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

[rightwinger]

I don't think they are putting their LGBT orientation above someone else's religious beliefs

They are merely testing who they are and expecting equal treatment under our laws

Well I think I'm the Queen of England and the US didn't win the Revolutionary war. So hand over your taxes to me or I'll sue you. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot and a hater and shall be fined for daring to challenge me with an alternate opinion!

Damn...that makes absolutely no sense as an analogy

Do you know what an analogy is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

I doubt if polygamy is a sexual orientation. They are still heterosexual

rightwinger nobody can prove or disprove
that sexual orientation isn't also a behavior as is polygamy.

To be fair, by treating these equally as beliefs, we include
all people equally instead of trying to impose one person's belief over anothers.

If you are saying people can discriminate in private, but not businesses and govt.
Then why allow govt to be abused to impose one belief about orientation and identity
above another belief? When NEITHER is proven or disproven by science, but BOTH are FAITH BASED.

Gays are not trying to impose beliefs. You have right to hate gays, oppose gay marriage, oppose gay rights in every form.

You're just not allowed to act on those beliefs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

No the question wasn't answered.

I don't have a right to set my own labor rate, I don't have a right to build a building any way I want, I don't have a right to have a sloppy kitchen. NONE of those are rights.

So, that leaves us with the right of association. Explain to me how the government has the authority to take away that right?

And further, are you truly too stupid to understand that once you let a government take your rights, they can take any of them that they please?

The government only exists as a function of the vote of the People.

How do you want government to exist?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can the government force you to choose US federal, state, and local law over Sharia Law,

or does the 1st Amendment protect Muslims from having to support laws they might in some cases prefer to replace with their own?

NYcarbineer
Yes and No.

Surprise! Shariah actually means ALL activities including giving to charity and praying 5 times a day
as Muslims commit to as part of the PRACTICE.

so NO, federal govt cannot enforce any law that would FORCE you to compromise
your religious freedom to pray and give alms to the poor as part of SHARIAH.

(Trick answer because you asked a Trick question!)

NO if you mean "Shariah" to mean forcing religious beliefs into the govt to make beliefs mandatory for the public. The regimes such as taking over govts in Nigeria and not just in Arab countries,
put their religious doctrine above DUE PROCESS OF LAWS and do not separate religious authority from govt, nor separate judicial from executive authority, so that would be unconstitutional in America to do so.

NOTE: In the case of LGBT advocacy BOTH sides complain the OTHER is pushing THEIR beliefs or creeds into GOVT! So BOTH sides are complaining of violations and discrimination, since both sides involve creeds.

I don't think anyone in America disputes this is causing conflicts to mix creeds/beliefs/shariah with govt;
the PROBLEM is they BLAME EACH OTHER'S CREEDS as being wrong to impose. The wrongs are mutual.
We need to find the solutions that are mutual.

But what if its part of the beliefs of religion that that religion should be incorporated into the government?

 

[IsaacNewton]

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

No one says you don’t have the right to discriminate – you can discriminate to your heart’s content.

But as a business owner in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a provision for sexual orientation, you may not deny services to a gay patron, having nothing to do with ‘discrimination’ – just as you cannot pay your employees less than the minimum wage or endanger your employees’ safety in the workplace.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory policy, where jurisdictions have determined that to refuse services based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market, and local governments are at liberty to regulate local markets as they so desire consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

When not running your business you may discriminate all you want, revel in your ignorance and hate.

But while running your business you’ll obey the law, including accommodating gay patrons, as such laws neither ‘violate’ your religious liberty, nor ‘force’ you to ‘give up’ any rights.

And that is the crux of it. These bigots are free to think like a bigot or a racist, many of them obviously do. But they can't act on it. They are free to gather in their church and pass judgement on their fellow human beings until the cows come home. They are free to sit in their living rooms with each other pining for the days when women wore dresses no higher than their ankles or when it was legal for men to beat their wives with a board as long as it was no wider than their thumb (where we get the phrase 'rule of thumb'). They are free to long for the days when children could be made to work 12 hours a day, women couldn't vote, and people owned other people. They are free to THINK and talk about such vile crap all day long. They just don't get to enact their thoughts on others at a public business.

