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

[martybegan]

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

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

 

[easyt65]

The FEDERAL courts have already stepped in on cases involving Constitutional religious liberties. Case closed. I am not getting into a long drawn-out argument regarding whether the federal government can or can not step in to protect the rights of US citizens as listed, covered, and protected in the UNITED STATES Constitution.

Then there is the 'other side of the coin':


The federal government - the Obama administration - stepped in and filed suits against the state of South Carolina to stop their 'Right to Work' law which provided the opportunity for a large national company to come to SC to open a plant and hire non-union workers?

In essence, the President of the United States sued a state to keep their citizens SLAVES to unions, telling them you have no right to get a job unless you 'belong' to the Unions.

I am not going to start in on how there should be NO 'Right To Work' states because every American citizen should be able to get a job wherever they want without having to be a 'slave' to unions, where they have the option to join one it they want, but should not be prevented from getting a job if they chose not to.

Talk about a completely INAPPTOPRIATE intervention / injection into state's rights! THAT was it! Obama acted on behalf of one of the largest nation special interest groups against a state.

I argue that right to work is one of those non-specified rights a human being / US citizen has in this country. Unions should be an OPTION not a government-enforced mandate!

 

[easyt65]

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.

Freedom of religion and the exercise thereof combined with the President's oath of office, to defend, protect, and enforce the Constitution - to includes the rights established there in.

The President is CHARGED with protecting and defending the Constitution - ALL of it, as well as protecting citizens - all citizens' - rights.

You want to separate those two - I get it - but I do not agree with it. We will have to leave it at that - agree to disagree.

 

[NightFox]

The FEDERAL courts have already stepped in on cases involving Constitutional religious liberties.

Which cases said that the federal government has the authority you claim it has with respect to state and local ordnances of the nature under discussion?

Since you haven't been able to point out anything in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the authority you claim that is has nor are you arguing from a strict constructionist point of view, let me make this simple.

If the federal government were to be granted the authority you say it has; i.e. to explicitly step in and strike down a local ordinance like the one in Phoenix on the grounds that it violates the religious liberty of these shop owners, what's to stop a left wing activist point of view federal government from stepping in and creating a federal law that says in effect that NO private entity, anywhere in the United States can deny service based on sexual orientation (or any other criteria the feds deem appropriate) on the grounds that it violates the civil liberties of the patrons?

When you start coloring outside of the lines with respect to the EXPLICIT authority granted by the U.S. Constitution you start running into all these sorts of double edged swords, which is why we need more strict constructionism (Antonin Scalia) and less judicial activism (Ruth Ginsberg) rewriting the Constitution on the fly, along with much more push back from the States regarding asserting their rights.

The people of Arizona can address this egregious violation of religious liberty (by voting to Amend the State Constitution), it's exactly the sort of thing the 50 "laboratories of democracy" and the design of bifurcated separation of powers was put in place to do.

 

[NightFox]

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.

Freedom of religion and the exercise thereof combined with the President's oath of office, to defend, protect, and enforce the Constitution - to includes the rights established there in.

WHERE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT?

 

[easyt65]

Look it Up, I'm not your personal google. This is an example of part of the problem - I have posted this before, but after a while I get tired of lazy-ass liberals demanding to be spoon-fed. That is why many of these 'fake news sites' - like CNN - were so successful with dishing out propaganda. Libs were just sitting back waiting to be spoonfed.

 

[easyt65]

WHERE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT?

Don't ever say I was not overly generous:

Landmark Court Cases

• Reynolds v. United States (1879) A federal law banning polygamy was upheld. ...
• Minersville v. Gobitas (1940)
• Everson v. Board of Education (1947) ...
• Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ...
• Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ...
• Engel v. Vitale (1962) ...
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ...
• McDaniel v. Paty (1978)

Religious Liberty: Landmark Supreme Cases - Bill of Rights Institute


(BTW, this took me all of 4 seconds using Google. Glad you didn't have to strain yourself searching....)

 

[NightFox]

WHERE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT?

Don't ever say I was not overly generous:

Landmark Court Cases

Reynolds v. United States (1879) A federal law banning polygamy was upheld. .

This case actually undermines your argument since this is a case of the federal courts explicitly DENYING religious liberties ( you know just like I pointed out might happen if the federal government asserted the power you say the Constitution grants it).

• