Actually that's not how it works according to the law. Civil Rights Act guarantees:
"full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

How can this be a civil rights issue? The florist decided not to deliver based on religious principles. You can't have your atheism and government together.

How is it not a civil rights issue? The law (as posted above) she was denied services based on the grounds of her religion. Just like it's illegal to deny services to a black man. Many people back then would have said it was based on religious principles as well.

Hi, I'm a Cranston Christian.

I don't believe in the First Amendment, or the Civil Rights Act. I am still stuck in the golden era of the 60s where there was unjust discrimination against minorities.

So now you want your government to protect your religion? You can't have both.

I suppose David Davis here thinks the NO JEWS signs on businesses during the WWII-era were totally cool.

@ Chad M. I see what you are getting at. I may not agree with provisions of the Civil Rights Act that interfere with private commerce, but they are indeed the law. However under that law you are prejudging a question of fact. The note says "I will not deliver to this person." It does not say "...because she is an atheist."

Suppose the reason wasn't that the recipient was an atheist per se, but that the particular recipient filed a lawsuit of which the florist disapproves. If that's a violation of civil rights, thenthe Civil Rights Act is itself hateful to civil freedom.

I think Ms. Alquist's new found fame is going to her head, and she is trying to extend her 15 minutes of fame.

www.asktazi.com

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is.
Some refer to the letter written by Jeferson which talks about seperation of church and state but that is not the Constitution. Just because liberal judges has said prayer in schools should not be and have had prayer plaques and other religious things taken down does not change the fact it is not in the Constitution.

What is this world coming to? A florist denied to deliver flowers to a person. The business lost out on a sale. The potential customer/receiver was not physically harmed by this action. Get over it!!! Why isn't more attention placed on more important issues? There is no money in the Cranston Schools for textbooks, music and sports programs. Everyone is worried about a prayer banner and the aftermath of what is going on this girl's life, noone is paying attention to the more important issues. Wake up and smell the coffee people. Our future grandchildren and their grandchildren are going to be suffering when they are being educated by this dwindling system.

Since stated by atheist that atheism is not a relgion how could not delivering flowers by Twin florist be an act of discrimination on her religion when the young lady has no religion? So if you want to have this issue be a religious issue and think a complaint should be filled against the florist than you need to state in your comments that atheism is a religion cant have it both ways.. By the way the recipete from the florist stated "I will not deliver to this person." It does not mention any thing about religion or any reason.

May I point out that we're all missing the point here? From whom are these death threats coming? Godly, reverent Christians who want a teenage girl dead. As an apatheist, I've actually read the Bible (something I'd highly recommend to the more red-faced hostiles among you), and it preaches love and tolerance. I can't seem to find anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus advocated ill-spelled death theats. Christians who promote viciousness and hatred are NOT Christians by any stretch of the definition. Shame on you for calling yourself Christian or godly when you are living a life of hatred and fear rather than faith and love.

By the way, if you don't know what "apatheist" means, look it up. Read the Bible while you're at it.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you read the Constitution you will see there no place where the word church is or the word seperation is. Show me in writing where in the Constitution it states seperation of church and state....

The law doesn't say "separation of church and state." But the Constitution, in fact, separates church and state: governments aren't permitted to favor one religion over another (or over atheism, for that matter).

That's a bit of a stretch. There is no indication whatsoever of immediate harm or danger. There is no indication that simply delivering goods would somehow drag the delevery person into "the media circus". THIS JUST IN: FRANK FERGUSON JUST DELIVERED PIZZA TO THE HOME OF A 16 YEAR OLD GIRL... WE WILL KEEP YOU UP TO DATE AND DIG UP TRASH ON FRANK FERGUSON AMERICA HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW! Ridiculous...

<characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.>

Chad, did you just wake up partner???
Have you not read all the threats? Have you not seen the extra police details? Have you not seen that the police are doing on-investigations of threats?
I have some coffee I'll share so you can get your head in the game...

The Patch certainly wouldn't be there. Just like we weren't at the school on Monday to take pictures of Ms. Ahlquist nor did we post any speculation about whether she'll go to a different school or even this latest florist issue until official legal action was taken. I agree with many readers that the coverage of this issue has been stretched in many places and some people and outlets are really milking the situation as much as possible.

Ed, the threats were to Jessica and her family. Not once have I seen threats against anyone who would deliver goods to their house. Is there any reason what so ever to think delivery people would be in danger at all?

Also the denying of service has caused more of a media circus than it already is, prolonging the problem.

I have to agree with you totally!!!! I have read this case from the beginning!!!

Ed, I totally agree with you on that. Are people in Cranston aware that our tax paying dollars are going to 2 police officers who protect and guard Ms. Alquist throughout the school day?????

Chad needs to get his head out of his *ss! If my child were in any of Ms. Alquists classes, I would have removed him/her!! FOR THE SAFETY OF MY CHILD!!!

Surrender Ed fears that if his employees make a delivery to the Ahlquists, they'll be targeted by a violent Christian mob. For safety reasons, Surrender Ed says "be smart, give in to terrorists, even before they threaten you".

I don't know about the local community, but I can speak for the rest of America there are hundreds of thousands of positive support for Jessica. percentages are off when you look at the larger scale.

Chad... But I'm a small businees owner here in this community responsible for my employees....
Now think of this, say, just say that something did happen to my delivery guy later because his face was all over the papers (which it would be), he gets harmed and gets an attorney to sue me for putting him in harms way. He gets a "Personal Injury Law" attorney... Ahhh, I get shredded in court because I knew of the potential danger I put him in. Remember, these attorneys eat lobster and filets for a reason, they will choke my business and I'm done...Not to mention a loss of my customer base which I can ill afford to loose in todays times...

This is still a stretch like I said before earlier. There is no potential at all to believe that the papers would plaster a delivery persons face in the papers. It's non news. Your assertion that "(which it would be)" is completely unfounded and ridiculous. There's no reason why you would reasonably think that some news agent would find a delivery news worthy. However denying service... that's a whole different story. Extremely news worthy, and you will end up in a Civil Rights case which you are more likely to lose. Those lawyers be eating fatter than they were before.

Chad... Did the delivery, or lack there of, make the news? Yep... The media just won't let go, period. Hate to say this but the media will pay big for Jessica getting a bundle of roses, that picture would be priceless, the billboard picture was plastered everyhwere...
I'll plead safety first, you can plow on with your case...

