to serve these two bleep ,they just said they would not bake them a wedding cake ,why should people be forced to approve of the gay life style? could not these two queers just said ok and just gone to another bakery? this is an attempt by liberals and the gay mafia to run Christians out of business..sure as hell don't see them targeting Hindus,Muslims or Jews with this demand to"act against your Christian beliefs and bake us a wedding cake ,take pictures at a fag wedding ect BS
But to answer your question in a word? Yes!
To make a comparison between the civil rights of African-Americans and the 'rights' of homosexuals is, IMO, a hideous inequity.thank you ..the queers and their enablers are demanding we approve of their lifestyle ,BIG difference between that and not serving somebody because their black or a jew
There is no "civil right" that should force us to support what we know from Scripture is morally reprehensible.
There is NO parallel between the Civil Rights movement and the bullying of homosexual groups against Christians.
I do sometimes ponder that. Obama wasn't lying (for once) when he did the famous "you didn't build that" statement.
I built my business from scratch to the dizzying heights of 5 employees and steady, though rarely spectacularly profitable work coming in. Look at it - I am proud of it.
Then I look at the filing cabinets. There are 4 in the office. One holds 10 years worth of contracts, invoices, cheque stubs, letters from happy clients, two court cases from unhappy clients. The other three hold inspection reports, incident reports, mandatory paperwork, local council inspections, customs and excise investigations, 17 police reports, tax assessments, VAT paperwork, health and safety guidelines, food hygiene certificates (we don't even sell food), export licences, import licences, the list goes on and on.
I sort of wonder who's business it is.
It's your business, but it is a business.Good then the queers and their supporters need to show tolerance as well ,go to another business and stop forcing approval of your perversion on the rest of us ..this is one of the main reasons I despise bleep
We are overtly regulated, but then again, having no regulations at all is perhaps just as bad as having too many regulations.
It's the Paradox of tolerance. It's Karl Popper's argument that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, because tolerating intolerance will inevitably lead to the end of all tolerance.
As a society, we're constantly seeking to maintain that balance.
is name calling your answer?? ,they didn't refuse to serve these two bleep ,they just said they would not bake them a wedding cake ,why should people be forced to approve of the gay life style? could not these two queers just said ok and just gone to another bakery? this is an attempt by liberals and the gay mafia to run Christians out of business..sure as hell don't see them targeting Hindus,Muslims or Jews with this demand to"act against your Christian beliefs and bake us a wedding cake ,take pictures at a fag wedding ect BS
Good then the queers and their supporters need to show tolerance as well ,go to another business and stop forcing approval of your perversion on the rest of us ..this is one of the main reasons I despise bleep
That's rich, Charlespq.....accusing me of name calling, when in virtually all your posts in this thread refer to homosexuals in degrading fashion as "bleep" and "queers".
Thanks for playing. :whistle:
Oh.....and baking a wedding cake for a customer doesn't translate that one approves of the gay lifestyle. But you know that already.
Oregon law bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in jobs and in places that serve the public, such as restaurants and bakeries.
The 2007 law provides an exemption for religious organizations and parochial schools but does not allow private business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
thank you ..the queers and their enablers are demanding we approve of their lifestyle ,BIG difference between that and not serving somebody because their black or a jew
I think there is a fundamental error here, in treating it as a freedom of speech/freedom of religion case.I almost mentioned the 13th Amendment (best known as the abolition of slavery amendment): the concept of involuntary servitude. That amendment bars people from being forced to serve someone else unless a crime has been committed and that servitude is punishment for the crime.
Both sides have equal freedom of speech and freedom of religion - so how do you balance it out? Here in the UK (and throughout Europe) we have two well tested rights in common law that the founders never bothered to list - most likely because they were so self evident they decided to save ink.
Freedom of association and freedom of movement.
In my business, I have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any or no reason. They have the complimentary right to not pay me for my services if they find my policies offensive or me personally offensive.
It's a more sensible way, and keeps clutter out of the court system.
Calling the approval of homosexual lifestyles the same thing as allowing blacks to eat at lunch counters, go to the same bathrooms, drink from the same water fountains, and not get beaten or lynched is, as I said before, a false and hideous comparison.
It is relatively equal to calling the murder of the unborn a woman's "choice."
The left controls the language, and they control the thought of the masses.
They were able to persuade a large number of people to believe that murdering the unborn is good for women, and they are working on persuading the majority of Americans that denying Biblical faith is required by law.
It is most certainly not.
As no crime has been committed here, it would be hard to argue that Melissa must serve the same-sex couple.
I got to admit - I am strongly in favor of homosexuals not getting beaten or lynched as well. Maybe you don't have it there, but here there is a charming custom called gay bashing. It's sort of like the knock out game, but targeted at homosexuals, and outgrowth of the Paki bashing so beloved by the National Front.
