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

[dcbl]

Public accommodation laws clearly state that a person cannot be discriminated against because of race religion or sexual orientation.
If you want to run a business you have to obey the law.

they are illegal laws

Tenants want Trumps name removed from buildings, Lebron says he won't stay at a Trump hotel, the designer won't provide a Melania a gown, but you Christians dang sure better print the wedding invitations for the gay couple.

Classic liberal projection....staple of their flawed belief system.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public accommodation laws clearly state that a person cannot be discriminated against because of race religion or sexual orientation.
If you want to run a business you have to obey the law.

they are illegal laws

Tenants want Trumps name removed from buildings, Lebron says he won't stay at a Trump hotel, the designer won't provide a Melania a gown, but you Christians dang sure better print the wedding invitations for the gay couple.

Classic liberal projection....staple of their flawed belief system.

FYI I am not a democrat

and by definition the law is legal.

But there is no way that doing business with gay people prevents anyone from practicing their religion

it is not a sin to interact with sinners. and these people have no problem printing things for other sinners. I guess you could be a kiddie porn dealer, murderer, adulterer, etc and they have no problem printing things but it's that one gay sin that is the straw that beaks the camel's back right?

These so called christians are bigots and hypocrites.

 

[martybegan]

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.

If the law is being applied wrongly, there is nothing wrong about not following it.

 

[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.

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.

It's not a free pass, its a judicious application of the law for its intended purpose that I am after, not government taking sides in a morality fight.

Sorry, but I don't get off on ruining people that disagree with me like you do, wanker.

 

[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.

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

Of course you misread my statement to your advantage. It's the progressives letting government do their dirty work for them.

 

[martybegan]

One does not give up constitutional rights because one wants to sell something.

you have yet to tell me how printing words on paper stops those people from practicing their religion

they are doing something against their moral code, due to government coercion. The whole idea of the 1st amendment is to allow them to do so, and place a burden on the government to say why forcing them to do so is needed, and to do so in such a way as to minimally impact their right to practice religion as they see fit.

You don't get to decide what is or isn't moral and the government be damned. That's reality.

And government doesn't get to decide to punish people over no actual harm, only hurt feelings. If you were actually a fan of the constitution, you would know that.

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the first refuge of the dumbass.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race religion or sexual orientation
If they don't want to comply with public accommodation laws then they can close shop

So bake or die?

Really?

 

[Iceweasel]

Public accommodation laws clearly state that a person cannot be discriminated against because of race religion or sexual orientation.
If you want to run a business you have to obey the law.

they are illegal laws

Tenants want Trumps name removed from buildings, Lebron says he won't stay at a Trump hotel, the designer won't provide a Melania a gown, but you Christians dang sure better print the wedding invitations for the gay couple.

Classic liberal projection....staple of their flawed belief system.

FYI I am not a democrat

and by definition the law is legal.

But there is no way that doing business with gay people prevents anyone from practicing their religion

it is not a sin to interact with sinners. and these people have no problem printing things for other sinners. I guess you could be a kiddie porn dealer, murderer, adulterer, etc and they have no problem printing things but it's that one gay sin that is the straw that beaks the camel's back right?

These so called christians are bigots and hypocrites.

Wrong on so many fronts. First off, we shouldn't need religious protections to decide what we do or don't do for money. If you want to pay the bills then it's a different story.

But forcing someone who's religion calls same sex unions a sin to participate in any way is a violation of their rights. with the new court you WILL see this local and state PA insult to freedom go away. There is no Constitutional basis for it, which is why those laws have popped up here and there.

If you only want to serve people that still believe that somehow gender is important that should and was always your right. It wasn't until authoritarian leftist power freaks gained control over areas that it even became an issue.

 

[martybegan]

Public accommodation laws clearly state that a person cannot be discriminated against because of race religion or sexual orientation.
If you want to run a business you have to obey the law.

they are illegal laws

Tenants want Trumps name removed from buildings, Lebron says he won't stay at a Trump hotel, the designer won't provide a Melania a gown, but you Christians dang sure better print the wedding invitations for the gay couple.

Classic liberal projection....staple of their flawed belief system.

FYI I am not a democrat

and by definition the law is legal.

