Federal judge orders Christian film-makers to make LGBT film

[Asclepias]

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

That's great. But any law or legal judgment that forces you to say or publish or show something you do not believe in is null and void and a gross violation of the First Amendment. Professional film-scene-cutters are not "common carriers" and you are asking them to apply their opinions and make professional judgments to issue speech that they fundamentally disagree with. This cannot be.

Buy your own camera. Build your own props. Make your own damn film. On your own damn time. Not the court's time. You have the money. You know what you are doing.

Whatever you are saying, say it yourself. Whatever you are showing, show it yourself. Do not obtain a fraudulent court order for someone else to say it or show it for you.

Until you repeal the law you will comply or pay the consequences. If I were you I would stop whining and go to work on that.

 

[Asclepias]

Do not obtain a fraudulent court order for someone else to say it or show it for you.

What I MEANT TO SAY but was altered in my post above..
>>>Do not obtain a fraudulent court order to force someone else to say it or show it for you.<<<

How can you secure a fraudulent court order? The law says you will accommodate all of the public not some.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

That's great. But any law or legal judgment that forces you to say or publish or show something you do not believe in is null and void and a gross violation of the First Amendment. Professional film-scene-cutters are not "common carriers" and you are asking them to apply their opinions and make professional judgments to issue speech that they fundamentally disagree with. This cannot be.

Buy your own camera. Build your own props. Make your own damn film. On your own damn time. Not the court's time. You have the money. You know what you are doing.

Whatever you are saying, say it yourself. Whatever you are showing, show it yourself. Do not obtain a fraudulent court order for someone else to say it or show it for you.

Where were you and your team of legal experts when you lost this argument decades ago? No, it's not against their first amendment rights to say that they cannot erect a sign on their business that says "whites only " or "straights only". And nobody is forcing them to do anything. They are free to go into a different line of work or move to a country with different laws.

 

[gallantwarrior]

1 person is dead, seven injured after a shooting in a CHRISTIAN church today; those Christians are the ones I am worried about(.) One was pistol whipped, happened in or near Nashville.

Shooter kills one, wounds 7 at Tennessee church - CNN

Wait! Christians are the new Nazis and inevitably white supremacists. Therefore, they deserve what they get. Assholes shouldn't be touting christianity or promoting their white-privileged god.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do not obtain a fraudulent court order for someone else to say it or show it for you.

What I MEANT TO SAY but was altered in my post above..
>>>Do not obtain a fraudulent court order to force someone else to say it or show it for you.<<<

You're confusing yourself. The videographers were the plaintiffs, not the defendants. They were registering a complaint against existing law. They were under the incorrect impression that calling their bigotry and discrimination "a religious belief" somehow afforded them special privilege to skirt the law. And they were wrong. Again. And again and again and again. Rinse, repeat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1 person is dead, seven injured after a shooting in a CHRISTIAN church today; those Christians are the ones I am worried about(.) One was pistol whipped, happened in or near Nashville.

Shooter kills one, wounds 7 at Tennessee church - CNN

Wait! Christians are the new Nazis and inevitably white supremacists. Therefore, they deserve what they get. Assholes shouldn't be touting christianity or promoting their white-privileged god.

Spot on, my opressed WASP brother! I hear people say that all the time! And, by "all the time", I mean not a single time, ever.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

That's great. But any law or legal judgment that forces you to say or publish or show something you do not believe in is null and void and a gross violation of the First Amendment. Professional film-scene-cutters are not "common carriers" and you are asking them to apply their opinions and make professional judgments to issue speech that they fundamentally disagree with. This cannot be.

Buy your own camera. Build your own props. Make your own damn film. On your own damn time. Not the court's time. You have the money. You know what you are doing.

Whatever you are saying, say it yourself. Whatever you are showing, show it yourself. Do not obtain a fraudulent court order for someone else to say it or show it for you.

