Freedom of Religion? Christian Artists Face Jail Time For Not Making Same-Sex Wedding Invitations

[hadit]

'Two Arizona Christian artists face the possibility of being jailed, in addition to being fined, after they recently refused to make invitations for a same-sex wedding.'

Ummmm...did we go to bed and suddenly wake up in Communist Russia, China, or North Korea?

Liberals have been pushing the GLBT Lifestyle on everyone as 'the norm', except it ISN'T to many Americans, especially those who have a religious objection to it. Those religious beliefs - and the practice of them - are actually PROTECTED by the Constitution:

"The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What do the Liberal / LGBT 'Nazi's' not understand about that?!

Liberals can argue all day long about how it's discrimination, but it's not. It is one's personal religious belief, part of their faith, and THAT, again, is protected by the Constitution.

So Liberals are going to demand everyone else comply with their demands, regardless of what the Constitution says, and if the individuals refuse they are going to judicially punish them?!

This is an example of WHY we have the Constitution, why we have the Bill of Rights - to protect us from tyranny that encroaches on our personal rights!

I am NOT comparing these, but let's say in the future somehow liberals ram a law onto the books allowing Pedophilia, Bestiality, or Necrophilia? If Christians refuse to participate in any part of those, even if it has been approved by the government, will the government move to punish Christians - to jail Christians - for exercising their Constitutional Right to exercise their religion?
(-- Pretty ironic since this nation only exists because of a people who left England so they could freely exercise their religion without Government oppression, condemnation, and control.)

I understand laws against discrimination - I do, and I do support them....but I draw the line here. The Constitution clearly states, again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The government, however, is encroaching more and more on our rights while justifying doing so more and more. Doing so, allowing it to be done, is the start down a very dangerous road (IMO).


TOPIC:
Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations

SUPPORTING:
Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

Were these folks prevented from attending worship services? Was their church closed? How were they prevented from practicing their religion, exactly?

Freedom of religion isn't just about going to church, or being able to go to church.

You want an all white church, you can probably have it. What you can't have is an all white place of business.

No probably about it. A church is a voluntary organization that can, just like a private club, set its own membership criteria. So, if a bunch of racists want to claim they have a "church", there's no law stopping them from saying they have one. God has a different opinion, of course, but there's no American law stopping it.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, lets say the country swings more liberal in years to come and suddenly pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia become legal....are liberals going to threaten Americans who do not want to engage, facilitate / enable / such activities if those engaging in these things declare they are offended by that refusal based on religious beliefs?!

Oh stop it. Comparing homosexuality to the strongest taboos in our culture is rubbish. Come up with a believable argument.

I am not doing so, as you should recognize - I am making a point that just because something is made legal by the government does not mean Christians or others should be forced to forfeit their religious beliefs regarding those things...which, again, is why we have the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion and the practice of that religion.

So do you really believe that if a person claims something is his religious belief- he can do it- regardless of the law?

Do you really believe that if a person claims that a law is against his religious belief- he is not obligated to follow the law- regardless of the law?

 

[martybegan]

WRONG.

Again you are confusing government mandated discrimination with choices of conceive by non essential business people.

In fact, PA laws that do not allow any form of moral dissent are far more like Jim Crow laws then what you are implying.

What? You're saying that including everyone is more restrictive than segregating one demographic?

No, what I am saying is that the desire to force inclusiveness regardless of the actual harm done is just as wrong as forcing exclusiveness to perpetuate actual harm.

Government force is the common element here, and is not justified in either case.

Actual harm does ne. Please expand on that. To my knowledge, these merchants are in business to provide goods and services. It is what they want to do. How is turning away customers a harm to their endeavors?

They want to provide a good or service, but not towards a ceremony they find morally wrong. At that point you have to consider both sides, not just automatically say "the religious people have to knuckle under, because I hate them".

