Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[tyroneweaver]

What religion says you can't serve gays? I'm tired of these fake claims of religion .

Dear Timmy the issue that has come up in these cases
is whether you can force people to ATTEND gay weddings in order to provide a service that depends on that; whether you can force people to FILM, PHOTOGRAPH or print/express statements against someone's beliefs.

One case involved a person baking the cake but giving the supplies for decoration to the customers
to spell out the message they wanted which the cake decorator did not consent to.

This can go both ways. It has been allowed for bakers who refused to make an anti-gay message cake.
so it was the expression, the message on the cake (or in cases of photographers and some caker servers
it was the issue of making that person attend a gay wedding when this activity VIOLATED their beliefs).

Would you allow an atheist business owner to turn down a photography gig
at a church that was going to carry on a preach fest bashing atheists as going to hell?
Certainly I would give ANY photographer a choice in that, and find someone who wanted it.
I know a black reporter who got assigned to a Klan rally and carried out the job, by choice.
Some people might go with it, but if they refrained I would honor that, wouldn't you?

Well the Christians are asking that if someone doesn't believe in same sex weddings
can they bake the cake but refuse to deliver any services that require them to attend.

Can photographers turn down jobs videotaping gay weddings the same way
they could turn down filming porn, or people cleaning up houses after animals were hoarded,
or whatever thing they don't want to be there to film.

The issue of freedom of speech and expression versus forcing it by law
is different.

They are phoney Christians .

Are they not doing weddings not performed on a church? Are they not doing weddings for divorced people ? For cross faithed or no fath couples ?

The answer is no. Then they really aren't following Christianity in any way, just using it as an excuse for bigotry .

I wish I could bake a wedding cake for you. I could have a couple of guys doing it doggy style on top of the cake.

 

[dblack]

Here is the topic
Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion?

Exactly. Now see if you can stick to it.

 

[rightwinger]

Here is the topic
Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion?

Exactly. Now see if you can stick to it.

You just oppose anyone who has a different view than you

You are again missing the point

The government cannot force YOU....but they can force a BUSINESS

 

[dblack]

Government is merely the conduit through which the people express their will.

No, it's not. This is just a reformulation of NYcarbineer's bully-government concept. Government is a means of protecting our rights, not forcing our will on minorities.

 

[Silhouette]

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

You have to understand why the parishioners of the Church of LGBT fight so hard on that very point though. They want 100% legitimacy for their behaviors. And they don't want an examination of how it is that religious people can object to participating. They are petrified that the clarification pending will come forward to announce that yes, LGBT is different from race in that they are a collection of adopted behaviors and not static states of being like race or sex at birth. A collection of adopted behaviors that operates politically in an organized fashion is also often called a religion. Or in this case a cult.

Once the behavioral aspect of LGBT is emphasized, they know it will be weighed against the specific language of the 14th. And the language of the 14th says that there can be no discrimination. Yet we find that JUST homosexuals may marry, while other sexual behaviors like polygamy may not find those same rights. Which is a direct and perverse violation of the 14th Amendment ironically used to justify passing Obergefell last Summer. Equality for all or none. But in Obergefell, a government agency passed a law (also forbidden to the Judicial Branch) establishing one religion as special. (violating the 1st Amendment also) Now that passing is being used to force other religions to play along or be punished. All this is the most perverse affront to the intent and substance of the US Constitution that it's hard to put into words the damage done.

So, they have to fight. They have to fight you and keep plucking at the heartstrings: "you have to give us this! You have to let us force Christians to worship at our altar!!" Because if Christians are let off the hook and not forced to practice another state-affirmed religion, then it will be known that it is a state-affirmed religion and the unraveling of Obergefell begins.