Ed, actually only the lack of delivery made the news. There has been several other gifts that I have heard of through Jessica's twitter that were not news. So I really doubt a safety issue could be argued at all.

Chad... Every step of the way makes news here... I have a very strong position on employee safety... I want each and every one to go home in the same condition they came to work in. They have family and friends and as you can see the employer is responsible... I just let the 90-10 numbers justify that there is a high degree of potential here that i can not in good conscience ignore....

While your concern for safety is admirable, I find it to be paranoid and unfounded concern. There has been a lot that hasn't made news. And avoiding news you have caused news, where there is no likely reason to believe that news would have happened otherwise... doesn't seem to follow to me. excuse me if I see this as a smokescreen for Civil Rights violation. "Every step of the way makes news here..." I really doubt delivery of a good can be considered a Step....

Chad say what you may, I don't see employee safety as a civil rights violation, period!
I don't like your twists on things and lack of respect for an employer trying to do the right thing.... The numbers justify my position...

The numbers don't justify your position at all. Because none of those numbers actually pose a threat to delivery people. I'd agree with you if some of the other delivery people have so much received threats from people or interest from the media. How many mailmen have been plastered on the news? How many mailmen have been threatened? How many mailmen have had any violation against them? I'm sure she's still getting mail. Your fears are unfounded. And you don't seem to be trying to do the right thing. You are coming up with paranoid excuses to deny a little girl flowers!

Chad... Sorry, you're comparing bread to fruits... You just don't get it, a small family business vs a government mandated service...
I'll stand by the numbers and let others get face time. Then we will know exactly what the outcome is...

Do any of you even live in Cranston? Do any of you know a teacher or student at Cranston West? There are police on detail to "protect" her. What does that say? People know where she lives? THere have been threats towards her. Who is to say that there isn't someone outside her house that is so disgruntled they would harrass or even attack someone delivering flowers to her? What world do you live in? Obviously, not the real world where anything can happen. Just because you think it wouldn't happen doesn't mean it won't.

Glad you're a degreed attorney or judge Fred... Thanks for the ruling...

"Just using 'safety as an excuse'!" Now isn't that what the ACLU did by using Ms. alquist as their tool . . . the one and only complaint in 50 years certainly is "a streatch" of THE other kind. BUT apparently YOUR kind of streatch is OK while the florists much more realistic FEAR for his employee is not. Hummmmmm, if the glove doesn't fit YOU must equit!

Ed, as a suggestion, you might write an op-ed to the paper, expressing your dismay that some citizens' mob mentality prevented you from serving a customer.

Fred - you need to open your eyes - although, you are probably related to her, if not her responding as "Fred". I'm PO'd that my tax dollars are going to a little girl who had no idea what she was getting herself into. I wouldn't want to be her or her family in fear for my life! I totally agree with the Florist - Good for you to be able to stand up for yourself and say NO!!!

Fred, let's get one thing straight here, it is "NOT" the business owners, it is the Cranston Police who have determined this is a very volitle situation. They have posted extra police to protect her, her residence, and at school.
I have to believe that with the information they have the threats of violence are real or they would not be spending the thousands of tax dollars on her.
I'm smart enough to take my lead from them... and you sir????

Athiests do not have a "religion" to protect, as you suggest.

I beg to differ --- http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html

Government - Congress in particular - must avoid passing a law establishing a religion.

Ahhh... MJC PHD, I didn't say that... As a small business owner the risk is too great. The big companys will survive... I have to be careful when the numbers are that lopsided, whether I like it or not.... I have to eat too....

Truer words have not been spoken....

Rulings are NOT law and can be changed at will.
Just as Today's 'precedent' is canon fodder tomorrow!
How long will Corporations being treated or granted the same
"RIGHTS" as a citizen? Talk about a US SC decision that is
destined for failyer! Need to loose a few lawyer congressmen
for this to come about!

MJC PHD, As much as you may try, you will not get a reasoned response from any of the Christians on this board, because there is just no legal or logical foundation for any of them to stand.

Talk about getting support, I haven't had this much business since last Valentines Day... Christmas in January.... Love It!!!

Dave, let's get one thing straight here, it is "NOT" the business owners, it is the Cranston Police who have determined this is a very volitle situation. They have posted extra police to protect her, her residence, and at school.
I have to believe that with the information they have the threats of violence are real or they would not be spending the thousands od tax dollars on her.
I'm smart enough to take my lead from them... and you sir????

I don't have time... Since I posted about my concern of employee safety, people are coming in from all over!!! Business is booming... I got to do this again....YIPEE

Shim... After careful consideration here you have a valid point.
When I look at how much money people are throwing to her, it would not be a prudent business decision to not get a portion myself. So, I'll do it as a good jesture.
Roses (with a discount applied) $23.95, protection services $7,976.05, total due $8,000.00 (No Checks please)...

Amen!

Amen!

Disagree I own a business and if I dont want to service you I WON'T. I own my home and if I DON'T invite you in you are NOT welcome. PRIVATE MY FRIEND PRIVATE

I agree with Golden... "Safety First" when it goes to court....

Ed, like you said, your business is booming right now because of this girl - absolutely take advantage of it!!!!!

OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR THIS GIRL'S PROTECTION!!!!! What the hell? and I say hell as in "heaven and hell"!

Damiem, I can't get sued for protecting my employees.
Remember this situation is very volitile, I take my lead from all the police protection she is getting. The police know something or they wouldn't be spending thousands of our tax dollars, would they....

I would suggest that people stop breaking the law then. It's not her that's costing the taxpayer's money. It's the disregard and disprespect for the law that's causing the tax payers money. If the school board would have just recognized it being against the law as it blatently is, and removed it to begin with. It could have saved lots of money. In fact I would venture to say that the community should sue the school board for letting it go to court in the first place.

If a murderer is prosecuted and convicted, and the murderer’s supporters threaten physical violence against the plaintiff and her family, the plaintiff is not in any sense “responsible” for the costs of police protection. The murderer and the murderer’s supporters are responsible for those costs.
The banner crime was committed by the school and its board. Jessica and the ACLU remedied the crime. Morally, and legally, the party committing the crime is responsible for the criminal act, and for ALL subsequent consequences of the crime, including ALL the costs required in remedying the crime. Jessica is not responsible, the school boards and those making threats are responsible.
Your comments are either simply ignorant or deliberately deceptive. It’s difficult to be sympathetic to such silliness.