There is absolutely NO PARALLEL in what is going on here with the homosexual activist/bullies.
What is happening here is that the bakery owners are being forced to approve of IMMORAL behavior and supporting what they find morally reprehensible.
There is no parallel with the American Civil Rights movement and blacks.
NONE.
I got to admit - I am strongly in favor of homosexuals not getting beaten or lynched as well. Maybe you don't have it there, but here there is a charming custom called gay bashing. It's sort of like the knock out game, but targeted at homosexuals, and outgrowth of the Paki bashing so beloved by the National Front.
Oh, I am not disagreeing. There is no comparison at all. You can't tell someone is a homosexual by looking at them - they have to tell you. Being dark skinned (or a woman, to go back a century or so) on the other hand, is usually pretty obvious.
I am tempter to pull your leg slightly, but respect you far too much to do so. :laugh:
That's rich, Charlespq.....accusing me of name calling, when in virtually all your posts in this thread refer to homosexuals in degrading fashion as "bleep" and "bleep".if I 'm forced to bake wedding cakes for people whose lifestyle I find offensive thats forced approval ..let the gays go to a bakery that caters to gays
Thanks for playing. :whistle:
Oh.....and baking a wedding cake for a customer doesn't translate that one approves of the gay lifestyle. But you know that already.
The bigger difference is that being black or darker skinned has nothing to do with sin.as I said I don't see non Christian businesses that refuse to provide wedding services to gays being targeted ..let the free market do what it does and let those who want to cater gay weddings have their businesses and those who don't want to cater to gay weddings have theirs :shrug:
Homosexual behavior does, and homosexual "marriage" is SIN.
If the state forces a business person to condone (what Scripture clearly states is) sin, then it is a direct affront to religious freedom.
And even if you don't agree with the people who still hold to Biblical beliefs, the religious beliefs of Christians have got to be permitted.
There can be no law against them.
as I said I don't see non Christian businesses that refuse to provide wedding services to gays being targeted ..let the free market do what it does and let those who want to cater gay weddings have their businesses and those who don't want to cater to gay weddings have theirs :shrug:
Won't happen. This is about forced acceptance, by the barrel of the government gun if needed.nothing consecutive or libertarian about it :shrug:
Sad that people who post on a conservative forum support violating people's 1st amendment rights.
if I 'm forced to bake wedding cakes for people whose lifestyle I find offensive thats forced approval ..let the gays go to a bakery that caters to gays
..and again why are just Christian business being targeted ..because the gays and liberals want to forced approval Oh and I'd be a lot less hateful of gays or bleep if they would stop trying to force approval of their life style .. I'd don't care what they do behind closed doors but I support the right of folks to disapprove and forcing businesses to provide services to gay wedding is against our religious liberty...and my disapproval is philosophical as well as Christian
as I said I don't see non Christian businesses that refuse to provide wedding services to gays being targeted ..let the free market do what it does and let those who want to cater gay weddings have their businesses and those who don't want to cater to gay weddings have theirs :shrug:
I fail to see where it says the bakery "was targeted", because they were Christian.
If more than one of my acquaintances told me that so and so was the best bakery, I'd go there....or I would simply inquire at my local deli.
Now...if they happened to be owned by said defendants...it would depend on my nature to go after them legally if they refused to do business with me.
But...as anybody who has ever been on the wrong side of a Type-A homosexual can attest....they don't let up. :laugh:
Free market........................ what a concept!No they don't .... :shrug:
Too bad the thugs in charge of this country don't believe in it. **nononono*
Someone should go to a Muslim owned bakery and demand a cake for some Jewish holiday, or a black owned one and demand a KKK cake, or a Nazi cake from a Jewish owned bakery. See how well that goes over.
Do the Christian haters support this as well, or should only those who believe in the Bible be forced to go against their beliefs?
Someone should go to a Muslim owned bakery and demand a cake for some Jewish holiday, or a black owned one and demand a KKK cake, or a Nazi cake from a Jewish owned bakery. See how well that goes over.
Do the Christian haters support this as well, or should only those who believe in the Bible be forced to go against their beliefs?
Someone should go to a Muslim owned bakery and demand a cake for some Jewish holiday, or a black owned one and demand a KKK cake, or a Nazi cake from a Jewish owned bakery. See how well that goes over.
Do the Christian haters support this as well, or should only those who believe in the Bible be forced to go against their beliefs?
There is also the idea that the Oregon law should be challenged on constitutional grounds since it requires people to sin by proxy or forces them to be an accessory to something they consider to be a mortal sin.Finding out the names of those who bought the lawsuit and protesting at their homes and businesses and that of their supporters works for me as well...lets start playing hardball with these creeps...use their tactics against them ...
Fighting back is always a better option than bitching and complaining.