But there is no way that doing business with gay people prevents anyone from practicing their religion

it is not a sin to interact with sinners. and these people have no problem printing things for other sinners. I guess you could be a kiddie porn dealer, murderer, adulterer, etc and they have no problem printing things but it's that one gay sin that is the straw that beaks the camel's back right?

These so called christians are bigots and hypocrites.

Wrong on so many fronts. First off, we shouldn't need religious protections to decide what we do or don't do for money. If you want to pay the bills then it's a different story.

But forcing someone who's religion calls same sex unions a sin to participate in any way is a violation of their rights. with the new court you WILL see this local and state PA insult to freedom go away. There is no Constitutional basis for it, which is why those laws have popped up here and there.

If you only want to serve people that still believe that somehow gender is important that should and was always your right. It wasn't until authoritarian leftist power freaks gained control over areas that it even became an issue.

PA laws don't have to be overturned, they just have to be limited to the intended scope, actual public accommodations. It was the extension of the concept to any situation where money changes hands that caused the issue.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Easy solution: nod like a bobblehead, and simply don't do the work. Apologize, refund the money.

 

[NightFox]

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

Go back and read the first amendment again and then go back and examine the story you're referring to.

Is it a federal issue or a state issue?

Here's a clue

"Now they’re being accused of violating a Phoenix ordinance that protects gay people from discrimination"

It would appear that the problem lies with the fact that apparently the Constitution of the State of Arizona is failing to protect the religious liberties of it's citizens, the people of Arizona should address that deficiency.

 

[easyt65]

It would appear that the problem lies with the fact that apparently the Constitution of the State of Arizona is failing to protect the religious liberties of it's citizens, the people of Arizona should address that deficiency.

I agree; however, if the state of Arizona fails to protect the religious liberties of American citizens that is when I believe the federal government should step in to do so.

 

[NightFox]

It would appear that the problem lies with the fact that apparently the Constitution of the State of Arizona is failing to protect the religious liberties of it's citizens, the people of Arizona should address that deficiency.

I agree; however, if the state of Arizona fails to protect the religious liberties of American citizens that is when I believe the federal government should step in to do so.

Where in the constitution does the federal government derive the authority to do so? The first amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws that restrict an individuals religious practices but it does not grant the federal government any authority over the States (looking at the text from a strict constructionist standpoint).

Do you support States rights and the diffusion of power down to it's lowest possible level? If so, shouldn't this be something that is addressed at the State level, since it's well within the practical realm for the citizens of Arizona to vote to amend the State Constitution to do so?

 

[Skull Pilot]

you have yet to tell me how printing words on paper stops those people from practicing their religion

they are doing something against their moral code, due to government coercion. The whole idea of the 1st amendment is to allow them to do so, and place a burden on the government to say why forcing them to do so is needed, and to do so in such a way as to minimally impact their right to practice religion as they see fit.

You don't get to decide what is or isn't moral and the government be damned. That's reality.

And government doesn't get to decide to punish people over no actual harm, only hurt feelings. If you were actually a fan of the constitution, you would know that.

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the first refuge of the dumbass.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race religion or sexual orientation
If they don't want to comply with public accommodation laws then they can close shop

So bake or die?

Really?

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public accommodation laws clearly state that a person cannot be discriminated against because of race religion or sexual orientation.
If you want to run a business you have to obey the law.

they are illegal laws

Tenants want Trumps name removed from buildings, Lebron says he won't stay at a Trump hotel, the designer won't provide a Melania a gown, but you Christians dang sure better print the wedding invitations for the gay couple.

Classic liberal projection....staple of their flawed belief system.

FYI I am not a democrat

and by definition the law is legal.

But there is no way that doing business with gay people prevents anyone from practicing their religion

it is not a sin to interact with sinners. and these people have no problem printing things for other sinners. I guess you could be a kiddie porn dealer, murderer, adulterer, etc and they have no problem printing things but it's that one gay sin that is the straw that beaks the camel's back right?

These so called christians are bigots and hypocrites.

Wrong on so many fronts. First off, we shouldn't need religious protections to decide what we do or don't do for money. If you want to pay the bills then it's a different story.

But forcing someone who's religion calls same sex unions a sin to participate in any way is a violation of their rights. with the new court you WILL see this local and state PA insult to freedom go away. There is no Constitutional basis for it, which is why those laws have popped up here and there.