In this case you have a non-necessary, non time sensitive, service to be rendered, one easily found with another vendor. Why does a gay persons butt hurt over not getting the invite from one vendor override automatically the religious person's butt hurt over having to provide a service for a ceremony they don't agree with?

In this case you have no case at all- no one has accused this pair of doing anything- no 'gay person' is butt hurt- these two are butt hurt because they don't want to comply with the law- a law no one has accused them of violating.

This is not a law that requires this pair to serve gays- this is a law that tells them that they cannot discriminate against persons because of their race, or color, or religion, or gender, or marital status, or sexual orientation or disability.

This same law says that no business can refuse to serve them because they are women.
This same law says that no business can refuse to serve the one of them that is not married, because she is not married.
This same law says that no business can refuse to serve either of them just because they are Christians.

Why do Christians believe that they don't have to follow the same law everyone else has to follow?

You are arguing the law and not its actual effects. Its typical of progressives to not care about the impact the laws they love have on people, especially if they hold views that progressives find wrong.

And again, you are ignoring the fact that PA laws were never meant to say one form of butt hurt is superior to another, which is exactly the case here. They were meant to prevent actual economic harm, usually mandated by local governments, or made pervasive by de facto collusion among local businesses.

 

[martybegan]

[Q Maybe someone who is a homosexual can explain why they must make a HUGE DEAL out of it every time they find a Christian who is unwilling to provide services surrounding their wedding..

Once again- no 'homosexual' is making a huge deal here- it is 2 Christians who are making a 'huge deal' here because they don't think that they should have to comply with the law.

No, they let the government do their dirty work for them.

 

[Syriusly]

Americans have been 'forced' to sell to blacks, Jews, Christians and Mexicans for over 50 years.
This is no different.

As usual, you are wrong. One is racism NOT supported by the Bible or biblical teachings while one is.

As usual, you are just pulling crap out of your ass.

Americans have been 'forced' to sell to blacks, Jews, Christians and Mexicans for over 50 years.
This is no different.

There are Christians who do indeed believe that blacks and whites should be completely seperate and can quote you the Bible on it- do you really want the Government deciding what is a Biblically supported claim?

And how exactly is refusing to sell to Christians or Mexicans 'racism'?

 

[martybegan]

Again, lets say the country swings more liberal in years to come and suddenly pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia become legal....are liberals going to threaten Americans who do not want to engage, facilitate / enable / such activities if those engaging in these things declare they are offended by that refusal based on religious beliefs?!

Oh stop it. Comparing homosexuality to the strongest taboos in our culture is rubbish. Come up with a believable argument.

I am not doing so, as you should recognize - I am making a point that just because something is made legal by the government does not mean Christians or others should be forced to forfeit their religious beliefs regarding those things...which, again, is why we have the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion and the practice of that religion.

So do you really believe that if a person claims something is his religious belief- he can do it- regardless of the law?

Do you really believe that if a person claims that a law is against his religious belief- he is not obligated to follow the law- regardless of the law?

Argumentum ad abusrdum again. All most people are saying is the situation at hand has to be taken into account, and that PA laws do not automatically override religious freedom just because you hate the people in question, and get a hard on from fucking over people who disagree with you. Cowardly so, I might add as you let government do your fighting for you.

You are nothing but a bunch of bullies.

 

[Syriusly]

What? You're saying that including everyone is more restrictive than segregating one demographic?

No, what I am saying is that the desire to force inclusiveness regardless of the actual harm done is just as wrong as forcing exclusiveness to perpetuate actual harm.

Government force is the common element here, and is not justified in either case.

Actual harm does ne. Please expand on that. To my knowledge, these merchants are in business to provide goods and services. It is what they want to do. How is turning away customers a harm to their endeavors?

They want to provide a good or service, but not towards a ceremony they find morally wrong. At that point you have to consider both sides, not just automatically say "the religious people have to knuckle under, because I hate them".