Besides isn't there a restaurant somewhere that is right now ordering green cups that don't havce candy canes on them that will be used for Christmas time? OH THE OUTRAGE. Get activated oh crusaders of truth and justice, Superman needs your help.

With the cups.

IsaacNewton And the same holds for LGBT beliefs and creeds not proven by science but faith-based.
Why should Govt be used or abused to endorse one side's beliefs or creeds, while penalizing another?
When both are faith-based and neither proven nor disproven. Clearly LGBT beliefs about
homosexuality like beliefs about Christianity should remain private choice and not under penalty of govt!

You can do what you want in private, but when your orientation/identity
affects other people's right to use the restroom without fear that men will abuse the policy you want to impose,
you are affecting other people in public and in private, if you consider the bathroom to be private.

You don't get to define what faith is re the law. Pretending to be a lawyer or legislator doesn't make it so.

And you don't get to tell people their religion is wrong.

Isaac Newton would shove that apple up your ass if he seen you shitting on his memory the way you do.

Because you read minds right? LOL Too funny.

The law saying you can't refuse people service at a public business isn't 'telling people their religion is wrong'. Only their behavior towards other human beings, you know the rest of 'god's children', has to be fair across the board. A Muslim baker has to bake a cake for a Christian. A Hindu can refuse to worship another god, that is also protected by the law, but they can't refuse to alter your suit because they only practice business as a religious organization.

 

[Silhouette]

But what if its part of the beliefs of religion that that religion should be incorporated into the government?

You mean like the church of LGBT being recognized as "more special" than Christianity to the point where Christians can be jailed for refusing to practice or promote LGBT dogma and practices? Interesting that someone may be being fined or even thrown in jail for refusing to bow at that federally-elevated rainbow altar...

 

[rightwinger]

But what if its part of the beliefs of religion that that religion should be incorporated into the government?

You mean like the church of LGBT being recognized as "more special" than Christianity to the point where Christians can be jailed for refusing to practice or promote LGBT dogma and practices? Interesting that someone may be being fined or even thrown in jail for refusing to bow at that federally-elevated rainbow altar...

You mean like that hillbilly county clerk was jailed?

 

[Silhouette]

So if you call her a "hillbilly" it's OK to violate her 1st Amendment civil rights?

 

[rightwinger]

So if you call her a "hillbilly" it's OK to violate her 1st Amendment civil rights?

No..Because she has been divorced four times she is in no position to judge other people's marriages
As a public servant, she is not allowed to put her religious beliefs above the law she is sworn to protect

 

[Norman]

Two Christian Artists Who Refuse to Serve Gay Weddings Are Likely Heading to Court to Battle the Government — but There’s a Twist

Phoenix City Code 18.4(B):
"No person shall, directly or indirectly, refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person, or aid in or incite such refusal, denial or withholding of, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation."

According to the local government in Phoenix City your personal religious freedom can be overridden by the government, and you can be forced - as a Christian - to engage in activities that violate your religious beliefs. IMO that is a clear violation of the Constitution. (And you know d@mn-well the government would not try to apply this to Muslims for fear of 'offending them...but Christians are 'fair game'.)

Unlike other cases that have been in the news, though, these people / this business has NOT been sued or fined for refusing service for same-sex events....but they are probably still heading to court. Instead, 'Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of art company Brush & Nib, have filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, Arizona' over the 'non-discrimination law' (above) 'that they claim violates their religious rights'.

"“Although the two young women happily create art for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, Phoenix interprets its law to require them to create art for events, like same-sex wedding ceremonies, that are completely at odds with their religious beliefs,” the lawyer wrote. “Phoenix also interprets its law to prevent them from explaining their religious beliefs and why they must create art consistent with their beliefs.”

"“Joanna and Breanna are exposing the pre-existing tension between Phoenix’s law and their constitutionally protected freedoms, between the right to speak and create freely and the government’s attempt to crush dissent and command conformity,” Scruggs continued. “And that is precisely what’s at stake.”

The company's owners are standing up for Christians / Christianity and is taking the fight to the city of Phoenix before anyone can bring the fight to them.

Go get 'em, girls!

The government can do what the fuck ever it (I) want.

