Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's selfish to view a thing which we all agree is good, marriage, as something which can only be possessed by some people. This has nothing to do with who pays, since marriage is not an item which can be purchased.How is it not selfish to use government fiat to force someone to do something they don't want to do, when you can easily get someone to do it who is 100% willing?
Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.
So please don't claim everyone agrees with all current concepts of marriage as being good.
Do you see polygamous marriage as practiced by Fundamentalist Mormons as "good"?
Marriage is good. There's not a religion that sees marriage as something that isn't good. Some religions just don't want everyone to be able to have the good thing because, I guess, their god told them that someone shouldn't have it for some reason.
No, it's not discrimination for the reason I've stated several times already.Sorry, saying "Perform this against your morals or else" is discrimination, it's just discrimination you like.
The law shouldn't be applied to their situation in the first place.
False analogy much? The buyer would have to find a Cadillac for that price on the open market first.So is the buyer's.Neither is the seller's, moral opinion.lol. It is about moral credibility.Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.
Job 34:30 applies specifically to the (alleged) religious.
The Bible isn't the Constitution.
Their moral position is covered by free exercise absent a compelling government interest, and even then the interest must be met using the least intrusive methods possible.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
No, it isn't. You don't have a right to buy what you want. If that was the case you could offer $1.50 for a Cadillac and the government would make the seller give it to you.
Who cares? We have a First Amendment.Most Religions don't see SSM as marriage.
According to your line of reasoning, a Catholic seller should be able to refuse service to any protestants simply because they are not true Universalists but a "cult of those who, Doth Protest too much."And now your religious bigotry shows itself.
The seller has remedies that don't involve exclusion in public accommodation.Then, don't go to Government to "fix your moral problems".Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Amendment I
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.
All about government, nothing about what people can do as individuals, including as individual business owners.
The issue is government is trying to fix moral problems by forcing these people to bake/photograph/host SSM ceremonies when they don't want to.
No, it's not discrimination for the reason I've stated several times already.Sorry, saying "Perform this against your morals or else" is discrimination, it's just discrimination you like.
The law shouldn't be applied to their situation in the first place.
You are misusing the term discrimination.
Here's the definition:
Treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.
No one is treating the photographer in any way based on their class or category. That is not considered. Given it is not a consideration, it is not discrimination.
False analogy much? The buyer would have to find a Cadillac for that price on the open market first.So is the buyer's.Neither is the seller's, moral opinion.lol. It is about moral credibility.Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.
Job 34:30 applies specifically to the (alleged) religious.
The Bible isn't the Constitution.
Their moral position is covered by free exercise absent a compelling government interest, and even then the interest must be met using the least intrusive methods possible.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
No, it isn't. You don't have a right to buy what you want. If that was the case you could offer $1.50 for a Cadillac and the government would make the seller give it to you.
Who cares? We have a First Amendment.Most Religions don't see SSM as marriage.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
According to your line of reasoning, a Catholic seller should be able to refuse service to any protestants simply because they are not true Universalists but a "cult of those who, Doth Protest too much."And now your religious bigotry shows itself.
Link? Anyone working with the general population on a for-profit basis is subject to public accommodation laws.The seller has remedies that don't involve exclusion in public accommodation.Then, don't go to Government to "fix your moral problems".Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Amendment I
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.
All about government, nothing about what people can do as individuals, including as individual business owners.
The issue is government is trying to fix moral problems by forcing these people to bake/photograph/host SSM ceremonies when they don't want to.
Photographers who work on contract are not PA's.
Your thought process and line of reasoning is mumbo jumbo. See how easy that is.Not if it's a right, and you apply all that mumbo jumbo you do to this particular case.
No, they're not being punished because of their religious beliefs. They're being punished for failing to obey the law that applies to everyone, not just the religious. The law applies equally to those who are or aren't religious. If someone who was not religious chose to not follow they law, they'd face the exact same consequences. There is no discrimination.The government is punishing them because of their religious beliefs, even the Masterpiece decision noted the board in question was openly hostile to the religious aspect of the person in question.
Thanks. In other words, the seller should sell and not allege morals without selling.Who cares? We have a First Amendment.Most Religions don't see SSM as marriage.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The First amendment SAYS the government can't pick sides in such an argument.
On a for-profit basis? Yes.According to your line of reasoning, a Catholic seller should be able to refuse service to any protestants simply because they are not true Universalists but a "cult of those who, Doth Protest too much."And now your religious bigotry shows itself.
The Catholic Church does deny Eucharist to Protestants, but not Orthodox.
Should A Catholic seller be forced to sell a Jesus Statue to a Diabolist who states he will desecrate it?
why do you keep lying??No, they're not being punished because of their religious beliefs. They're being punished for failing to obey the law that applies to everyone, not just the religious. The law applies equally to those who are or aren't religious. If someone who was not religious chose to not follow they law, they'd face the exact same consequences. There is no discrimination.The government is punishing them because of their religious beliefs, even the Masterpiece decision noted the board in question was openly hostile to the religious aspect of the person in question.
Masterpiece did note the board was hostile to their religious but that was not because they were applying the law to someone who is religious.
Link? Anyone working with the general population on a for-profit basis is subject to public accommodation laws.The seller has remedies that don't involve exclusion in public accommodation.Then, don't go to Government to "fix your moral problems".Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Amendment I
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.
All about government, nothing about what people can do as individuals, including as individual business owners.
The issue is government is trying to fix moral problems by forcing these people to bake/photograph/host SSM ceremonies when they don't want to.
Photographers who work on contract are not PA's.
Your thought process and line of reasoning is mumbo jumbo. See how easy that is.Not if it's a right, and you apply all that mumbo jumbo you do to this particular case.
No, they're not being punished because of their religious beliefs. They're being punished for failing to obey the law that applies to everyone, not just the religious. The law applies equally to those who are or aren't religious. If someone who was not religious chose to not follow they law, they'd face the exact same consequences. There is no discrimination.The government is punishing them because of their religious beliefs, even the Masterpiece decision noted the board in question was openly hostile to the religious aspect of the person in question.
Masterpiece did note the board was hostile to their religious but that was not because they were applying the law to someone who is religious.
