CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[martybegan]

Most Religions don't see SSM as marriage.

Who cares? We have a First Amendment.

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.

Thanks. In other words, the seller should sell and not allege morals without selling.

Not your call, and not government's call. You completely ignored what I was saying and pretended it agreed with you.

That's dishonest.

 

[danielpalos]

Based on State laws that over-reach on the definition of a PA, and ignore a person's Free Exercise rights regardless of their desire to earn money from something.

Link? Sellers can't ignore a buyer's free exercise rights in public accommodation.

 

[martybegan]

And now your religious bigotry shows itself.

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."

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?

On a for-profit basis? Yes.

Actually, no. Again profit has nothing to do with anything, despite your fixation with it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

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.

why do you keep lying??

of course its a punishment because of their religion,,,

He simply can't see it. He has no ability to see any viewpoint outside his own.

 

[danielpalos]

Not if it's a right, and you apply all that mumbo jumbo you do to this particular case.

Your thought process and line of reasoning is mumbo jumbo. See how easy that is.

I'm not the one who strings long non-sensical phrases with select quotes from the Constitution and then tries to pass it off as a point.

I am not the one who resorts to the most fallacies to prove his lack of rational argument in the public domain or public accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

And now your religious bigotry shows itself.

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."

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?

On a for-profit basis? Yes.

Actually, no. Again profit has nothing to do with anything, despite your fixation with it.

How did you reach your conclusion? Why do the Religious take vows of poverty if Lucre has nothing to with morals?

 

[martybegan]

Not if it's a right, and you apply all that mumbo jumbo you do to this particular case.

Your thought process and line of reasoning is mumbo jumbo. See how easy that is.

I'm not the one who strings long non-sensical phrases with select quotes from the Constitution and then tries to pass it off as a point.

I am not the one who resorts to the most fallacies to prove his lack of rational argument in the public domain or public accommodation.

You can't prove any fallacies, just like you can't prove anything you have posted is nothing more than proto-babble.

 

[martybegan]

And now your religious bigotry shows itself.

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."

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?

On a for-profit basis? Yes.

Actually, no. Again profit has nothing to do with anything, despite your fixation with it.

How did you reach your conclusion? Why do the Religious take vows of poverty if Lucre has nothing to with morals?

Only some religions include vows of poverty. Ever hear of Joel Osteen?

 

[danielpalos]

Not if it's a right, and you apply all that mumbo jumbo you do to this particular case.

Your thought process and line of reasoning is mumbo jumbo. See how easy that is.

I'm not the one who strings long non-sensical phrases with select quotes from the Constitution and then tries to pass it off as a point.

I am not the one who resorts to the most fallacies to prove his lack of rational argument in the public domain or public accommodation.

You can't prove any fallacies, just like you can't prove anything you have posted is nothing more than proto-babble.

That is a fallacy. You need valid arguments not the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. See how easy that is.

 

[danielpalos]

And now your religious bigotry shows itself.

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."

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?

On a for-profit basis? Yes.

Actually, no. Again profit has nothing to do with anything, despite your fixation with it.

How did you reach your conclusion? Why do the Religious take vows of poverty if Lucre has nothing to with morals?

Only some religions include vows of poverty. Ever hear of Joel Osteen?

A secular preacher? The truly Religious take sacred vows.

 

[martybegan]

Not if it's a right, and you apply all that mumbo jumbo you do to this particular case.

Your thought process and line of reasoning is mumbo jumbo. See how easy that is.

I'm not the one who strings long non-sensical phrases with select quotes from the Constitution and then tries to pass it off as a point.

I am not the one who resorts to the most fallacies to prove his lack of rational argument in the public domain or public accommodation.

You can't prove any fallacies, just like you can't prove anything you have posted is nothing more than proto-babble.

That is a fallacy. You need valid arguments not the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. See how easy that is.

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

 

[martybegan]

And now your religious bigotry shows itself.

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."

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?

On a for-profit basis? Yes.

Actually, no. Again profit has nothing to do with anything, despite your fixation with it.

How did you reach your conclusion? Why do the Religious take vows of poverty if Lucre has nothing to with morals?

Only some religions include vows of poverty. Ever hear of Joel Osteen?

A secular preacher? The truly Religious take sacred vows.

Nope, and not up to government to decide. Some just get a degree in divinity, some just are clergy because the religion says they are, like most Mormon Males.

If you are going to comment on things like this, I suggest you actually understand the concepts you are discussing.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

And now your religious bigotry shows itself.

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."

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?

On a for-profit basis? Yes.

Actually, no. Again profit has nothing to do with anything, despite your fixation with it.

How did you reach your conclusion? Why do the Religious take vows of poverty if Lucre has nothing to with morals?

Only some religions include vows of poverty. Ever hear of Joel Osteen?

A secular preacher? The truly Religious take sacred vows.

Nope, and not up to government to decide. Some just get a degree in divinity, some just are clergy because the religion says they are, like most Mormon Males.

If you are going to comment on things like this, I suggest you actually understand the concepts you are discussing.

The truly Religious, take sacred religious vows; unlike the secular and laity.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

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.

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.

The law punishes them for their religious beliefs, you can't separate the two to justify your support of discrimination against their viewpoints by the government.

And your point on Masterpiece is again an attempt to separate concepts that are joined by their very nature, just so you can justify the boards and your religious bigotry.

Masterpiece does separate these concepts by the ruling itself. The decision did not invalidate the law, but stated that the bakery needed to be given another procedure due to the nature of the first procedure. If these concepts were joined, the entire law would have been struck down. It was at most a partial victory. The details of the Masterpiece decision are very frequently not discussed but are very relevant to the meaning of the decision.

No one's viewpoint is being discriminated against. If their viewpoint was not religious but founded in any other reason, it would be similarly against the law. Therefore, the religious aspect is not a consideration.

Since religion plays no role in the way they're being treated, it cannot be considered discrimination. The fact that the photographer is being treated the same as everyone else means it's literally the opposite of discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

 

[danielpalos]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Not an ad-hominem, a valid observation of your posting style, or lack thereof.

This is the CDZ, if you think I have made an ad hominem attack feel free to report me.

My observations are just as valid. Your reasoning is simply full of fallacy.

I don't report people since I resort to the fewest fallacies and prefer to win my arguments.

And yet all you can do is say "help help, it's a fallacy" without actually proving it.

Ok. I will support my assertions and you support your assertions, right.

You don't support anything, you respond with either a long winded word salad, or just quote some part of the Constitution without actually linking it to the topic at hand.

Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need valid arguments to support your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Again, no ad hominem. As usual you just type in words with no backup or no links to the actual discussion.