Finding out the names of those who bought the lawsuit and protesting at their homes and businesses and that of their supporters works for me as well...lets start playing hardball with these creeps...use their tactics against them ...
Finding out the names of those who bought the lawsuit and protesting at their homes and businesses and that of their supporters works for me as well...lets start playing hardball with these creeps...use their tactics against them ...
Finding out the names of those who bought the lawsuit and protesting at their homes and businesses and that of their supporters works for me as well...lets start playing hardball with these creeps...use their tactics against them ...
If we used their tactics, we would heap bags of human feces on their lawns and threaten their children.
I recommend something less ugly than the tactics they use against us.
Oregon laws specifically ban businesses from refusing services due to sexual orientation.
This has been stated by the same poster in a variety of ways and is scary as hell. All he is saying is that might makes right and if 50%+1 members of a community decide the other 50%-1 shall not have the rights of conscience and may be punished for thinking or acting differently. In this are the seeds of totalitarianism.
I am also amazed at this kind of statement (also stated or implied several times): The difference (as I see it) is that we all individually have the right to discriminate on a personal level, but that does not necessarily allow for the right to discriminate in the field of commerce.
That is not true. No such dichotomy between me and the fruits of my labor exist. They are inseparable and so long as I do not engage in fraud or activities physically harmful to others are subject to my values and beliefs, not that of the collective.
One only needs to look at what happened in California after Prop 8 passed. The homosexual community there went after the donation list and took that list and went after residents in CA on the list - in many cases going to the location of their jobs and holding huge protests outside where they created such a dust up the person who had innocently donated money to help Prop 8 pass were fired from their jobs..... they even tried spreading out into Utah to go after Mormons who had donated, however Utah is still a conservative-leaning state (though an exodus of Californian's into that state is changing the conservatism) and this fell flat in their state - it worked in California.
Oregon laws specifically ban businesses from refusing services due to sexual orientation.
This has been stated by the same poster in a variety of ways and is scary as hell. All he is saying is that might makes right and if 50%+1 members of a community decide the other 50%-1 shall not have the rights of conscience and may be punished for thinking or acting differently. In this are the seeds of totalitarianism.
I am also amazed at this kind of statement (also stated or implied several times): The difference (as I see it) is that we all individually have the right to discriminate on a personal level, but that does not necessarily allow for the right to discriminate in the field of commerce.
That is not true. No such dichotomy between me and the fruits of my labor exist. They are inseparable and so long as I do not engage in fraud or activities physically harmful to others are subject to my values and beliefs, not that of the collective.
The only way to change the law is to get that 50%+ 1. And then change it.
BTW... State office-holding Republicans are extinct in Maryland. Not endangered. Extinct.
Not on the Eastern Shore. Its still pretty sane on this side of the Chesapeake.
So long as those protests don't resemble a Westboro Baptist fiasco, that's the sorts of thing that needs to be done.agreed don't want that but I still think we should play hardball...from the link Rapunzel posted
one reporter attempted to prank the bakery and determine if their religiously-grounded philosophy influenced the decision to fulfill other business transactionsok hand out/ put out flyer's with the reporters picture and info denouncing them as a anti Christian bigot.organize a boycott of the newspapers advertisers ..if its a radio or tv station flood the the FCC with complaints picket the newspaper or the reporters house at 6:30 in the morning
The homosexual community there went after the donation list and took that list and went after residents in CA on the list -
:silly: ...because they were enacted by the will of that same 50% + 1 that you seem to have a certain amount of disdain for.
Let's be clear here. I have no disdain for the voting public, nor the democratic process. What I do have, however, is a deep abiding fear of your attitude toward the state as the final arbiter of how people can behave based on their own values and beliefs.
As to this: As long as the law exists, which it does, you have two choices:
1. Abide by the law
2. Disregard the law
Piffle. When the collective requires me or anyone else to act against our own consciences, no law exist. Brute force in varying degrees might exist, but not law.
Children are being taught that right wing Christians are fascists. It's getting very dangerous out there.
To suggest such demonstrations, while necessary...the climate is fast-becoming dangerous for Christians to protest in large groups.
And not necessarily from the authorities.
Children are being taught that right wing Christians are fascists. It's getting very dangerous out there.
agreed don't want that but I still think we should play hardball...from the link Rapunzel postedok hand out/ put out flyer's with the reporters picture and info denouncing them as a anti Christian bigot.organize a boycott of the newspapers advertisers ..if its a radio or tv station flood the the FCC with complaints picket the newspaper or the reporters house at 6:30 in the morning
find out who these gays are and mount a class action lawsuit..name and shame them and put them a national blacklist protest outside their place of employment ..hand out flyer's detailing their hatred of Christians ..thats not illegal if done by private citizens ..If just 20 percent of the US population told the employers of those people that they will not do business with companies that employ anti Christian bigots it would get noticed
heck besides voting out the liberal garbage .go find some uptight gay/liberal company and demand that they provide services to something like a pro life rally or something with a anti gay speaker then sue them if the refuse..start a boycott of the people who support the ACLU..and if you can get away with something like dumping 5 tons of horse poop on Mr ACLU lawyers lawn ..well who cares if its petty and vindictive ...with out committing any major felonies let the liberals and gay mafia feel the publics displeasure ....alinsky tactics the whole enchilada...push back dammed right
Kristallnacht is coming, only a question of when.let them saved a lot of 12 ga buck n ball for that sort of nonsense :whistle:
This time though the Jews will not be the target.