Dee, the real world America abides by it's laws, not one particular religion. In God We Trust was a very late addition to our mottos... wasn't adopted until 1956. The founding fathers didn't want a country ran by Christianity or any religion. The argument isn't about who has majority in this country, or where our values lie with God, I have no wish to get in a theological debate. What we need to understand is that the legal precedence in this country is to prevent endorsement of religion of any kind. This is the price we pay for allowing religious freedom, we need to remove any chance for the Tyranny of the Majority, so that we can all coexist.

For Liberty and Justice for all. It Doesn't mean Liberty for the majority to stomp on the rights of everyone else.

Liberty.... When you weed through all the events, jessica was hung out to dry by her parents and uncle, as sad as it is, it's a fact.
I know everyone who is posting here would have given their child the proper guidence to achieve the same result without this firestorm...period
It's just some people should not have children, this is a perfect example...

Buh? By "same result" you mean, require that the school district remove a banner that violates the law?

It's rather bizarre that Ms. Ahlquist is being made a victim, when she's more akin to the child with the temerity to point out the emperor's lack of (legal) clothes.

I do have some sympathy to a store owner who'd suffer if caught between her and the mob (look up the word, Dee... it's an apt description of the rabble that's threatening her), but it's a sad comment on a town if its citizens are being coerced by a majority endorsing illicit behavior.

How would you propose to "achieve the same result without this firestorm", Surrender Ed?

People in town meetings proposed compromises and alternative banners, but it seems like no amount of calm, rational argument would have convinced the Cranston school board. They were determined to defy the law and keep the banner a prayer. A trial was the only recourse.

The Constitution also does not forbid slavery...So I ask you, Can we own slaves?

I would also point out that the Constitution does NOT separate church and state...the Bill of Rights does.
If you wish to take the Constitution literally, then be my guest...I am a white, landowner, so I for one will still be able to vote.

Learn some history before you speak or write, your ignorance is showing.

You're right. Everyone keeps saying a law is being broken. There is no specific law about this type of situation, just a very bad interpretation of the Constitution. That's why a lot of people are so upset. I know we don't all have law degrees, but we don't see where it says that a prayer can't be on a wall of a school in that one sentence of the Constitution. In fact it looks like the judge is "making a law respecting atheism".

The next response is usually, "What if there was a prayer to Satan on the wall? Wouldn't you want that taken down?" Well that's where common sense comes in. Satan is obviously evil and destructive. Obviously the school would not want to put up something promoting evil or immorality.

J. Lane McMahon,
The quote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." is the first Amendment of the Constitution which is part of the Bill of Rights which is the quote that all the anti banner people have been bringing up for the last couple of months. Michael made a very good point and does not deserve to be called ignorant. Where do you see in the Bill of Rights "separation of church and state'?

What a load of claptrap. Everywhere I've seen it, evolution is taught as a theory... it just so happens to be the *leading* theory for the development of the diversity of life on earth, owing to the enormous accumulated evidence and all. And the science teachers I know are proud to regard their understanding of science as being diligently constructed from theories and supporting evidence.

Your last paragraph is indecipherable. There's no "having it both ways" for anyone, whether believer or atheist, to say, "When something is administered by and for the public, by government, it should not inflict any particular sect's religion (or lack of it) on others." So no creche, no bathtub Madonna, no statue of Ganesh, no banner proclaiming "There is no god(s)."

I really have to wonder at this demand that our public spaces yield to the (in many places) dominant Christian sect (and you just know there'd be a huge outcry if the school had posted a quotation critical of Christians, ascribed to Mohammed, say), given their Matthew 6:5, "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

You are so wrong it is laughable...what the atheists want is to have their civil rights protected. They want the same rights that I have, and for some unknown reason, you have.
Would it be ok if I chose to refuse service to all Catholics? No. Or Jews? No...How about I just refuse to serve dumb people? Oh wait...this is RI....I would be out of business in no time.

regarding Ross comment:
Michael is correct still a theory leading or not. who's throwing the claptrap! It is nice to see a athiest quote scripture good for you!

Really?
March 4, 1789 – The Constitution goes into effect.
September 25, 1789 – Congress proposes Bill of Rights

Given that natural selection appears to produce incremental, marginal changes over many, many generations, evolution can be seen in things like the fossil record, and not the living room. But seriously, read a few books... there are many good arguments for why we ought to believe evolution has and will be the reason for the diversity of life on the planet.

You can believe that your particular deity whipped up the world in a week, a few thousand years ago, but believing that isn't science, nor appears to be supported by the scientific evidence we have.

Michael,
Here's the problem. You act as though you know the intent of our founding fathers. While I personally cannot condemn this, I can point out the problems with it.

Our founding fathers owned slaves. This is a fact. No where in the Constitution does it make the ownership of another human being illegal. Therefore, can it not be taken that our founding fathers wanted us to own slaves? Wasn't that their intent? The amendment to the Constitution dod not outlaw slavery until 1865, well after our founding fathers were dead. So I ask you, since it was not in the Constitution, and since they owned slaves, and they did not add it at their first opportuntity to the Bill of Rights, was it our founding fathers intent to keep slavery legal?

That's the problem with using their intent to justify your arguements. You have no idea what their original intent was. And I for one am much more comfortable letting the SCOTUS be the yardstick in make these descisions.

You claim the Jefferson wanted no religion to control the Government. But isn't that exactly what we are talking about? Which religion gets to put up banners in the schools? All of them? None of them? Only the ones you like?

I am religious. Orthodox to be exact. And I do not believe that any church (religion) should be promoted over another on public property. Non-christians pay taxes too, so it's their building just as much as it is mine.

Falls under equal protection.....just like chapels in publicly funded hospitals...

The majority? What numbers are you citing?
It should have stayed up.
347 (32%)

The judge was right to order it taken down.
734 (67%)
That looks like a Bush/Florida majority to me.....

because those people don't count, they don't have rights in this country.

Atheist or not...the majority thinks the banner should not be there. I think we can infer from those numbers that the majority DO see it as a problem. The poll did not differentiate between Atheist, Christian, Muslim, or Jewish...so why would you? That is the whole point of this. You can not single out one segment of the population and impose restrictions or grant freedoms only on them. You seem to see this as an Atheist vs. Christian matter. It is not. Again, I am Christian and I do not think the banner should be in a public place. Nor does the RI Council of Churches....