Or spend you money with someone who doesn't have such compunctions. I'm sure there are plenty of filmmakers who would love to make a faggot love story film. But then, there's no court ordered "kachingg!" moment involved in choosing to business with those who agree with you. Why not attack people whose personal beliefs are contrary to your personal lifestyle choices? No court case, no court order, no money...go figure.

 

[gallantwarrior]

1 person is dead, seven injured after a shooting in a CHRISTIAN church today; those Christians are the ones I am worried about(.) One was pistol whipped, happened in or near Nashville.

Shooter kills one, wounds 7 at Tennessee church - CNN

Wait! Christians are the new Nazis and inevitably white supremacists. Therefore, they deserve what they get. Assholes shouldn't be touting christianity or promoting their white-privileged god.

Spot on, my opressed WASP brother! I hear people say that all the time! And, by "all the time", I mean not a single time, ever.

I suppose I'll have to include a sarcasm alert when you are involved in a discussion?
I'm not sure where you got the WASP description for me, I suppose you have a reading comprehension problem, or just have not paid much attention to my previous posts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1 person is dead, seven injured after a shooting in a CHRISTIAN church today; those Christians are the ones I am worried about(.) One was pistol whipped, happened in or near Nashville.

Shooter kills one, wounds 7 at Tennessee church - CNN

Wait! Christians are the new Nazis and inevitably white supremacists. Therefore, they deserve what they get. Assholes shouldn't be touting christianity or promoting their white-privileged god.

Spot on, my opressed WASP brother! I hear people say that all the time! And, by "all the time", I mean not a single time, ever.

I suppose I'll have to include a sarcasm alert when you are involved in a discussion?
I'm not sure where you got the WASP description for me, I suppose you have a reading comprehension problem, or just have not paid much attention to my previous posts.

It was more of a joke than anything personal.

 

[Peach]

I have argued with a poster here about religion, though I am a believer in a greater power, I know the Constitution does not favor any belief(.) Some of the Founders were agnostic, and Ben Franklin was a Deist, along with Henry and Paine. Some were inclined to atheism at times. In no sense is this country a "Christian Nation"

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams

Jefferson promoted tolerance above all and said earlier that his statute for religious freedom in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” He specifically wished to avoid the dominance of a single religion.

Jefferson rejected the Virgin birth of Jesus also.

Christians have no more liberties than others, and must obey laws that do not comport with their faith. A Muslim may not have to serve pork, but he or she cannot prevent a buyer just finished with a BBQ pork sandwich walking on the street, from entering his place of business. The smell may be stench to the Muslim, but this is the USA.

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Amen to this. If a person of any kind isn't willing to show the same respect that they demand come from the rest of us, then in my opinion, empty handed is how that person should be when the dust settles.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

PA? Professional Association? Is that what this is? A state thing?

Either way, it's meddling where there need be no meddling.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

Show us the law that Congress passed. That screwy judge is making up his own damn Liberal trash rules.

Court Domination Doomed DOMA

Show us the law that Congress passed to nullify judicial rule. Don't let the TalkItDon'tWalkIt politicians evade responsibility. An elitist fairyphile like Justice "Just Us" Kennedy voted for Gayist "marriage" just because his mentor after law school was Gayist. That personal individual experience outweighed all other considerations. Such infantile selfishness is a typical character flaw of lawyers, which is all these overrespected shysters are.

 

[Peach]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

PA? Professional Association? Is that what this is? A state thing?

Either way, it's meddling where there need be no meddling.

How about an atheist EMT that refuses to provide medical care to a Christian?

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

PA? Professional Association? Is that what this is? A state thing?

Either way, it's meddling where there need be no meddling.

How about an atheist EMT that refuses to provide medical care to a Christian?

The other way to look at that: How about a private company that offers an ambulance / emergency medical services specifically for practitioners of a particular faith? I see no problem with that whatsoever.

Your atheist EMT will probably be fired toot suite by his employer. But even if the boss is of a similar mind, surely no municipality choosing to provide a public service would hire such a company.

