Fed Court: Christian Videographers Don’t Have to Film Homo Wedding

[rightwinger]

Amounts to a defacto return to Jim Crow

A Community can legally exclude gay couples

Jim crow were govt mandated segregation. That has nothing to do with private property. Nor free will.

Most of Jim Crow was enforced by private citizens. Any business that chose to serve blacks or treat treat them civilly was not in business for long

This ruling does the same thing. It permits Christian Communities to exclude homosexual couples and refuse them service.

Why would it only apply to weddings? Can a restaurant refuse service to a married gay couple for religious reasons?
Can a hotel refuse to rent to homosexuals?
Can a doctor refuse to treat a gay person?

It doesn't matter dumbo. Jim crow was segregation that was made law by BIG GOVT. Your fucking hero.
They should be able to. Of course, I support liberty free will and private property.

Hardly
Jim Crow was a social institution.




What was Jim Crow - Jim Crow Museum - Ferris State University

Listen you stupid fuck
You are comparing BIG GOVT to free will and private property.
Those are antonyms.

You are allowed to hate anyone you want.
Your business can not enforce that hatred

We do not serve negroes here is not allowed
Same goes for homosexuals

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Amounts to a defacto return to Jim Crow

A Community can legally exclude gay couples

Hardly! We aren't talking about communities but individuals and we aren't talking about businesses that exclude
homos absolutely but only with regard to providing wedding services.
And if we were talking about selling swastika covered cakes to Nazis no one would be crying crocodile tears at all.

This is a lot of hyped up fear mongering over practically nothing at all. If shop A doesn't want to design and sell gay wedding stuff shops B through Z will be more than happy to have their business.

 

[rightwinger]

Amounts to a defacto return to Jim Crow

A Community can legally exclude gay couples

Hardly! We aren't talking about communities but individuals and we aren't talking about businesses that exclude
homos absolutely but only with regard to providing wedding services.
And if we were talking about selling swastika covered cakes to Nazis no one would be crying crocodile tears at all.

This is a lot of hyped up fear mongering over practically nothing at all. If shop A doesn't want to design and sell gay wedding stuff shops B through Z will be more than happy to have their business.

Can the court restrict the scope to only weddings and only homosexuals?

If your religion prohibits gay marriage, doesn’t it also prohibit gay married couples?
Can you refuse service to all gay couples if your religion supports you?

If you allow a religious exemption towards gays, why not other religious beliefs.
Catholics oppose divorce. Can a business refuse service to divorced people?

 

[mdk]

Not to worry, though. The government will still force you do business with whole groups of people regardless of your deeply held beliefs, but at least you can tell the queers to go fly a kite.

Well, that's because faggots are not a minority, like blacks are , no matter how often some dope addled tards keep claiming that. Sick mentally ill sexual fetishes are not 'civil rights'.

This isn’t about civil rights, numbskull. This about property/business rights and how the government should not force anyone to do business with someone against their wishes.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Why is a person like this even needed in the first place when films can be made from people's phones now?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Guess you have never been married if you are willing to live with videos from a smart phone

I am still single.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Well..................

Can I ask what it is that you mean here?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[rightwinger]

Not to worry, though. The government will still force you do business with whole groups of people regardless of your deeply held beliefs, but at least you can tell the queers to go fly a kite.

Well, that's because faggots are not a minority, like blacks are , no matter how often some dope addled tards keep claiming that. Sick mentally ill sexual fetishes are not 'civil rights'.

This isn’t about civil rights, numbskull. This about property/business rights and how the government should not force anyone to do business with someone against their wishes.

If you are not willing to follow the laws on public accommodation, then don’t go into business

 

[bodecea]

Who would want to photograph mentally ill people anyway?

Federal Court: Christian Videographers Cannot Be Compelled to Work Same-Sex Wedding

Nice to see an occasional judge recognizes that Christians have First Amendment rights too.

Their business has no First Amendment rights

The court just ruled otherwise... dumbass

And, Ginsburg is about to have to resign, or croak as well, another bright spot in America's future when a new appointee takes the seat.

And, folks, this is the same mind set of those supporting this court ruling. It's no coincidence, is it?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Can the court restrict the scope to only weddings and only homosexuals?

There are all sorts of small exemptions granted to people under certain circumstances based on
religious grounds. The Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol and who sued their employers is one example that springs to mind.
Religious accommodations are easy to get around as most people don't hold religious bugaboos and those that do can be easily screened out in the hiring process when a problem with handling pork, for instance, will screen out Muslim deli workers, for instance.
Or would you like bakers to have to make birthday cakes for Adolph Hitler? Haven''t we all gone over this about a thousand times before?

If your religion prohibits gay marriage, doesn’t it also prohibit gay married couples?
Can you refuse service to all gay couples if your religion supports you?

