Christians Aren't Required By Law Now To Go To Hell Forever In Arizona!

[Katzndogz]

Christians simply have to change their business model. Whatever they choose not to offer to gays won't be publicly offered at all. It will be by private agreement. As a result of my legal success a photographer in my art guild stopped offering wedding photography. He still performed wedding photography services. He just didn't offer it publicly. He stopped, changed his advertising, took down all the sample wedding photographs that were on his walls. When the bakery in Westwood was bought out by muslims they refused to continue the old owner's practice of wedding cakes. The new owners wouldn't make wedding cakes for Christian weddings. What's in the display case is what's for sale. If you want a wedding cake, you had already met the baker in the mosque and asked in Farsi.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nah, 1st Amendment protection does not triumph public commerce. It can't trump the 14th.

This is not a matter of private association.

A secular law requiring christians to abandon a core edict of their faith would be a precedent that dissolves the 1st Amendment. Don't look for it to happen soon. Nor look for any time soon a Decision by the Supreme Court that overturns its recent findings in DOMA that protect a state's right to sovereignty on the question of so-called "gay marriage".

Your wobbly attempts to manipulate the 14th to include the behaviors in the cult of LGBT [only, but not others] are going to come up against some very hard concrete.

Sil, the wobbliness is your argument. If you engage in public commerce, you have no 1st amendment protection.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality, Sil, because you have neither fact nor law on your side.

It doesn't matter because the law will NOT be able to force people to act against their conscience.

 

[JoeB131]

Christians simply have to change their business model. Whatever they choose not to offer to gays won't be publicly offered at all. It will be by private agreement. As a result of my legal success a photographer in my art guild stopped offering wedding photography. He still performed wedding photography services. He just didn't offer it publicly. He stopped, changed his advertising, took down all the sample wedding photographs that were on his walls. When the bakery in Westwood was bought out by muslims they refused to continue the old owner's practice of wedding cakes. The new owners wouldn't make wedding cakes for Christian weddings. What's in the display case is what's for sale. If you want a wedding cake, you had already met the baker in the mosque and asked in Farsi.

Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to in order to not do business with someone because you don't like the kind of sex they are having.

What I've found out in my own business is that if people don't know what you have to offer, you really aren't going to get business.

 

[bianco]

Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

PHOENIX — State senators voted Wednesday to let businesses refuse to serve gays based on owners' "sincerely held" religious beliefs...

..."This bill is not about discrimination," he said. "It's about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."

A similar measure is awaiting a vote in the House, probably later today.

Arizona already has laws which protect individuals and businesses from any state action which substantially interferes with their right to exercise their religion. This bill extends that protection to cover what essentially are private transactions.

The push follows a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court which said a gay couple could sue a photographer who refused on religious grounds to take pictures of their nuptials...

... "I understand that the freedom of religion can be inconvenient," he said. "But this is what our Constitution contemplates.''

Jude 1 in the Bible urges the faithful to "earnestly contend" to defend the faith for the "common salvation" and tells them that if they fail, they will be condemned to the pit of fire forever along with the homosexuals, like what happened in Sodom. There is a major, mortal sin associated with failing to fend off a homosexual culture from making inroads into a faithful culture of christians. They are condemned along with those they failed to fend off. That's some pretty tough language and high stakes for not taking the passage seriously...

..Christian's freedom to practice their religion is inseperable from the freedom to not be forced to disobey passages like Jude 1. The language in it is clear and unmistakeable in its severity of warning..

Unable to block the measure, Gallardo tried what he called a notice requirement for those businesses that want to assert their religious freedom to refuse to serve gays.

"If there is an organization or a business out there that wants to use the defense of religious freedom, I believe that consumers have a right to know," he said. Yarbrough, however, got the GOP majority to reject the amendment.

Gallardo said opposition to consumer notice is no surprise. Any firm which openly advertises such discrimination would be boycotted and go out of business, he said.

Yeah, not so sure about that last bit:

Hmmm, wonder what happens if a Christian couple have a child/ or 5, who turns/turn out to be homosexual, or bisexual?
Wonder how much fending off the Bible demands then?

 

[Katzndogz]

Christians simply have to change their business model. Whatever they choose not to offer to gays won't be publicly offered at all. It will be by private agreement. As a result of my legal success a photographer in my art guild stopped offering wedding photography. He still performed wedding photography services. He just didn't offer it publicly. He stopped, changed his advertising, took down all the sample wedding photographs that were on his walls. When the bakery in Westwood was bought out by muslims they refused to continue the old owner's practice of wedding cakes. The new owners wouldn't make wedding cakes for Christian weddings. What's in the display case is what's for sale. If you want a wedding cake, you had already met the baker in the mosque and asked in Farsi.

Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to in order to not do business with someone because you don't like the kind of sex they are having.

What I've found out in my own business is that if people don't know what you have to offer, you really aren't going to get business.

Because you still think that gays aren't allowed to patronize those businesses at all. That is not the case. They just can't force that person to participate in their activities. Likely in most cases gays don't even know. The walk into the photographer's studio and find out "We don't do wedding photography any more". They contact the bakery who says "We don't bake wedding cakes. You can buy any ready made cake you want." What happens is gays simply move on to a wedding photographer or a bakery that advertises "Wedding cakes a specialty".