In this case you have a non-necessary, non time sensitive, service to be rendered, one easily found with another vendor. Why does a gay persons butt hurt over not getting the invite from one vendor override automatically the religious person's butt hurt over having to provide a service for a ceremony they don't agree with?

In this case you have no case at all- no one has accused this pair of doing anything- no 'gay person' is butt hurt- these two are butt hurt because they don't want to comply with the law- a law no one has accused them of violating.

This is not a law that requires this pair to serve gays- this is a law that tells them that they cannot discriminate against persons because of their race, or color, or religion, or gender, or marital status, or sexual orientation or disability.

This same law says that no business can refuse to serve them because they are women.
This same law says that no business can refuse to serve the one of them that is not married, because she is not married.
This same law says that no business can refuse to serve either of them just because they are Christians.

Why do Christians believe that they don't have to follow the same law everyone else has to follow?

You are arguing the law and not its actual effects. Its typical of progressives to not care about the impact the laws they love have on people, especially if they hold views that progressives find wrong.

And again, you are ignoring the fact that PA laws were never meant to say one form of butt hurt is superior to another, which is exactly the case here. They were meant to prevent actual economic harm, usually mandated by local governments, or made pervasive by de facto collusion among local businesses.

Okay- lets look at the actual effects here.

No one has threatened these two women with anything. They have decided that they should not have to follow the law that says that they cannot be discriminated against.

The only ones claiming 'butt hurt' here are the two 'artists'- proclaiming their butt hurt over having to follow the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, lets say the country swings more liberal in years to come and suddenly pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia become legal....are liberals going to threaten Americans who do not want to engage, facilitate / enable / such activities if those engaging in these things declare they are offended by that refusal based on religious beliefs?!

Oh stop it. Comparing homosexuality to the strongest taboos in our culture is rubbish. Come up with a believable argument.

I am not doing so, as you should recognize - I am making a point that just because something is made legal by the government does not mean Christians or others should be forced to forfeit their religious beliefs regarding those things...which, again, is why we have the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion and the practice of that religion.

So do you really believe that if a person claims something is his religious belief- he can do it- regardless of the law?

Do you really believe that if a person claims that a law is against his religious belief- he is not obligated to follow the law- regardless of the law?

Argumentum ad abusrdum again. All most people are saying is the situation at hand has to be taken into account, and that PA laws do not automatically override religious freedom just because you hate the people in question, and get a hard on from fucking over people who disagree with you. Cowardly so, I might add as you let government do your fighting for you.

You are nothing but a bunch of bullies.

Why do you think that voters are bullies?

Why do you think that Christians get a free pass when it comes to public accommodation laws?

The only one who seem to be getting a hard on about this is you.

 

[OldLady]

I do want to point out that these 'artists' haven't been threatened by anyone.

No one sued them.
No one has accused them of violating the law.
They haven't even claimed to have refused to make any invitations.

They are the ones who have filed suit.

Against the very same law that says business's must do business with these artists, even if their religious belief says that they should not serve Christians.

That's a relief. Thank you.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q Maybe someone who is a homosexual can explain why they must make a HUGE DEAL out of it every time they find a Christian who is unwilling to provide services surrounding their wedding..

Once again- no 'homosexual' is making a huge deal here- it is 2 Christians who are making a 'huge deal' here because they don't think that they should have to comply with the law.

No, they let the government do their dirty work for them.

How are the 2 'Christian's letting the government do their dirty work for them?

 

[TheDude]

I want my wedding invitations sporting two gays dressed in white KKK robes, sporting Nazi Tatoos and breasts. According to the liberal you must comply.

Who is the liberal clown who said the KKK and NAZI are not protected classes? You ever heard of the Constitution? I get it, you don't like the comparison because it puts your asshole positions into proper perspective. Look, if you want to pretend LGBT are something they're not, which a lot of them do as a lifestyle anyway, then that's your business. I'm not religious, but if I were a baker etc. and didn't want to participate in a twisted sense of reality, then I just wouldn't do it. If you don't want to mess with their idiocracy, just make up a reason.

