Jesus Wept Again.

I've used similar arguments in the past. We've heard them before on the left . . . though they certainly weren't covered by the media. Individuals should have their cake and eat it too, as they say. If they choose it, they can do certain things with their lives it will be a little more than friends and neighbors well. Exclude a whole segment of horse activity and this is an area where you see major international three-day eventers training and living. It has been a labor of love."

Gen. Kievanaar also pointed out that the heart of the Piedmont has put more three-day riders in the Olympics than anywhere else and yet this equestrian-rich enclave wasn't represented by an international competition or training facility.

The new eventing facility will be ready by summer 2015. Cross-country jumps, which are being constructed for the July event, will be moved to the new cross-country. The WEG-prep event will be designed for competitors and still accommodate spectators. It features dressage on July 26, Saturday morning, in Great Meadow's existing arena; the evening performance will begin with bareback Puissance (high-jump), followed by the show jumping phase. A VIP reception will honor the donors to Fleming Farm and the team going to France. Boxes and tailgate spaces will be available for dressage and show jumping. Cross-country runs Sunday morning, followed by the awards ceremony.

Corporations, of course, aren't "people." They are legal constructs, no more and no less. Jesus didn't die on the cross for Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby. Corporations may not partake of the sacraments. And smaller corporations, those owned by a single person, or by a perversely single-minded group of people, still have to obey the law. That's the price they pay when they ask the rest of us, though our governments, to grant them the special legal privileges and protections of incorporation. If an individual wants to discriminate against their fellow citizens on the basis of religious prejudice they have every right to do so, providing they are willing to face the legal consequences. Corporations have no such rights to "religious" freedom . . . and we, as a society, should not grant it to them. What of the New Mexico photographer who likewise was forced to violate his religious views by photographing a gay wedding against his will? The Arizona baker at least wouldn't have had to attend the ceremony but the New Mexico photographer actually had to be there. He was forced to actively participate in the event. What compelling governmental interest required that? What of Catholic-owned pharmacies being required to sell contraceptives when anyone wanting contraceptives can just go to the pharmacy down the block? Compelling governmental interest? What of the doctors in California who were successfully sued for declining to perform artificial insemination on a woman in a same-sex relationship? Compelling governmental interest? Owners of a bed-and-breakfast in Illinois who declined to rent their facility for a same-sex wedding were sued for violating the state's nondiscrimination law. Note that they did not refuse to let the gay couple stay in the B&B. They merely declined to host the ceremony. Compelling governmental interest? No. The real issue in Arizona is whether the government has the authority to negate our religious rights. Apparently, alas, it does. The bill was not anti-gay. It was pro-conscience. Could it have been abused? Sure, but so can any other law. The key point is this: if government can routinely coerce people into actively violating their deeply-held religious convictions, then our constitutionally-protected "freedom of religion" is a sham.