I can not make it any more simple than this: Are the words "Heavenly Father" and "Amen" religious in nature? Yes or no..?

You forgot the "Amen" at the end.
And to answer your question, Christianity.

It's hard to tell with humans, as we won't be influenced by natural selection as much as other species, i.e., men and women select each other as mates for many reasons other than those which led us to evolve from tree-dwelling creatures to what we are today. And throw in genetic engineering... "human-directed evolution" will likely be a huge thing (and entailing wrestling with ethics, policy, etc.).

As far as fossil records goes, there's necessarily far less information available on humans, a species which (until very recently, in geological terms) was scarce, and whose lifespan produces generations on the order of decades apart. There are many other species which more handily demonstrate the process of evolution, even in the present day, e.g., fruit flies are used to study genetics because they reproduce in a matter of days, not decades.

But read some books... there is a substantial, rigorously challenged and developed body of knowledge that supports the theory of evolution. I will put that up against any thin "God told me otherwise" argument any day.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060422121625.htm

"But you know there are such dishonest people that would pose (say they are when in fact they are not) Christian and make such statements to make others look bad and I suspect that may be the case." Those are the people, if there are any, whom you might want to focus on, then. Not the peaceable Atheists. Go root them out... they're giving your theology a very bad name.

(Though your post reminds me of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman )

Michael, atheism is not a religion, Religions are based on a belief in supernatural Beings, we have no such belief. Religions claim the there are sacred / profane objects, places, and times. Atheist see all things as neutral these things have no value, their standing is determined by how they are used, not what they are. Atheists have no rituals. Atheist do have a moral code, unlike the moral code offered through religion ours clams no supernatural origins: For more on this I strongly recommend reading The Moral Landscape by Sam, Harris .

That said, this dose not mean that atheist cannot fall victim to religious discrimination. I hear what you are saying, most religious discrimination is based on what a person believes "I wont let you in because you believe "A" " and you are right Jessica is not the victim of this. However there is a more subtle kind of religious discrimination. Is is based one what a person DOES NOT BELIEVE often they do not believe what the perpetrator does. "I wont let you in because you do NOT believe "B"" this is the discrimination Jessica is experiencing There is also a sub set to this which tries to coerces someone into believing what you do "I wont let you in until you believe "C"".

As far as the economy I was trying to point out that this reached far beyond the religious / political boxes we have drawn here. with 10% unemployment, Twins was foolish to drive business out of RI, which they did.

Pascal's Wager! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager) My goodness, this has been a regular hit parade of classic theological argument.

I refuse to live my life as if some lofty divine thug was ready to smite me down if I don't maintain our tribal lore and practices from centuries past. I prefer to think that humans should be less fettered by superstition.

No...businesses may not refuse to do business with someone based on their skin color, national origin, sex, or religion....and this is only a few protections under the law...And a court of law will determine if this was discrimination...

No, Joe, the law in question applies like this: “So, black customers may legally boycott Cracker Barrel restaurants as they see fit, but Cracker Barrel restaurants may not refuse to serve black customers.”

So Robin, thanks for you simple example...now suppose the restaurant is a local 6 table diner...and the man in question raped the female owner but has since served his time and been released. What now? My example is extreme and so is yours...there's plenty of room for differences and judgement here.

Joe, In your scenario, I think an owner refusing to serve her rapist would not violate the civil rights act that FFRF invoked. Also, my “extreme” example was drawn from real life: in 2004, Cracker Barrel was sued for refusing to serve black customers ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/09/national/main642287.shtml ).

Of course, I know of the Crackerbarrel incident and a simialr Denny's incident as well. There are probably 100s more unreported. Shame on those businesses. I know the market made them pay a price for their ignorance as well. My point is that the owner of a business has rights too. That includes the right to be stupid. People in the market can then punish that business person through loss of their trade. Customers can also be just as stupid - and bigoted...yet those businesses have no recourse - neither do I call on the government to give them one.

Freedom is not perfect - Forcing people to do business with customers they don't wish to do business with is curtailing their freedom.

Do you think it's okay under the law to refuse to sell to someone because they are a Democrat or Republican?

I apologize if this has been mentioned here before, haven't waded through the entirety of all posts, but the obvious question - was the 'soup-nazi' breaking the law?
Does a business have the right to not enter into a contract with someone 'without cause' because they don't like them?
I don't know. I can tell you, where it is better spelled out, that an employer can not terminate on grounds of race, age, religious beliefs, sex, sexual preference. But you can certainly fire someone, in RI, 'without cause' simply because you do not like them.
The issue then becomes did the florists refuse because she was an atheist, because they just don't like her, or because they just 'did not want to get involved' given the tenor of the community, on both sides. As usual, the only people who are wrong are those who assume that they 100% know the one correct answer, like 'Those awful florists are breaking the law and should be shut down.'

"...In their study, the researchers first organized 77 species of the fruitfly Drosophila into a fly family tree to reveal which species had gained or lost wing spots in comparison to their ancestors. The researchers then analyzed the genetic mechanisms that caused two of the species to gain wing spots independently in comparison to ancestral flies which did not have the wing spots. The researchers also performed similar analyses on two species of flies that had lost wing spots..."

It's a popular press article, so it won't contain the meticulous evidence that someone who actually wants to see proof would demand, but you can be sure there are shelves groaning under the weight of studies of inheritance, natural selection, and evidence of evolution.

And that's science. It'd be nice to just be able to point to a book that spake of miraculous evolution, as revealed through the intercession of the Angel Darwin or something, but science is the real world, not a fairy tale.

I think you're confusing analysis with projection.

The beauty of the U.S. Constitution is that even an individual citizen has rights under the law, and, as in this case, can assert her right to see them upheld, even in the face of considerable popular pressure.

Joe - you don't think, you just spout out nonsense. The latest Pew poll regarding people and religion in the US indicates that atheists comprise 17% of the US population. Then you follow up your lies with a strawman argument/ad hominem attack.

Being an atheist myself, I'll be happy to share with you why we are unhappy/angry, if you will bother to pay attention (and that's unlikely, but I'll give it a try...):

1. Otherwise good people feel the need to violate our shared US Constitution for their private sacred beliefs. Many of my xtian friends/associates regularly tell me that they put their bibles before the US Constitution. This makes me angry.