- Liberal

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

Fair&Balanced
A. No if you demand that nobody else have that right against you
B. Yes if you accept that other people can discriminate against you

Emily, I don't know exactly what your boggle is, but I've been MORE than clear about this. I believe EVERYONE has the right to discriminate and choose whom they want to do business with.

PERIOD

And as is the case with all other rights, the right to discriminate is not ‘absolute,’ it’s subject to reasonable regulation by government – it is not the right to discriminate whenever you want, wherever you want, or against whomever you want.

And one of the reasonable regulations placed on the right to discriminate is in public accommodations, where such regulations are necessary, proper, and Constitutional – as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

 

[Silhouette]

And as is the case with all other rights, the right to discriminate is not ‘absolute,’ it’s subject to reasonable regulation by government – it is not the right to discriminate whenever you want, wherever you want, or against whomever you want.

And one of the reasonable regulations placed on the right to discriminate is in public accommodations, where such regulations are necessary, proper, and Constitutional – as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

"Reasonable" will be found to be the right to passively refuse to participate in any activity that is considered heretical to one's faith. Christian bakers will not be required to make "gay wedding cakes". Gay billboard designers will not be required to commit heresy against their church by printing a sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God". Catholic hospitals who offer OB/GYN will not be required to perform abortions. Their passive refusal in those activities would be allowed.

That's what SCOTUS will find BTW. We might as well just fast-forward to it because that's how the Decision is going to come down.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers and why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that much,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly:
"Can you prove life does not begin at conception? If not I have the right to my beliefs."
Never mind that bans would affect women more than men and violate due process.
The problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections, not just "yes or no can you prove life doesn't begin at conception"

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Resolve the conflicts first, then people who CAN accommodate others can write fair laws.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else" if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Dear rightwinger I'm sorry you don't take my solutions seriously
or even bother to read them.

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the points I make and the process
I offer for mediation can solve these issues by treating both sides equally
as beliefs and creeds that should be included in forming a consensus.

10 million. Do you want to make the bet.
I raise 5 for people who care to resolve these conflicts IN DEPTH
and you raise 5 online for people who agree to laugh and refuse to take any of this seriously.

And if the people who support mediation and consensus on managing diverse beliefs
solve the problem that team wins. Or if the people like you who won't listen and
think you know better can solve this problem, they you win.

The winner gets all 10 million to donate to whatever causes they want.

Do you want to make a bet that treating all people equally
as having creeds and beliefs protected from discrimination
allows for mediation to solve the conflicts I spelled out in A and B.
rightwinger

I have a better solution......follow the law

You can't "mediate" every possible conflict

10 millions says we need to offer assistance and access
to mediation in order to FOLLOW THE LAW rightwinger

The law states as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

People are guaranteed DUE PROCESS, which depends on
freedom of speech, and of the press, the right to petition to redress grievances,
and free exercise of religion (all proclaimed in the First Amendment but based on natural laws).

And?

Those who are accused of violating public accommodations laws are afforded due process and equal protection of the law.

They have the right to a hearing and the right to appeal the decision to an administrative law judge.

And public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ freedom of religions expression:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” ibid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

No the question wasn't answered.

I don't have a right to set my own labor rate, I don't have a right to build a building any way I want, I don't have a right to have a sloppy kitchen. NONE of those are rights.

So, that leaves us with the right of association. Explain to me how the government has the authority to take away that right?

And further, are you truly too stupid to understand that once you let a government take your rights, they can take any of them that they please?

You confuse the rights of an individual with the rights of a business

An individual can have a sloppy kitchen....a business can't
An individual can decide not to have negroes or gays over for dinner....a business can't

rightwinger what about
1. asking a baker to go attend a gay wedding service they don't believe in supporting.
This is at a private venue, not on site at their business.

2. forcing a photographer to go to a private party
and film pornography and people having sex outside of marriage
which is against their beliefs.

Can you even answer this question?

1. If a baker delivers his cakes to his customers’ venues as a normal course of doing business, then he’s subject to his state’s public accommodations law. That he’s delivering to a private venue is irrelevant.

2. This doesn’t make any sense.

Public accommodations laws have provisions as to who is entitled to protection, such as race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation. Any class of persons not provided for in the law are not entitle to protections.