All good, no meddling required.

 

[Peach]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

PA? Professional Association? Is that what this is? A state thing?

Either way, it's meddling where there need be no meddling.

How about an atheist EMT that refuses to provide medical care to a Christian?

The other way to look at that: How about a private company that offers an ambulance / emergency medical services specifically for practitioners of a particular faith? I see no problem with that whatsoever.

Your atheist EMT will probably be fired toot suite by his employer. But even if the boss is of a similar mind, surely no municipality choosing to provide a public service would hire such a company.

All good, no meddling required.

Public entities are often bound by bidding, the public entity has no way of knowing what individual employees of the winning bidder are like. But you admit, if in life or death situations, we can all choose to provide services to whom we wish.

Grocery stores can refuse to sell food to the obese, and restaurants refuse service to the ugly. Odd nation we will become.

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Thats not what the PA laws say. if you want to work a business you will comply to the laws.

PA? Professional Association? Is that what this is? A state thing?

Either way, it's meddling where there need be no meddling.

How about an atheist EMT that refuses to provide medical care to a Christian?

The other way to look at that: How about a private company that offers an ambulance / emergency medical services specifically for practitioners of a particular faith? I see no problem with that whatsoever.

Your atheist EMT will probably be fired toot suite by his employer. But even if the boss is of a similar mind, surely no municipality choosing to provide a public service would hire such a company.

All good, no meddling required.

Public entities are often bound by bidding, the public entity has no way of knowing what individual employees of the winning bidder are like. But you admit, if in life or death situations, we can all choose to provide services to whom we wish.

Grocery stores can refuse to sell food to the obese, and restaurants refuse service to the ugly. Odd nation we will become.

Okay, in your one-in-a-million situation, where a municipality provides a public service and someone violates the contract by refusing service, thus resulting in an innocent death, we already have a remedy. You sue the municipality and the EMT worker is brought up on charges. Next time, the municipality will improve their due diligence or amend stupid laws that would prevent such from a happening.

Again, no meddling in private businesses required.

It's a matter of private property rights, which are sacrosanct to a free society. There's nothing wrong with a grocery store focusing on a particular clientele. Should they do something so anti-capitalism as turning away a non-target customer with money to spend, we'll given the slim margins that are grocery stores, they're not going to last long.

Further, night clubs have been refusing service to the ugly for centuries and we're all still here.

All I ask is that you consider alternatives to government intervention for what you perceive as societal problems. Free people and free minds trump the iron boot of government every time.

 

[cnelsen]

And meanwhile, the real story.

A video recording company made money working weddings. They decided they didn't want to video any gay weddings, so they're pretending to be "film makers" instead of "paid wedding video recorders".

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Why would two guys who want to marry each other want to hire a videographer who is repelled by the whole idea? Wouldn't they get better results from someone okay with gay marriage? I would think it would be better to be able to see up front who is willing and who is not.

 

[Moonglow]

Another liberal judge writes a law even though the constitution says only congress can do that.

Activist Dem judge rules LGBT mandate trumps 1st Amendment

sep 23 2017 A federal judge in Minnesota with a long history of Democratic Party activism has issued a ruling that effectively concludes the LGBT agenda trumps the First Amendment’s religious-rights protections.

John Tunheim, appointed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1995, ordered Wednesday that Christian videographers Carl and Angel Larsen, through their company, Telescope Media Group, must use their filmmaking talents to promote same-sex marriages if they produce films that celebrate marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Their lawyers announced immediately they will appeal the decision by Tunheim, who charged in his opinion that the Larsens’ faith-based objection to creating videos promoting same-sex relationships is “akin to a ‘White Applicants Only’ sign.”

I hope they use a lot of tongue....and close up shots.....If you search for the company on Google you find that they are in trouble for having a ban on filming same sex weddings....They are not being forced to produce an LGBT movie....You and that damn WND website...