And just so you know, I throw stones at the Pubs when they deserve it .

So, because she shared via You Tube Dennis's link makes all her research futile - right? I am not a follower of Dennis Prager myself. I am sure you can find the same info on numerous sites. I am sure that you are more of an expert on the history of the Democrat party than she - perhaps yes? Who founded the Democrat Party hmmm?Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican platform, it was made more popular under Andrew Jackson who was responsible for the Cherokee "Trail of Tears" along with William T. Sherman of Civil War fame . Check that history out .

But, in case you don't like that link, you can look at this one:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3554

Oh, and nobody else does that on this site right ?

Oh, racism exists and is found in all races to one extent or another. Not blind to it, just not sold that racism is to be found "under every rock" so to speak. Does white racism still exist? Unfortunately yes. Does black racism exist? Unfortunately yes. I could go on about every race or ethnic origin. Do a majority of any ethic group practice racism or support it - no! As for the "thoughtful conservative" comment: I am sure only liberals or progressives own the "thoughtful" space - NOT! A reading of the Federalist papers or Anti- Federalist papers would prove that "thoughtful debate or discussion" is not owned by any particular political leaning. Just because someone has a different perspective doesn't make them less contemplative. I guess if that is "galling ", then count me in. One can read of the "intolerance" practiced on many college campuses to shut down any discussion other than what "I" agree with and see where the intolerance of free and open discussion is quite evident. Oh, give me my "safe space"!

Misguided, but all too typical, California ruling (formulated by mostly Democrat state legislators)

This is what this case was about and that is the reason for the "narrow ruling". As the majority stated, more will be decided in the courts as time goes on. This was a victory for this artist, and the State of Colorado should pay reparations for the damage their bigoted and based actions caused this business owner. So, I disagree. This was a victory for the cake artist and his conscience and for the abuse of citizens by biased governmental adjudication bodies which acted like a fascists (forcing their governmental power inappropriately upon individual citizens).

The victory in this case is twofold: A person who did not dicriminate against gays in general, was vindicated in his objection to affirming a behavioral practice he did not agree with. Furthermore, he sold cakes to LGBT folks that did not "celebrate" the practice. He also declined to do custom cakes for folks who overtly deamaned gay people, or certain Halloween cakes, or white supremacist groups. So, his objection to using his art to support behavior that he objected to, as a matter of religious conscience was affirmed. Secondly, it showed the abuse of certain religious tenants by governmental entities which happens more often in the last 20 years. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission would probably have censored George Washington's innaguaral speech. This bigoted, biased, and overtly antagonistic body, towards people of faith, should be disciplined for their behavior and point of view as far as jurisprudence.

That is another discussion.

A nonsequiteur to the discussion. You miss the point.

If it wasn't for the Republicans it would never have passed. You only tell half the story here. More Democrats voted against it than Republicans. Bt just in case anybody is reading, here is the actual count by House and Senate. So, my point isn't Southern or Northern (remember more Northern Congressional delegates voted AGAINST the 14th amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Which party supported the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to freed slaves. 94% of Republicans supported this while no Democrats did. The 15th Amendment, which gave the right to vote to all native born had 100% of Republican support and no Democrat.Sep 3, 2016

Yes, Clinton's and Obama's tact were SO SUCCESSFUL - NOT!

Especially for the mentally ill - agreed! I support universal background checks, and checking into those persons who have behavioral/mental issues. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS! The shooting in Florida was not really about guns, but about a failure of the system to stop this nutcase from having a gun. However, with knife attacks lately, should we outlaw knives? Should we also outlaw trucks? What about dynamite? There was a man, at the turn of the 20th century and in objection to property taxes, used a truck full of dynamite to blow up a Michigan school and kill about 45 people: teachers and children?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/18/bath_school_bombing_remembering_the_deadliest_school_massacre_in_american.html

Maybe we should outlaw fists, so the people like MS13 cannot beat someone to death. Why not baseball bats; they can kill you? The point is that a personal sense of the value of individual life is the best safeguard to the abuse of any type of weapon or act of aggression with any tool. If I really value your life, I will not beat you to death for your Nike tennis shoes.

This artist was "targeted" by the pro-gay agenda. You are right, they could have bought a cake somewhere else, but that was not the plan. For all of your words, Jesus still condemned the behavior, but not the person. Read again the account my friend. THAT is the POINT!

Jesus would not hate anyone. The fact, implied, is that the cake artist "hates" the customer. This is a red herring argument and misses the point completely. It wasn't the customers he "hated" or objected to, it was the behavior and being asked, not just to serve a cake, which he did freely to all customers, it was that he was being compelled to "promote" behavior whic he found morally objectionable. This is the crux of the matter. Did Jesus "hate" the adulteress who was being threatened - no! However, he did object to the behavior and found it morally objectionable. This classic case of stereotyping everyone who finds a moral objection based on conscience (like Eric Liddell at the 1924 olympics) a popular ploy to smear and besmirch everyone who does not agree with the populist agenda.

So, what do we actually know and not provide conjecture for? One, the DNC and the Clinton campaign, after the, "never Trumper conservatives , who aren't much better", financed a mostly false document, with a foreign person of interest, with proven collusion with Russians, which was used to obtain, without clear disclosure to the FISA court, a warrant to monitor a low level person, who did have some contact with Trump but mostly with his own business interests, and open a monitoring program on an opposition party (and it would be wrong if it were the opposite party). The person who was the object of this monitoring, has NEVER been charged, NEVER been indicted, and roams around free to this day. How is it that an FBI Director begins an exoneration letter, months before the investigation is completed, of the DNC candidate before even finishing questioning witnesses? How is it that the FBI Director, in complete violation of his constitutional charge (to investigate) recommends that no charges be made against a clear violator of explicit law (destruction of evidence under Congressional subpoena which is a Federal crime) which is NOT the role of the FBI (I would fire his out of order BUTT too!) How is it that a clear (Trump or anybody else it might be) hater, changes the verbiage, that Comey regurgitated, from "Grossly Negligent" to "Extremely Careless" based on proven, email and text documented bigoted statements. How is it that all these people escape the purview of a special counsel? Let us quit the innuendo and stick to the facts. I would not put it past the FBI and the "Deep State" of unelected power brokers, to do a piss poor job either.

Thanks for posting the comments the writer alluded to in her article. She hid nothing like many others do.

Well, well, even USA today doesn't necessarily agree with this take. It is amazing the "talking points syndrome" continues with inaccurate reporting. We don't have many real journalists any more; we have opinionists masquerading as journalists.

https://usat.ly/2oZlUJq

https://usat.ly/2AZMTpI

Yes, like many of the Northern States resisted the passage of the 14th Ammendment.......hmmmmm!