Of course the Church of LGBT online bloggers, who sit round the clock posting their propaganda and spinning away to control the public conversation, have lawyers advising their team coordinators on their talking points. Their lawyers know that if the Christians gain the right not to participate in a state-affirmed "special" religion like LGBT, then the unraveling of Obergefell begins. So, just know this is why they keep hammering home "gay marriage is a done deal. You're just trying to make gay marriage illegal". Because their lawyers know that gay marriage is already illegal. Obergefell is not the law of the land because its establishment of a political body of behaviors as "protected" while other behaviors very similar are not (polygamy) is a direct, blatant and obtuse violation of the 14th Amendment Obergefell has the audacity to cite in its very creation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

Maybe you are not in the thread you think you are. I suggest you read the title which refers to both the government and its role in gay marriage

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

Its all part of the same pie.

Here is how it went down.....
Fundie Christians fought against gay marriage. They bullied government to pass laws against it and change state constitutions. State by state they started to lose. Finally, SCOTUS decided the issue

Did that end it? Of course not
Their next field of battle became...You may allow gays to marry but I'll be damned if I will lift a finger to allow it. Their next tactic became blocking marriage licenses, refusing public venues to hold a wedding, blocking services to gay weddings

Government stepped in and applied public accommodation laws.....as they should have

I understand that's how you see this conversation. For you it's just a pissing match between pro-gay and anti-gay factions. But again, that's not the topic of the thread.

I guess it goes back to the conception of government characterized by NYcarbineer here: Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

If you conceive of government as a means to give one 'side' power over another, then your pissing-match mentality makes sense. If, on the other hand, government is an impartial referee, it has no business getting involved.

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

No one advocates that government give one side ‘power’ over another, which also makes no sense – government authority emanates from the consent of those governed, consistent with Constitutional case law, where government is both empowered and limited by that case law, depending on the will of the people.

Government as referee manifests as the right of citizens to challenge the will of the people in a court of law, to compel the people to justify measures enacted in bad faith seeking to disadvantage a given class of persons, and failing to justify those measures, they become invalid and unenforceable.

The people are alone to blame when the measures they enact in bad faith are invalidated by the courts, particularly when the jurisprudence used to invalidate those measures is well-established, well-known, settled and accepted.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

The answer is yes.

 

[dblack]

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

The answer is yes.

And that answer will burn all of us, yourself included. Again, I'm stunned that people are still defending this kind of overbearing government power in the face of a potential fascist takeover.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

 

[dblack]

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

This is corporatism in a nutshell.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Democratic government is not taking away my rights to create a world YOU want to live in.

That's the very definition of fascism in fact.

 

[dblack]

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

 

[Silhouette]

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

What's worse is government giving a religion (just homosexuality behaviors) a preference and a billy club with which to bully other religions (Obergefell). I repeat:

*****

You have to understand why the parishioners of the Church of LGBT fight so hard on that very point though. They want 100% legitimacy for their behaviors. And they don't want an examination of how it is that religious people can object to participating. They are petrified that the clarification pending will come forward to announce that yes, LGBT is different from race in that they are a collection of adopted behaviors and not static states of being like race or sex at birth. A collection of adopted behaviors that operates politically in an organized fashion is also often called a religion. Or in this case a cult.

Once the behavioral aspect of LGBT is emphasized, they know it will be weighed against the specific language of the 14th. And the language of the 14th says that there can be no discrimination. Yet we find that JUST homosexuals may marry, while other sexual behaviors like polygamy may not find those same rights. Which is a direct and perverse violation of the 14th Amendment ironically used to justify passing Obergefell last Summer. Equality for all or none. But in Obergefell, a government agency passed a law (also forbidden to the Judicial Branch) establishing one religion as special. (violating the 1st Amendment also) Now that passing is being used to force other religions to play along or be punished. All this is the most perverse affront to the intent and substance of the US Constitution that it's hard to put into words the damage done.

So, they have to fight. They have to fight you and keep plucking at the heartstrings: "you have to give us this! You have to let us force Christians to worship at our altar!!" Because if Christians are let off the hook and not forced to practice another state-affirmed religion, then it will be known that it is a state-affirmed religion and the unraveling of Obergefell begins.