The remedy for hate speech is more speech.like thats not happing now?
The remedy for actions such as these is like actions going the other way.
Do you think there will be lions?
It's difficult to imagine the possible discomfort one may experience standing up for one's beliefs against the danger of hungry lions.
No...what I'm saying is Holder's Justice Department will cherry pick what they're going to prosecute, and a lot of right-wingers are going to be subject to possible violence and injury.
No...what I'm saying is Holder's Justice Department will cherry pick what they're going to prosecute, and a lot of right-wingers are going to be subject to possible violence and injury.yeah I can see that
I must be on everyone's ignore list by now. No one is acknowledging the FACT that denying services or products to people based on their sexual orientation has been established law in Oregon for the past 6+ years.
Oregon is one of the ten most liberal States in the Union (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-liberal-states-2013-2), so why would anyone who lives there be surprised at this law?
What needs to happen in Oregon is a push back.
Find a gay-owned restaurant or banquet hall and demand that they host religious pro-life rallies.
Find a gay-owned caterer and demand that they cater a "Save Marriage" conference.
Have two conservative gay men demand that a Muslim baker cater their engagement party.
Take action.
you may be required to get a license to open a business, you do not surrender your Constitutional rights when you open a business. They are bestowed by the Creator, not the state.
You're not on my ignore.
Then you can disobey the law and take your chances in Court. Oregon law has decreed that businesses may not deny services or goods to people based on their sexual orientation.
I believe that Sweet Cakes by Melissa is now closed.
There is a reason why homosexuals use non-homosexual businesses. They suck, as in they don't make very good food. It's hip to say "we support homosexual businesses" until they taste the food. Watch Top Chef, Hell's Kitchen, Chopped, whatever, they don't do well because people are afraid to criticize them, they just stop going.
There is a reason why homosexuals use non-homosexual businesses. They suck, as in they don't make very good food.
I have two touchstones for a valid law. Is it just and will it be obeyed. That is it.
A law which will not be obeyed (in the main) weakens all other laws. To drag a wild example out - jay-walking. Against the law in a lot of places, and totally stupid. If you want to cross the street, just do it. Everyone does. Yet you can be busted for it, if the cop that sees you is sufficiently bored.
On the just side - is it a fair law? The Texas version of "Thou shall not kill" : "You kill, we'll kill you" seems appropriate here. A simple, law, fair and understandable. :laugh:
"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
Yes, you're right. God bless them. They hold office in Washington County and Cumberland in western MD.
But definitely not in Annapolis. Or in Montgomery County.
Boy, you're not kidding. I LOVE the Trader Joe's in Annapolis (much nicer than the Wilmington DE one) but I always feel so out of place there for that reason. Just walking thru the parking lot to get into the place and looking at the bumper stickers, I feel like I'm in Berkeley CA.
Sometimes I deal with injured Montgomery county people -jobwise. They are the most entitled and lawyered-up bunch I've ever worked with.
There is a reason why homosexuals use non-homosexual businesses. They suck, as in they don't make very good food. It's hip to say "we support homosexual businesses" until they taste the food. Watch Top Chef, Hell's Kitchen, Chopped, whatever, they don't do well because people are afraid to criticize them, they just stop going.
For Shame, Rap! **nononono* **nononono* **nononono* **nononono*
We can't burn down their houses. Think of the CO2 pollution.
Driving a tank through the house is much more eco-friendly. :laugh:
Try the Trader Joe's barbecued pork, wrapped on the styrofoam. Probably the best I've tasted if you're not doing it yourself. Perfect mix of vinegar, not sloppy.
so a muslin bakery should be forced to bake a wedding cake for bleep then?
They will never go after a muslim..all the business so far have been Christian
They will never go after a muslim..
There was one. That bakery in Oakland, I think it was?
A Arizona state senator introduced a bill yesterday to make it legal in AZ to deny service to anyone asking you to provide a service which goes against your religious views.
That's not a great idea either when you've been drinking and all the cab drivers are friends of mo.
Goes both ways.
Though I have to say, Muslims know how to party and are not shy of taking a drink or six.
I would like to see one addendum to that bill though - declare service dogs to have human rights.
Sorry, you can't sign your rights away.