Can we be a little consistent?

So, if a Muslim drives a delivery truck and it carries beer and he refuses to make deliveries, he can't be fired?  And, if he is, he gets his job back and $125,000 in compensation?  But, if a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it offends his Christian religious sensibilities, he can be sued, go to jail, etc.?  Hmmm......  Either it has to be one way or the other, doesn't it?  How can we, under the guise of "religious freedom," cherry-pick like this?  Both the Muslim and the Christian (a private baker) were financially injured.  Both claimed religious objections.  And did government, I forgot if both federal or one federal and one state, defend one and prosecute (or threaten to prosecute) the other?

Doesn't the Supreme Court open each session with a prayer, "God save these United States and this Supreme Court?"  Yet, some football coach in Oregon (?) was either suspended or fired because he led his team in a prayer after football games?  OK, his principal (who seems like a dimwit, at best) ordered him not to do so because of a single community complaint.  But why did the principal give such an order?

For the fourth AM this week, the local news broadcast broke in with "breaking news."  Each of them involved somebody being shot with a gun; each victim, I think, died.  And, I also believe each was a black person, killed by another black person or persons.  Hmmm......  Do those "black lives matter?"  Or do "black lives matter" only when there's political advantage to be gained?  I don't know what is more disheartening, that so many people are being killed or that this has become a political football, whose rules only count in certain situations.

On brighter note, I didn't watch the debates last night, but heard some excerpts.  Hooray for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (or is it an Irish guy, Mark O'Rubio?)!!!!!!  Cruz, in responding to a question or questions, didn't respond.  He said, "This is why Americans no longer trust the media......"  (Or is was something like that; it was several hours ago I heard it and I can't even remember where I put my keys when I got home half an hour ago.)  He pointed out some of the questions being asked, with so little substance, for instance, about how what cartoon super-heroes candidates resemble??????  ...if the federal gov't should regulate fantasy sports??????  Yep and I'll bet, in their own self-righteous, elitist arrogance, the moderators shrugged this off as the rantings of some conservative Neanderthal.  Rubio stated, "The Democrats have the ultimate super-PAC.  It's called the mainstream media."  Great, Great, Great.  I think he was referring to last week's Benghazi testimony by Clinton in front of a Congressional panel.  Regardless if one thinks this is a witch hunt (yes, I mean "witch!"), Clinton was shown to be an outright liar, lying to the families of those slain at Benghazi and to the American people.  Yet, what do the LameStreams report?  Clinton hit a high note in her testimony, showing why she is of Presidential timbre/timber.  Does that mean being an effective liar is a desirable trait for a Presidential candidate?