Indeed, in many states, such a Michigan, the public accommodations law has no provision for sexual orientation, where refusing to accommodate a gay patron is permissible.

“[P]eople having sex outside of marriage” are not provided for in public accommodations laws and the photographer is at liberty to refuse to provide his ‘service.’

Like most on the right you’re clearly ignorant of the law and have no understanding of the issue.

 

[mdk]

So if you call her a "hillbilly" it's OK to violate her 1st Amendment civil rights?

Sorry I can't process your building permit. You living in sin with your girlfriend violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your divorce papers. That violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your marriage license b/c marrying outside your faith violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your food service license. Being open on Sunday violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your driver's license. Women driving is a violation of my religious beliefs.

What other goverment services should denied as result of one's faith?

Sorry. Goverment agents don't get to decide what services apply to other citizens based on their religious beliefs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

No one says you don’t have the right to discriminate – you can discriminate to your heart’s content.

But as a business owner in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a provision for sexual orientation, you may not deny services to a gay patron, having nothing to do with ‘discrimination’ – just as you cannot pay your employees less than the minimum wage or endanger your employees’ safety in the workplace.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory policy, where jurisdictions have determined that to refuse services based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market, and local governments are at liberty to regulate local markets as they so desire consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

When not running your business you may discriminate all you want, revel in your ignorance and hate.

But while running your business you’ll obey the law, including accommodating gay patrons, as such laws neither ‘violate’ your religious liberty, nor ‘force’ you to ‘give up’ any rights.

Yall keep comparing rights to non rights.

A law can NOT take away a right. PERIOD. That's the entire point of the COTUS.

I don't have a right to hire someone and pay them less than minimum wage. That's not a right. Whether I'm a business or not, that's not a right. Compared to say the right to not have my stuff searched without a warrant. Can the government pass a law that says "the commerce clause allows us to search your business without a warrant?"

Dear rightwinger and C_Clayton_Jones
I agree with how Fair&Balanced explained it:
We cannot use or abuse Govt to enforce one law in ways that violate others.

So if someone defends their property, but goes too far and murders people
deliberately (as in the case of the homeowner who held, assaulted and killed two teens for breaking into his house and got murder charges and conviction) then that is not justified.

If you are going to correct or prevent discrimination,
it cannot be by enforcing policies that directly or INDIRECTLY
violate equal rights of others.

In this case, rightwinger there are both direct and indirect CONSEQUENCES that affect
PRIVATE customers and areas of the law that govt does not have authority to restrict or deny freedom
"without due process of laws".

I would compare this to defending "right to life" beliefs
by passing laws banning abortion which disproportionately affect women more than men,
and end up discriminating against women and violating substantive due process.

You have the right to your beliefs about homosexuality and transgender identity,
but the laws must not create additional or indirect violations of the rights of others.

Thank you Fair&Balanced
I am glad you are able to keep things short
because we need people like you to help with mediation
for people with no clue how deep the implications are.

Again, you have no understanding of the law or issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

I doubt if polygamy is a sexual orientation. They are still heterosexual

rightwinger nobody can prove or disprove
that sexual orientation isn't also a behavior as is polygamy.

To be fair, by treating these equally as beliefs, we include
all people equally instead of trying to impose one person's belief over anothers.

If you are saying people can discriminate in private, but not businesses and govt.
Then why allow govt to be abused to impose one belief about orientation and identity
above another belief? When NEITHER is proven or disproven by science, but BOTH are FAITH BASED.

Wrong.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is un-Constitutional because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons are not.

Consequently, prohibiting bigamy is Constitutional; one cannot have his right to due process ‘violated’ by prohibiting him access to a law that doesn’t exist.

Otherwise, the issue has nothing to do with ‘imposing beliefs,’ the notion is ridiculous nonsense completely devoid of merit or worth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

I doubt if polygamy is a sexual orientation. They are still heterosexual

rightwinger nobody can prove or disprove
that sexual orientation isn't also a behavior as is polygamy.

To be fair, by treating these equally as beliefs, we include
all people equally instead of trying to impose one person's belief over anothers.

If you are saying people can discriminate in private, but not businesses and govt.
Then why allow govt to be abused to impose one belief about orientation and identity
above another belief? When NEITHER is proven or disproven by science, but BOTH are FAITH BASED.