2. People like you spout out crap and never seem bothered by facts. You just make stuff up and sell it as fact. Let me guess - you watch Fox News..... This makes me angry.

3. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect the minority (us) from the tyranny of the majority (you - or so you say). Unfortunately, people like you wilfully violate the Constitution and villify us for trying to protect. See - we don't have bibles to put ahead of the Constitution. People who violate the Constitution make me angry.

4. People like you are willfully ignorant of our secular birthright and heritage and you are proud of your ignorance. Ignorant and mean people make me angry.

I’ve got more reasons, but I think you’ve probably lost interest and gone back to being an idiot…..

Joe you say that often. Do you retype it each time or do you simply cut and past it?

So Joe you never answered my question that I asked you on another Patch page.

Could you put a t-shirt with the text from 1 Corinthians 13 say you actually live up to it?
Are you patient?
Kind?
Are you free envy? or are you jealous that Jessica won?
Can you red through your post and honestly say you do parade about in a puffed up manner?
Do you think your god would say you don't behave rudely?
Do your post show that you don't seek your own?
When someone says something you don't like are you easily provoked?
Can you say the things you say here show you think no evil?
When you wish the things you wish do they suggest you do not rejoice in iniquity? Have you shown the you rejoice in the truth, or rejoice in ANYTHING?
When you deal with people who aggravate you do you bear all things?
Do you believe all things?
Have you shown us a scene of hopes, and endurance?
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Let me add to my original comment..... As anyone can see from these posts, not only are atheists angry, most of them are also delusional, paranoid and schizophrenic.

The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist (0.7%) or agnostic (0.9%).

So, yes I stand corrected that actually only 0.7% are atheists.

Thank God thees nuts are being contained and restricted to representing only the smallest of less than 0.7% of our society.

Wow, Joe! Not only are you a plumber, but you psychoanalyze people by their posts. For free! What a guy! Ross seems to have you sorted out - you are projecting, poor fellow. When I sited the Pew study, I am referring to those respondents who said they weren't religious or believed in god - regardless of what they call (or don't call) themselves. Furthermore, 25% of respondents said they don't want a religious funeral.
We may not all call ourselves atheists, but we all disbelieve in your myth and legend. Now off you go. Back to the middle-ages where you belong.

What no answer to my I cor 13 question Joe?

Joe I am asking an honest question here have you read "CRANSTON WEST PRAYER BANNER – a Christian Response" by Andrew Mook from Sanctuary Church? http://sanctuaryprovidence.com/2012/01/19/cranston-west-prayer-banner/ I would love your thoughts (or anyone eles's) on it.

Kay, my business is now booming and I knew it would once I saw the numbers.
Like 25 people showed up at the billboard to support her and 230 showed up at the school against her.
I, as a business owner, have to side with the 90%. Best thing I ever did, period.
Remember Kay, with most it's not a religious thing, it's how she handled it to get face time in the papers. Read the early posts where the threats were made, it wasn't about religion...

Congratulations, Ed. In another era you might have cleaned up with festive Strange Fruit hanging floral baskets.

Badger83 as much as I LOVE the Oh wait a minute, the dog might listen.comment I have to disagree with you. If this was a private conversation you might be right, But since this is public it allows us to show the world how foolish, silly uneducated and hypocritical this folks are

So let me see if I am following this-
1) You are here because you are appalled at intolerance of other people based on religious beliefs
2) You despise Christians, whom you call 'dumber than dogs', which you all see as a very funny joke, because they have committed the unforgivable sin of having different beliefs than you do.
3) You call THEM hypocritical.

Is that about it?

Small Change your right, I was wrong. It was awful if me to laugh at someone comparing a dog to a Christian. I know better then that. I should never be so cruel to a dog. Someone turn me into the The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, no dog deserves THAT!

Are you so obsessed with your 'its ok for US to mock and trash THEIR beliefs, because we're RIGHT' attitude that it can't occur to you that someone might simply not like intolerant bullying hypocrites, be they Christian or atheist?

Badger83 Thank you for all you do to protect all of our freedoms. including Small Change's.

Yes, as I'm sure all here I thank you for your service as well.
As for protecting Paul's right, (as well as your own), to verbally abuse people for their religious beliefs, or my 'right' to find that distastsful, - well, I confess I'm still not following that one.

This is the most accurate and sensible post which I have seen here.

The knuckle heads who think they know all did not realize the key point... When the florist refused delivery, religious beliefs were never mentioned... Everyone "assumed" that....

At the Rights commision hearing, it will not be the "Key point" as the business must prove it did not discrimintate. Keep grasping at straws Ed....

For a atheist you have a strange illogical take on what I said. Simply put, one bouquet will not break their business, however losing the base of their business through association with a (and forgive the grammar) undesirable element could break their business. The flower shop had a different belief than you, you understand that surely. A similar case was argued in California and the business was found to be correct. But again, the shop had no contact nor contract with the girl, she didn't request the service and therefore they could not have discriminated against her.

Southerneyes,
While I see the logic in your arguement, I also see the flaw. While you are correct that the florist had no contract with the girl, the problem is that they refused a legitimate customer service based on someones religion (or lack there of). It does not have to be the payee's religion (equal rights) that the supplier is violating.

Ultimately, this will rest in the hands of the Civil Rights Commision, and/or a federal court. If either finds that the florsits did in fact refuse service due to Jessica's lack of religion, then they will most certainly be held accountable under color of the law.

You label of "undersirable element" shows an apparent bias on your part. Step back and ask yourself, would it be ok for a florist to not service Catholics?, how about Baptists?

What if I sent flowers to one of my African-American friends and the florist said, "No, I don't deliver to blacks." Would this be ok?

southerneyes your augment holds no water, If they had simply delivered the flowers when ordered it would have been no big deal, and I would have NEVER MADE THE NEWS. So no one would know if they had an "association with an undesirable element" So doing the right thing would not break their business

Once again, Joe the Willfully Ignorant and Proud of it, continues to cite the same old lies about how many of us pitiful infidels there are in his country. Sadly, he doesn't understand that the Constitution doesn't have a popularity clause or a majority clause. The laws (and freedoms) we all share and enjoy do not depend on how many people don't like them (or do).