If you only want to serve people that still believe that somehow gender is important that should and was always your right. It wasn't until authoritarian leftist power freaks gained control over areas that it even became an issue.

printing words on paper is not participating. baking a cake is not participating

tell me if a christian baker bakes a cake for an adulterer is the baker participating in that adultery? no.

 

[xyz]

'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

Artists, lol.

 

[Iceweasel]

Public accommodation laws clearly state that a person cannot be discriminated against because of race religion or sexual orientation.
If you want to run a business you have to obey the law.

they are illegal laws

Tenants want Trumps name removed from buildings, Lebron says he won't stay at a Trump hotel, the designer won't provide a Melania a gown, but you Christians dang sure better print the wedding invitations for the gay couple.

Classic liberal projection....staple of their flawed belief system.

FYI I am not a democrat

and by definition the law is legal.

But there is no way that doing business with gay people prevents anyone from practicing their religion

it is not a sin to interact with sinners. and these people have no problem printing things for other sinners. I guess you could be a kiddie porn dealer, murderer, adulterer, etc and they have no problem printing things but it's that one gay sin that is the straw that beaks the camel's back right?

These so called christians are bigots and hypocrites.

Wrong on so many fronts. First off, we shouldn't need religious protections to decide what we do or don't do for money. If you want to pay the bills then it's a different story.

But forcing someone who's religion calls same sex unions a sin to participate in any way is a violation of their rights. with the new court you WILL see this local and state PA insult to freedom go away. There is no Constitutional basis for it, which is why those laws have popped up here and there.

If you only want to serve people that still believe that somehow gender is important that should and was always your right. It wasn't until authoritarian leftist power freaks gained control over areas that it even became an issue.

printing words on paper is not participating. baking a cake is not participating

tell me if a christian baker bakes a cake for an adulterer is the baker participating in that adultery? no.

That's not your call, that's the point. Power freaks want to decide everyone else's morality. Making a Jew adorn a cake with a verse from the Koran is an inhuman disrespect to that person, what he believes and stands for. Tell him that isn't participating!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Public accommodation laws clearly state that a person cannot be discriminated against because of race religion or sexual orientation.
If you want to run a business you have to obey the law.

they are illegal laws

Tenants want Trumps name removed from buildings, Lebron says he won't stay at a Trump hotel, the designer won't provide a Melania a gown, but you Christians dang sure better print the wedding invitations for the gay couple.

Classic liberal projection....staple of their flawed belief system.

FYI I am not a democrat

and by definition the law is legal.

But there is no way that doing business with gay people prevents anyone from practicing their religion

it is not a sin to interact with sinners. and these people have no problem printing things for other sinners. I guess you could be a kiddie porn dealer, murderer, adulterer, etc and they have no problem printing things but it's that one gay sin that is the straw that beaks the camel's back right?

These so called christians are bigots and hypocrites.

Wrong on so many fronts. First off, we shouldn't need religious protections to decide what we do or don't do for money. If you want to pay the bills then it's a different story.

But forcing someone who's religion calls same sex unions a sin to participate in any way is a violation of their rights. with the new court you WILL see this local and state PA insult to freedom go away. There is no Constitutional basis for it, which is why those laws have popped up here and there.

If you only want to serve people that still believe that somehow gender is important that should and was always your right. It wasn't until authoritarian leftist power freaks gained control over areas that it even became an issue.

printing words on paper is not participating. baking a cake is not participating

tell me if a christian baker bakes a cake for an adulterer is the baker participating in that adultery? no.

That's not your call, that's the point. Power freaks want to decide everyone else's morality. Making a Jew adorn a cake with a verse from the Koran is an inhuman disrespect to that person, what he believes and stands for. Tell him that isn't participating!

An invitation is not a bible verse. neither is a white tiered cake with a statue on top.
If their problem is they don't want to participate in sin by doing business with sinners then they should deny service to all sinners lest they participate in everyone else's sins and force their customers to participate in their sins by merely doing business with them.

This is plain old bigotry and hypocrisy couched in religious bullshit

 

[easyt65]

Where in the constitution does the federal government derive the authority to do so? The first amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws that restrict an individuals religious practices but it does not grant the federal government any authority over the States (looking at the text from a strict constructionist standpoint).