 

[Syriusly]

I do want to point out that these 'artists' haven't been threatened by anyone.

No one sued them.
No one has accused them of violating the law.
They haven't even claimed to have refused to make any invitations.

They are the ones who have filed suit.

Against the very same law that says business's must do business with these artists, even if their religious belief says that they should not serve Christians.

That's a relief. Thank you.

Well as usual the OP made it harder to find the actual facts- no citation given.

He prefers people just believe his hyperbole and knows most people would prefer just to be outraged rather than know the facts.

 

[easyt65]

So do you really believe that if a person claims something is his religious belief- he can do it- regardless of the law?

I believe in the Constitutional Right to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof.

What you described is 'racism'. While Barry's mentor, Jeremiah Wright, taught and preached that from the Pulpit of his church for all those years he mentored Barry. none of that is Biblical and NOT part of any real religion.

The act of homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin in the bible, and the bible teaches not to enable, facilitate, or encourage sin. It does not teach hatred of the sinner. The Constitution protects that faith and the act of exercising that religion. That is what I believe.


I asked this earlier and got no response - if this business declared that it was a 'Christian' business, like 'Christian Bookstores', would their actions then be acceptable? If not, does that mean liberals will be going after Christian Bookstores next?

 

[Syriusly]

So do you really believe that if a person claims something is his religious belief- he can do it- regardless of the law?

I believe in the Constitutional Right to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof.

What you described is 'racism'.

Again- how is refusing to serve a Christian or a Mexican 'racism'?

Answer the question- it is not that hard- even you should be able to do so

So do you really believe that if a person claims something is his religious belief- he can do it- regardless of the law?

Do you really believe that if a person claims that a law is against his religious belief- he is not obligated to follow the law- regardless of the law?

 

[easyt65]

Well as usual the OP made it harder to find the actual facts- no citation given.

WTF are you talking about? I posted 2 (TWO) links at the bottom of the threat initial post.

Is it that you don't know how links work on this board or that you can't read/tell for yourself?

 

[Votto]

This kind of crap will end once we get two or three Conservative Supreme Court Justices appointed. The lower courts may rule with the LGBT but the SCOTUS will then overrule their rulings.

I'd say this sort of shit should have been settled through a duel. It would have been in my store. Hope the queers bring a gun if they try to fuck with me.

Goes to destroy the myth that it is Christians who are attacking the gays. It is an all-out assault by the LGBT against Christians and anyone else who doesn't embrace their depravity.

It's a business opportunity.

You see a Christian business man, you then try to offend him with your gay issues to try and prompt him to deny you service.

 

[easyt65]

Do you really believe that if a person claims that a law is against his religious belief- he is not obligated to follow the law- regardless of the law?

I've already answered several times...you want me to draw you a picture?

Asking me over and over again is not going to change my answer.

 

[Syriusly]

[
The act of homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin in the bible, and the bible teaches not to enable, facilitate, or encourage sin.

Lots of things are defined as sins in the Bible- but not marriage between two men or two women.

I wonder how many so called Christians voted for Donald Trump- a man who is constantly committing adultery because he divorced and remarried- for the third time? Doesn't that encourage adultery?

Meanwhile- the Bible is very clear- Christians are supposed to follow the law- follow lawful authority- which some Christians want to ignore- when it is convenient.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you really believe that if a person claims that a law is against his religious belief- he is not obligated to follow the law- regardless of the law?

I've already answered several times...you want me to draw you a picture?

Asking me over and over again is not going to change my answer.

No- you just keep dodging the question over and over. Because you really know that an honest answer would out you for who you are.

 

[easyt65]

Lots of things are defined as sins in the Bible- but not marriage between two men or two women.

I am not going to come flat out and say that is a 'lie' as that may be offensive; however, I will point out that the Bible teaches homosexuality is NOT acceptable. It calls it an 'abomination'.