And once again, you are quite the projectionist when you call others delusional, etc. You sure you don't work in a movie theatre? Or perhaps because you are a 'plumber' you are so much closer to sewage all day long that it's finally gone to what's left of your brain?

Happy trails, Joe. The rest of us will fight for your right to be a complete idiot whose proud of it.....

Hey Joe,
I am not an atheist, but at least I respect their right to believe what they want....It's the same right that you and I have to believe in Christ. This is not about what you do or don't believe. It's about EVERYONE'S rights.

Be careful about "majority rights" vs "minority rights", one day you may find yourself on the wrong end of that.

Stoney,
Please spare me the patronizing BS that you and your atheist friends so freely dispense. We people of faith do not want your help in defending our constitutional rights.

What you and your rabid militant atheists refuse to accept is that this country is run every day on a mojority rule basis.

Every vote on laws by city boards, state legislators, Congress, and even the Supreme Court is on the basis of majority rule. Not to mention elections themselves. Decisions by one judge trials are frequently overturned because of the judge's bias or error in coming to a decision. I beleive and a majority of others in Cranston believe that this judge's ruling is wrong.

But even if his decision is upheld, the minority atheist segment of our society is increasingly angering the majority of people of faith in this country to a point where the "majority rule" system of voters in our contry will eventually elect people who will make policy and appointments to the courts which allign with the majority's beliefs.

So in the end everything is a majority rule issue.

Joe claims that everything in this country is 'majority rules'. Really? Guess what, Mr. Majority (as you assert you are in the majority without any proof) - the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments to our shared secular US Constitution) are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Don’t mistake me for someone who conveniently bypasses the 2nd Amendment, because I have a carry permit, Joe. I’ve had one for more than 2 decades. Understand?

Even back during the formation of our current founding documents and secular birthright, the founders knew there would be ignorant megalomaniacal theocratic types who would always try to force their crap (perceived majority or not) upon those who don’t share the same enthusiasm for said crap.

You’re a bully Joe. You seem to lack genuine self worth – since it’s important to you that you are in the majority. You are just a part of a flock of sheeple being fleeced. I truly feel sorry for you and yours.

Why are atheists so darn angry?

So joe when are you going to answer my question about 1 Cor 13?

And in all those years we end up with only 1.6% of our society being atheist.

What's up with that?

Joe,
Seriously...where do you get off questioning someone elses faith or beliefs? Are you that arrogant?

Show me hard proof that your belief is correct. And please don't be so narrow minded to say something stupid like "the majority believes"....frequently the majority is wrong, and we both know it.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but in my opinion, your no Christian.

Joe the Dumber provides us with a 'teachable moment'. Behold one of the most oft used logical fallacies: Argument ad populum - or: A fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Joe thinks that because most people believe in a all knowing celestial dictator, they are right. There was a time when most people believed the world was flat. Didn't make it so, Joe.

The whole issue in a nutshell (the inside of poor Joe's brain) is that it doesn't matter how many infidels there are in this country. What matters is the law, Joe.

Your bible and/or supernatural beliefs do not trump the U.S Constitution. The very thing many brave people have died defending, you don’t seem to give a damn about. We have a shared heritage regardless of what magical sky daddy you believe in (and I don't). We share a common heritage. A secular U.S. Constitution. Deal with it, Joe.

Hey Joe! Don't like living under a secular Constitution? Well, there are many theocracies to choose from. You can even live in a monastery if you like where they take an oath of silence. Would do you and the rest of us a world of good…

Well, Let's see, where to start...
First, I am Russian Orthodox, not an athiest.
The number of florists refusing has no bearing on the legality of refusing to serve someone based on religion. In other words, just because 50 bars in South Boston refused to serve Blacks in the late 60's did not make it legal.

Jessica's reasons, (or her adult advisors reasons, for that matter) are a moot point. It was a simple question. "Was the display of the banner, on public school grounds, a violation of the establishment clause?" The Federal court ruled that is was. (By the way, by the school department's own written policy, it was also against school rules, and had removed a simmilar banner in a different school, before Jessica ever said anything).

Finally, The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist", although there were already schools of atheist philosophy in Hinduism 100 years earlier.

Your possible defense for the Florists, that they may suffer irreparable harm, or loss of goodwill with standing customers, is pretty hard to prove. Should be an interesting case to watch. But, given that the SCOTUS has traditionally ruled that Civil Rights trump business profits, I would not want to be one of those florists.

Orthodox, not atheist sorry. Presbyterian personally.
Nonetheless, the FFRF is a business and as such the Twins has no compulsive reason to do business with them. Google cannot sue Apple because they won't put their android system on their phone no matter how much they whine. If businesses were forced to trade in such a way, we would never have gotten out of the depression. I think you are assuming that if Ahlquist had walked in or called the florist and been refused, then yes that's a good case. She didn't, in fact I doubt she knew anything about it until her lawyer showed up with the papers to start the lawsuit. Otherwise, it's just frivolous abusive tort by a funded band of civil law head hunters. Pure and simple. Supporting it supports abuse of individual freedoms and you can't possibly be in support of that?
Also you forgot about Sumeria/Persia/Egypt which predate Greece by a little. You really gotta hit all that western civ to get the full affect. I won't mention the Asian cultures just to keep it generic. Or the Inca.

southerneyes,

Try reading again. The FFRF is a non-profit.
And to the frivolous tort...nobody filed a lawsuit...they filed a complaint, probably with the Civil Rights Commision.
The Google-Apple example is (wait for the joke) comparing oranges to Apples...True Apple cannot be forced to put Android on their phones. But, Apple cannot refuse to sell phones to Google because of their religion, or skin color, or sex, etc. In the FFRF case, this appears to be a business, refusing to provide services to someone based on the religion (or lack thereof) and that is illegal.

I think you missed my point about Atheists and the 600 years. One of the people commenting here acts like Atheists are something new and perverse, my point was that they have been around since long before Christians.

Stoney,
Stand up to who's scrutiny? Yours? Beliefs are personal.
This whole issue has been about rights. Joe has a right to think what he wants. Just as you are.
What I do not understand is why you are choosing to sink to his level and turn this into an attack on belief systems. Who made you the judge of beliefs and or values?

"If a belief is valid, then it will stand up to attack and scrutiny"...valid? according to what standards? Yours? Mine? Joe's? Take a step back, and maybe look up the word - civil. By demeaning his beliefs you are proving his point about non-believers.