The UNITED STATES Constitution is not the Texas, Arizona, New Mexico Constitution - it is the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. This documents establishes the RIGHTS of EVERY American citizen and entrusts the FEDERAL Government with protecting those rights. Presidents take an oath of office promising to protect and defend THE CONSITUTION - AND THE RIGHTS THEREIN - and the Rule of Law?

Have you not seen the Perjurous Ex-US AG Eric Holder or the new AG Loretta Lynch step in and override states when they overstep their bounds regarding Citizens' rights as per the UNITED STATES Constitution?

Do you remember when Arizona passed its own Immigration law - it had not even gone into effect yet but Holder stepped in?

The Federal Govt does not only have the right but also the RESPONSIBILITY to step in and protect the rights of all US citizens, as already seen by set precedence.

All State Laws must comply with the Constitution and Federal laws.

I know they don't teach this in school anymore, but obviously they should because there are a lot of people out there who do not understand this. (I am NOT trying to insult you by saying you are included in this - I am saying there is a great need for this to be taught in ALL schools.)

 

[easyt65]

Artists, lol.

Unfortunately, yes.

Remember the artist in NYC who dumped smeared elephant dung all over a statue of the Virgin Mary? MANY people - not just Christians - found this extremely offensive and demanded it be removed from a 'big time' museum. A Judge came back and stated since creating the 'art' did not offend any of the artist's beliefs and it was his own 'freedom of expression' he had the right to create and display it, that just because someone is offended by does not mean it has to be taken down - they can just refuse to patron / look at the 'art'.

(A slight, but eventually LOSING argument can be made about this invitation case - just because you are offended that this business does not cater to LGBT weddings AND you have other options, don't patron that store. I wonder if the owners could try to classify the creation of invitations as 'art'? )

 

[NightFox]

Where in the constitution does the federal government derive the authority to do so? The first amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws that restrict an individuals religious practices but it does not grant the federal government any authority over the States (looking at the text from a strict constructionist standpoint).

The UNITED STATES Constitution is not the Texas, Arizona, New Mexico Constitution - it is the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. This documents establishes the RIGHTS of EVERY American citizen and entrusts the FEDERAL Government with protecting those rights. Presidents take an oath of office promising to protect and defend THE CONSITUTION - AND THE RIGHTS THEREIN - and the Rule of Law?

Umm.. no the Constitution does NOT "establish the rights of every American citizen", the rights of every American Citizen are established by their humanity (or their creator depending on your religious views). The Constitution is a document that EXPLICITLY spells out the authority of the federal government and the responsibilities of the branches of the federal government, the Bill of Rights, EXPLICITLY prohibits the federal government from infringing on specific rights that the founders thought vital enough to EXPLICITLY protect, in short if the authority isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution then the federal government does not possess that authority and the rights of the citizens ARE NOT LIMITED to those explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. (see Amendment IX and X if you need further clarification of this).

It was the STATES that created the federal government and when they did so they granted it certain authority to perform functions which were impractical for the states to perform for themselves in a union of the states known as a republic.

Have you not seen the Perjurous Ex-US AG Eric Holder or the new AG Loretta Lynch step in and override states when they overstep their bounds regarding Citizens' rights as per the UNITED STATES Constitution?

Which instances are you referring to and are you saying you agree with that behavior?

Do you remember when Arizona passed its own Immigration law - it had not even gone into effect yet but Holder stepped in?

Non-sequitur, the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants the federal government sole responsibility for immigration law.

The Federal Govt does not only have the right but also the RESPONSIBILITY to step in and protect the rights of all US citizens, as already seen by set precedence.

Please point to the specific article(s) in the U.S. Constitution that says that.

All State Laws must comply with the Constitution and Federal laws.

Yes on the Constitution but they only must comply with federal law which is deemed constitutional, the states are under no obligation to comply with federal law which is outside the bounds of the authority granted by the Constitution, the U.S. Republic wasn't designed to be a dictatorship by federal government, nor was it designed to be a suicide pact for the States.

Again I ask you, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government granted the authority to step in for the case that was the subject of your OP, because it's certainly not the first amendment , since as I've already pointed out, the first amendment clearly restricts the federal government's authority on religious matters NOT the states.