Gays are not trying to impose beliefs. You have right to hate gays, oppose gay marriage, oppose gay rights in every form.

You're just not allowed to act on those beliefs.

You’re not allowed to act on those beliefs through force of law, nor act on those beliefs contrary to the law.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Two Christian Artists Who Refuse to Serve Gay Weddings Are Likely Heading to Court to Battle the Government — but There’s a Twist

Phoenix City Code 18.4(B):
"No person shall, directly or indirectly, refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person, or aid in or incite such refusal, denial or withholding of, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation."

According to the local government in Phoenix City your personal religious freedom can be overridden by the government, and you can be forced - as a Christian - to engage in activities that violate your religious beliefs. IMO that is a clear violation of the Constitution. (And you know d@mn-well the government would not try to apply this to Muslims for fear of 'offending them...but Christians are 'fair game'.)

Unlike other cases that have been in the news, though, these people / this business has NOT been sued or fined for refusing service for same-sex events....but they are probably still heading to court. Instead, 'Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of art company Brush & Nib, have filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, Arizona' over the 'non-discrimination law' (above) 'that they claim violates their religious rights'.

"“Although the two young women happily create art for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, Phoenix interprets its law to require them to create art for events, like same-sex wedding ceremonies, that are completely at odds with their religious beliefs,” the lawyer wrote. “Phoenix also interprets its law to prevent them from explaining their religious beliefs and why they must create art consistent with their beliefs.”

"“Joanna and Breanna are exposing the pre-existing tension between Phoenix’s law and their constitutionally protected freedoms, between the right to speak and create freely and the government’s attempt to crush dissent and command conformity,” Scruggs continued. “And that is precisely what’s at stake.”

The company's owners are standing up for Christians / Christianity and is taking the fight to the city of Phoenix before anyone can bring the fight to them.

Go get 'em, girls!

The government can do what the fuck ever it (I) want.

- Liberal

"WE DEMAND OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CARRY GUNS IN PUBLIC."
"Well, we're the government and you aren't bringing any of your guns to the Republican convention so shut it."
"Ok, sorry if we were out of line."

- Conservative

 

[easyt65]

Two Christian Artists Who Refuse to Serve Gay Weddings Are Likely Heading to Court to Battle the Government — but There’s a Twist

Phoenix City Code 18.4(B):
"No person shall, directly or indirectly, refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person, or aid in or incite such refusal, denial or withholding of, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation."

According to the local government in Phoenix City your personal religious freedom can be overridden by the government, and you can be forced - as a Christian - to engage in activities that violate your religious beliefs. IMO that is a clear violation of the Constitution. (And you know d@mn-well the government would not try to apply this to Muslims for fear of 'offending them...but Christians are 'fair game'.)

Unlike other cases that have been in the news, though, these people / this business has NOT been sued or fined for refusing service for same-sex events....but they are probably still heading to court. Instead, 'Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of art company Brush & Nib, have filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, Arizona' over the 'non-discrimination law' (above) 'that they claim violates their religious rights'.

"“Although the two young women happily create art for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, Phoenix interprets its law to require them to create art for events, like same-sex wedding ceremonies, that are completely at odds with their religious beliefs,” the lawyer wrote. “Phoenix also interprets its law to prevent them from explaining their religious beliefs and why they must create art consistent with their beliefs.”

"“Joanna and Breanna are exposing the pre-existing tension between Phoenix’s law and their constitutionally protected freedoms, between the right to speak and create freely and the government’s attempt to crush dissent and command conformity,” Scruggs continued. “And that is precisely what’s at stake.”

The company's owners are standing up for Christians / Christianity and is taking the fight to the city of Phoenix before anyone can bring the fight to them.

Go get 'em, girls!

The government can do what the fuck ever it (I) want.

- Liberal

"WE DEMAND OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CARRY GUNS IN PUBLIC."
"Well, we're the government and you aren't bringing any of your guns to the Republican convention so shut it."
"Ok, sorry if we were out of line."

- Conservative

I heard the GOP is re-thinking this decision in light of all the violent fascist liberal terrorist attacks on Conservatives / Trump Supporters.