J. Lane: I must respectfully disagree. Many beliefs can be empirically tested and when found wanting should be discarded and derided as a false belief. Period.

Any belief which cannot be empirically tested is not worthy of serious consideration.

Anyone who makes a claim regarding a belief must provide proof/evidence before others are required to take the belief and/or believer seriously.

You are free to disagree. You are free to give all beliefs and believers equal respect. I cannot do that for it is not only patronizing and disingenuous, but it takes away from the respect which are granted to valid beliefs based on data, facts and empirical evidence.

Stoney,

"Any belief which cannot be empirically tested is not worthy of serious consideration", well this pretty much sums up why you think the way you do. You do not understand the concept of faith. That is, after all, the heart of religion.

Again, you are turning a civil rights issue into your own personal attack on beliefs and religion. No different than the "Joe's" of the world...if you don't believe what I believe than you are an idiot.
I am a Christian. Not once during this discussion have I told an atheist they are wrong about their beliefs. Not once have I said "Prove there is no God". Nor have I tried to convert any non-believer. Why do you feel the need to diminish someone else's beliefs? Are you insecure about your own?

JLM: First off, I was raised in a very religious household. Many of my relatives are very religious. I think I have a very good understanding of the concept of faith. And after considering it seriously - i have found it wanting. Faith is nothing more than belief in something IN SPITE OF evidence to the contrary. In fact, faith requires that one believe in things that are without evidence, and which require wishful thinking and the invocation of miracles and the supernatural. And yes, I reject such beliefs.

You are free to believe whatever you want as is Joe. But once such religious beliefs come into conflict with the rule of law, you will have problems with the law - as you should.

Stoney,
You have found it wanting....so the rest of us are idiots. I am free to believe what I want....yet you attack those of us who choose to believe.

And as to the rule of law....your reading comprehension must be tappering off....I came out in favor of Jessica....I am a firm believer in the Establishment clause, and I believe that these florists violated her civil rights under equal protection...so why would you tell me about the rule of law...

What I said, and what you did not address, is your need to belittle and insult someone because of their beliefs...Have I insulted your choice? No. Your words: "You are just a part of a flock of sheeple being fleeced." Yeah, I have to tell you, insulting. You have chosen to attack religion, which in no way furthers your point of view.

Earlier today, I had some respect for you. But now I see your just as closed minded as the Joes of the world. Despite what you think, your part of the problem, not part of the solution.

JLM - Yep, that's me. Closed minded. Just like the rest of the scum that don't believe. BTW, I'm willing to accept that there is a god - if you or someone can provide me with some evidence. Too much to ask? How is that closed minded?

As far as reading comprehension goes, I didn't really see your posts supporting the rule of law and Ms. Ahlquist. Sorry I missed them. Thanks for doing the right thing.

And now it appears you have succumbed to casting insults/ad hominems and making strawman arguments. Guess you're just like the rest of us too. Human.

Stoney,
I don't believe I have called anyone "scum"... and as to insults, I'm pretty sure all I did was point out that you chose to insult someone because of their religion. And as I said, this does nothing to further your cause.

As to proving God for you....sorry, not my job...Religion and faith are a personal thing...and I will say it again...Not once have I said "prove to me there is no God"...I am at least accepting and respectful of your beliefs...Can you say the same?

Quoting you "regardless of what magical sky daddy you believe in (and I don't)". Can you see how I might find that a little insulting and disrespectful?

JLM: With regards to the 'magical sky daddy' comment, I must protest. People who believe in Christ, et al DO believe in a 'magical sky daddy'. This god is magical and byeond nature (supernatural would also work for magical in this context). The god of the Christians lives in the sky. It's in the bible. And while Christians call their god many things - holy father (holy daddy?) is one of them.

So while my description is accurate - it seems that it causes you some discomfort that I prefer to call your god what it I perceive it to be: a magical/supernatural entity which 'lives' in the sky and wants to be your daddy. If this makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you should examine why - instead of parsing my words - which accurately describe the superficial aspects of the Christian deity.

Well, in a way, your right. Joe believes in God, but that does not make him an idiot. I fear it was genetics.........

7:02 am on Monday, January 30, 2012

JLM: Yep. Got it. BTW, when I say that I have no respect for religion or supernatural beliefs/ideas - it doesn't mean that I don't have respect for the people who hold those ideas/beliefs. There is a difference: The opinion that someone's ideas are crap vs. the opinion that the person is crap.

So please, when I express my beliefs - honestly arrived at not by faith, but by reason and over half a century of experience. My belief is that supernatural explanations for the natural world do not pass muster. According to you, I am entitled to respect for that belief and that belief is entitled to respect. I appreciate it. But please don't tell me that I hae to give others respect for ideas I do not find worthy. Yes, people deserve respect - unless and until they have behaved disrespectfully. Bad ideas do not deserve respect. Period.

Joe, it’s not an insult if it's true. You are ignorant and willfully so. You spread lies repeatedly and claim that others are delusional and belong locked away and/or in therapy. Methinks you doth protest too much. Go join a monastery and take an oath of silence. It will be the best thing you ever did. I would also imagine that we can get a collection started on the Patch.

How could you ever purport to think you know what God would do.

You are an atheist.

Liberty, you are misrepresenting statistics. This entire issue is about an atheists who objects to a banner and according to the most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist (0.7%) or agnostic (0.9%).

JTP,

These “ “ are quotation marks. ALL the quotes I made were YOUR words from YOUR comments, still available online in Patch threads, which show that you're a hypocrite and a liar when you claim innocence of insulting people. You’re also a hypocrite to your faith, although some maintain that your faith is actually as much about the lying and manipulation and hate you demonstrate as it is about compassion and tolerance.

Jessica is not the only person who objects to the banner. What a childish, silly argument. She represents the Constitution which protects EVERYBODY, you included, and therefore she represents everybody, -100% of Americans - but ESPECIALLY is fighting to protect the 24% (74mln) non-Christians who you would subject to your petty theocracy. She also protects those 100’s of millions of believers, like JLM, a Russian Orthodox, posting here who has been very clear about supporting separation of church and state. Your attacking atheists is a false ad hominem attack and tactical only. Your continued use of this tactic merely shows how pathetically barren you are of any valid objections to the fact that the banner is unconstitutional and will therefore be removed. Providing opportunity for us to refute your lie over and over actually puts the real numbers in front of people over and over, which is good, but every time it happens you look even more pathetic, desperately clinging to your pathetic lie like debris in the ocean after a shipwreck .