Moot point. No religion has done such a thing. Homosexuality is considered a sin and so is gluttony No church supports discriminating against fat people.

If you allow a religious exemption towards gays, why not other religious beliefs.
Catholics oppose divorce. Can a business refuse service to divorced people?

Oh, so full of time wasting
hyppotheticals, aren't we?

 

[rightwinger]

Can the court restrict the scope to only weddings and only homosexuals?

There are all sorts of small exemptions granted to people under certain circumstances based on
religious grounds. The Muslim truck drivers who refused to transport alcohol and who sued their employers is one example that springs to mind.
Religious accommodations are easy to get around as most people don't hold religious bugaboos and those that do can be easily screened out in the hiring process when a problem with handling pork, for instance, will screen out Muslim deli workers, for instance.
Or would you like bakers to have to make birthday cakes for Adolph Hitler? Haven''t we all gone over this about a thousand times before?

If your religion prohibits gay marriage, doesn’t it also prohibit gay married couples?
Can you refuse service to all gay couples if your religion supports you?

Moot point. No religion has done such a thing. Homosexuality is considered a sin and so is gluttony No church supports discriminating against fat people.

If you allow a religious exemption towards gays, why not other religious beliefs.
Catholics oppose divorce. Can a business refuse service to divorced people?

Oh, so full of time wasting
hyppotheticals, aren't we?

Not hypothetical at all

The court allowing a persons religious beliefs to decide whether they provide service to a person sets a legal precedent

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"Christian videographers." Lol this country's a hoot.

I dont [sic] understand why cant a practicing church going Christian be a videographer .? Whats [sic] wrong with it ?

Why doesn't he have a right to take or leave any job he chooses ?

I have a theory, about the “Mark of the Beast”, as mentioned in Revelation 13:16-17.

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

I am beginning to suspect that the mark is not a physical or visual mark, but an ideological one, and that we are now beginning to see the development of it. It is being seriously proposed, under the guise of “anti-discrimination”, that one simply cannot be in certain professions, unless one is willing to practice those professions in ways that promote evil and madness. The prime example, right now, is that if one offers goods or services in support of weddings and marriage, then one cannot refuse to offer those same goods or services in support of the degenerate homosexual mockery of marriage. I think that the Mark may be that increasingly, one will not be able to engage in commerce unless one is willing to abandon sound moral principles in order to promote evil.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Their business has no First Amendment rights

Anybody who believes somebody's labor is to be forced from them does not believe in the concepts of freedom and liberty.

 

[rightwinger]

What is to prevent a fundamentalist community from deciding it will blackball gays?

Any business in that community who serves gays gets boycotted by the community. Any legal challenge to denial of service can be justified that it is being done on religious grounds

 

[rightwinger]

Their business has no First Amendment rights

Anybody who believes somebody's labor is to be forced from them does not believe in the concepts of freedom and liberty.

You are free to work or not

You cannot say “We do not serve negroes here” and remain in business

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Their business has no First Amendment rights

Anybody who believes somebody's labor is to be forced from them does not believe in the concepts of freedom and liberty.

You are free to work or not

Not according to you

 

[rightwinger]

Their business has no First Amendment rights

Anybody who believes somebody's labor is to be forced from them does not believe in the concepts of freedom and liberty.

You are free to work or not

Not according to you

If you don’t want to serve blacks, Jews or gays, nobody is forcing you to operate a business

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not hypothetical at all

The court allowing a persons religious beliefs to decide whether they provide service to a person sets a legal precedent

The "precedent" for someone to follow the dictates of his religion was set when the First Amendment was drafted
and included in the Bill of Rights.
Which other amendments would you do away with?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If you don’t want to serve blacks, Jews or gays, nobody is forcing you to operate a business

Don't forget to add "conservatives" to your list. But that's okay with you.
We read every day about Trump supporters who are refused service and turned away from public establishments. Where is your outraged sense of justice then?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

True Christians are not bigoted f•••s.

I don't think any true Christian is interested in allowing our faith to be defined by someone who openly hates Christianity, and who openly embraces evil and madness.

Your position is no different than that of a Nazi presuming to define who is or is not a genuine Jew.

 

[rightwinger]

Not hypothetical at all

The court allowing a persons religious beliefs to decide whether they provide service to a person sets a legal precedent

The "precedent" for someone to follow the dictates of his religion was set when the First Amendment was drafted
and included in the Bill of Rights.
Which other amendments would you do away with?

Religious belief does not override the laws of the land
Catholics do not recognize divorce. They cannot use their religion to discriminate against divorced people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Next up

Denial of service to same sex weddings by:

Reception halls
Limos
Hotels
Wedding invitations
Florists
Wedding dress and Tuxedo rentals

I certainly hope so.

No merchant, and no business, should ever be compelled to provide support to that which they know to be immoral.