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nah, 1st Amendment protection does not triumph public commerce. It can't trump the 14th.

This is not a matter of private association.

A secular law requiring christians to abandon a core edict of their faith would be a precedent that dissolves the 1st Amendment. Don't look for it to happen soon. Nor look for any time soon a Decision by the Supreme Court that overturns its recent findings in DOMA that protect a state's right to sovereignty on the question of so-called "gay marriage".

Your wobbly attempts to manipulate the 14th to include the behaviors in the cult of LGBT [only, but not others] are going to come up against some very hard concrete.

Sil, the wobbliness is your argument. If you engage in public commerce, you have no 1st amendment protection.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality, Sil, because you have neither fact nor law on your side.

Jake,

The subject of this tread has nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage and even if the SCOTUS rules in favor of Marriage Equality, it dosen't impact the subject of this thread. This thread is about a change to Arizona's Public Accommodation law, not Family Law (i.e. marriage).

For example two famous examples in the last couple of years were Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon). Under those State Public Accommodation laws, sexual orientation was covered. The New Mexico case went all the way to the New Mexico Supreme court and the court ruled for the State and not the couple.

Neither New Mexico or Oregon have Same-sex Civil Marriage, the cases weren't about Civil Marriage. The cases were about services offered to the public and then denied to members of the public based on the couples sexual orientation.

Civil Marriage laws and Public Accommodation laws are not the same thing.


>>>>

 

[Chaussette]

A secular law requiring christians to abandon a core edict of their faith would be a precedent that dissolves the 1st Amendment. Don't look for it to happen soon. Nor look for any time soon a Decision by the Supreme Court that overturns its recent findings in DOMA that protect a state's right to sovereignty on the question of so-called "gay marriage".

Your wobbly attempts to manipulate the 14th to include the behaviors in the cult of LGBT [only, but not others] are going to come up against some very hard concrete.

Sil, the wobbliness is your argument. If you engage in public commerce, you have no 1st amendment protection.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality, Sil, because you have neither fact nor law on your side.

It doesn't matter because the law will NOT be able to force people to act against their conscience.

Not sure if homo hating is a matter of conscience, since Jesus would be appalled.

 

[Katzndogz]

Jesus would be appalled at the number of people who have normalized perversion and participate in perversion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not too concerned about how God may be worrying about AZ and its law,

 

[Katzndogz]

I am only concerned with my relationship with God, no one else's. I will not commit a sin just to satisfy the feelings of someone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am only concerned with my relationship with God, no one else's. I will not commit a sin just to satisfy the feelings of someone else.

Then don't engage in public commerce, because you will be dealing with LGBT as customers. Fact.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Because you still think that gays aren't allowed to patronize those businesses at all. That is not the case. They just can't force that person to participate in their activities. Likely in most cases gays don't even know. The walk into the photographer's studio and find out "We don't do wedding photography any more". They contact the bakery who says "We don't bake wedding cakes. You can buy any ready made cake you want." What happens is gays simply move on to a wedding photographer or a bakery that advertises "Wedding cakes a specialty".

A couple of point here.

Seems like you homophobes are kind of grasping at the last straws. No longer able to discriminate against gays in housing, employment or even marriage, you want to cling onto this "Well, at least I won't perform a service that is related to your nupituals, even though it is my primary source of income to provide this service to straights !"

You see, this is what I never get about homophobes. There's really nothing about sex with another man that would ever appeal to me. But frankly, I'd happily take his money to write a resume or sell him something. It's just business.

"Oh, but my Invisible Sky Man say's It's an abomination!"

So is eating Shrimp, according to the Bible, but I don't see you clowns at the Red Lobster trying to make their lives miserable!

 

[Silhouette]

The US Supreme Court will sort this all out. 1st Amendment, Jude 1 & Romans 1 vs behaviors trying for the 14th.

May the best cause win.

 

[Avatar4321]

I was unaware that you could go to hell for being forced to serve gays.

 

[Moonglow]

I was not unaware that some people will cut off their noses to spite their face.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US Supreme Court will sort this all out. 1st Amendment, Jude 1 & Romans 1 vs behaviors trying for the 14th.

May the best cause win.

1st Amendment religious freedom of private association against 14th Amendment of public protections.

 

[Silhouette]

I was unaware that you could go to hell for being forced to serve gays.

Read Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the Bible. Then you will be aware. Pays to brush up before joining the conversation..

 

[JoeB131]

The US Supreme Court will sort this all out. 1st Amendment, Jude 1 & Romans 1 vs behaviors trying for the 14th.

May the best cause win.

It would hilarious if we put you bible thumpers in a place where we actually enforce all the crazy laws in the bible.

Most of you would get stoned for something fairly quickly.

Quit using the bible to rationalize your homophobia.

 

[JoeB131]

I was unaware that you could go to hell for being forced to serve gays.

Read Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the Bible. Then you will be aware. Pays to brush up before joining the conversation..

I would argue that Avatar, who I don't agree with on much, is as well versed in the Big Book of Jewish Fairy Tales as you are.

Oh, fuck, I'm saying nice things about a Mormon? What is the world coming to?

 

[Chaussette]

I was unaware that you could go to hell for being forced to serve gays.

Any guy who's ever thought of or looked at another man's erect penis is going to hell. I'll save you a seat by the fire.