My comment?

How could an atheist like you have the audacity to quote sacred scripture?

You can never really even begin to understand the true intended meaning of sacred scriptures unless you first believe and have faith in God.

Joe I am simply holding up the standard that you claim to hold yourself to. You still have not answered the question I asked. How does you attitude and the things you post line up with this chapter. You answer is a clear attempt to avoid the question. I think we both know what your answer would be; perhaps it is this answer that makes you avoid dealing with the question head on.

Paul,

First answer my original question to you.

Are you an atheist?

Joe I told you that before and see no need to hide it, yes I am an atheist. But that has nothing to do with my knowledge of all sorts of literature, including the bible. Nor does it prohibit be from quoting the bible. This is not about me Joe it is about you and the fact that you hold the bible up as the standard you measure things by. I never said I do. you did so I ask you again, 1 Cor 13 could you write the things you write wearing a t- shirt with that chapter printed on it and say you lived up to the t-shirt?

Oh Paul , don't I know that your "knowledge of all sorts of literature, including the bible" just abounds. We are all so lucky that you grace the pages of this discussion with your vast knowledge.

And lest we forget, we can count on you to frequently remind us of your superior intellect.

Not going away Rockey......sorry.

When you and your militant atheist denizens who represent only 1.6% of our society pack it up and leave town..... I'll still be here.

Your just proof there is no god.

[corrected:] More like a minority 15%, and growing. Repeating a lie over and over again won't make it any truer, Joe. Even when you're lying for Jesus.

Yes, JTP, it is a lie and you are a liar. Furthermore - from page two (summary) of the ARIS report, I quote:

"The U. S. population continues to show signs of becoming less religious, with one out of every five Americans failing to indicate a religious identity in 2008.
• The “Nones” (no stated religious preference, atheist, or agnostic) continue to grow, though at a much slower pace than in the 1990s, from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008."

Furthermore, as I stated accurately before, I quote from the same report:
"One sign of the lack of attachment of Americans to religion is that 27% do not expect a religious funeral at their death."

BTW, I attended a conference two years ago in Seattle where Barry A. Kosmin (an atheist - gasp) presented his findings. His co-author (Ariela Keysar) wasn't able to attend. He would not be happy with your lies and distortions. But he wouldn't be surprised. That's what people like you do. Lie and distort for Jesus. Pathetic.

Ok Joe...
Since you are talking about 1000 years, you must mean worldwide numbers, which would be closer to 15%......Stop quoting misleading facts....and you have been the most insulting person here.

This is not about majority vs minority. It's not about religion vs. non-religion. IT IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS! Plain and simple.

Bravo JLM. Bravo! It is a civil rights issue - but one that JTP and his ilk cannot get into their 'heads'. They would prefer to make it about religion vs. the miserable minority atheists/infidels/unbelievers or otherwise hellbound lunatic fringe.

By making this into an US vs THEM issue, people like JTP not only want to divide people like you and me (which has happened somewhat) but also want to destroy the rule of law for a theocracy. Whose theocracy? The majority theocrats in charge. This I will fight to my last breath.

While I know we disagree on beliefs and respect for peoples beliefs (note - people deserve respect - even JTP, unfortunately.....), I am grateful for people like you of faith that get the problem and who are willing to speak out against a grave injustice to all Americans - erosion of our precious Bill of Rights and Constitution. Thank you, JLM. Thank you very much!

Hey jAnus,
from your own first source:

"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population"

So your own source puts atheists at less than 0.5%.

OOOPS.....

So janus,

your second source puts atheists at 2.32% WOLDWIDE!

ummm okay.....

Your third source show no statistics at all.

Your fourth source shows atheists at 3.8% world wide. Which considering Communist China, and Mongolia where most of them live, it is understandable....

So, if delusion is defined as a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence, I guess that makes you and your rabid militant minority atheists delusional.

Yes this is an issue of an atheist's lawsuit to remove a banner. What planet are you on?

You really are conceptually and logically challenged.

The issue is the liberty of belief and conscience provided under the establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. The banner case is one instance of that liberty being maintained. This IS NOT an issue of atheists versus Christians. You’re really even much more ignorant than you appear; which is really saying something.

Either your religious bigotry has completely overwhelmed your ability to separate concepts from particulars, or you really are just that mentally challenged.

Poor frustrated, angry, lonely straw man! Don't worry, Joe understands you. After all, he built you.

Liberty anus, I think Joe is correct and is one up on you...

But you haven’t thought at all, Ed, and like JTP merely resort to childish insults.

Opppssss... Sorry Liberty, I'm not into the insult and name calling. I can see what went wrong, my fast fingers missed the "J"... and just put anus, sorry...
But, Joe has some good points, I also like the view from blue collared folks. I think he is right on, sorry I can't agree with you, you missed the point...

Intolerance of intolerance is not hypocrisy, Small Change. Those who support equality and fairness oppose inequality and unfairness.

There is really no problem at all here. I say that because any one of the Jessica supporters can walk into a flower shop, buy the flowers and deliver them, themself. This will also give them the opportunity to chitter-chat with her, discuss how things are not going in school, and maybe, just maybe, get their picture taken with her.
Wouldn't that be priceless? Wouldn't this then put the issue to bed?

“Any one of the Jessica supporters”, Surrender Ed?

In this incident, anyone was FFRF president Annie Gaylor, phoning orders for a dozen roses from Madison, Wisconsin. Kind of a long trip just to deliver a bouquet. More reasonable to call a local shop that advertises a delivery service. Use your head, Ed.

Hey Robin... We did get a call for a delivery from Madison, Wisconsin. The problem with that order was that the credit card got rejected. We politely asked for another card and all hell broke loose, it was very unprofessional...
Next time you see her, ask her if that was her???

Ohhh Robin.... I'm president of TLFCA, I got more initials after my name than she does... Nah-Nah..

Five whole letters, Ed? How proud your mother must be.

I take it “we” means your small delivery business that won’t deliver someplace scary? What company was that, Surrender Ed? Your “TLFCA”? Anyhow, you’d have to be thinking of a different refused delivery order from Madison, Wisconsin, cause this incident went nothing like that.