Of course the Church of LGBT online bloggers, who sit round the clock posting their propaganda and spinning away to control the public conversation, have lawyers advising their team coordinators on their talking points. Their lawyers know that if the Christians gain the right not to participate in a state-affirmed "special" religion like LGBT, then the unraveling of Obergefell begins. So, just know this is why they keep hammering home "gay marriage is a done deal. You're just trying to make gay marriage illegal". Because their lawyers know that gay marriage is already illegal. Obergefell is not the law of the land because its establishment of a political body of behaviors as "protected" while other behaviors very similar are not (polygamy) is a direct, blatant and obtuse violation of the 14th Amendment Obergefell has the audacity to cite in its very creation.

 

[rightwinger]

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

I'm not talking about religion.

Fundamentally, telling a business owner he must perform work for someone he doesn't want to perform work for is slavery.

 

[Silhouette]

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

What do blacks and gays have to do with one another? Blacks are an inborn static race. Gays are adopted behaviors. That is a legal distinction that is coming to the fore. One has rights, the other does not.

It may be that Citizen's United, finding that "corporations are people" will be cited in the ultimate outcome of rights of Christians running a business to object to enabling blasphemy. It's one thing to put a dinner in front of someone. It's quite another for that someone to make the cook decorate the dinner with images of gay men getting married. Since we're talking about behaviors, that is government establishing a preferenced religion that others have to bow to or be punished.

 

[mdk]

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

You have to understand why the parishioners of the Church of LGBT fight so hard on that very point though. They want 100% legitimacy for their behaviors. And they don't want an examination of how it is that religious people can object to participating. They are petrified that the clarification pending will come forward to announce that yes, LGBT is different from race in that they are a collection of adopted behaviors and not static states of being like race or sex at birth. A collection of adopted behaviors that operates politically in an organized fashion is also often called a religion. Or in this case a cult.

Once the behavioral aspect of LGBT is emphasized, they know it will be weighed against the specific language of the 14th. And the language of the 14th says that there can be no discrimination. Yet we find that JUST homosexuals may marry, while other sexual behaviors like polygamy may not find those same rights. Which is a direct and perverse violation of the 14th Amendment ironically used to justify passing Obergefell last Summer. Equality for all or none. But in Obergefell, a government agency passed a law (also forbidden to the Judicial Branch) establishing one religion as special. (violating the 1st Amendment also) Now that passing is being used to force other religions to play along or be punished. All this is the most perverse affront to the intent and substance of the US Constitution that it's hard to put into words the damage done.

So, they have to fight. They have to fight you and keep plucking at the heartstrings: "you have to give us this! You have to let us force Christians to worship at our altar!!" Because if Christians are let off the hook and not forced to practice another state-affirmed religion, then it will be known that it is a state-affirmed religion and the unraveling of Obergefell begins.

Of course the Church of LGBT online bloggers, who sit round the clock posting their propaganda and spinning away to control the public conversation, have lawyers advising their team coordinators on their talking points. Their lawyers know that if the Christians gain the right not to participate in a state-affirmed "special" religion like LGBT, then the unraveling of Obergefell begins. So, just know this is why they keep hammering home "gay marriage is a done deal. You're just trying to make gay marriage illegal". Because their lawyers know that gay marriage is already illegal. Obergefell is not the law of the land because its establishment of a political body of behaviors as "protected" while other behaviors very similar are not (polygamy) is a direct, blatant and obtuse violation of the 14th Amendment Obergefell has the audacity to cite in its very creation.

This pending clarification exists solely in your addled mind. Sort like Kagan and Ginsberg will be impeached or the GOP controlled Congress is going to pass your child consideration amendment. Any day now...

Your legal predictions are consistently and laughable wrong. Obergefell is the law of the land whether you like or not. Insetad of worrying about my marriage perhaps your time would be spent trying to find one of your own.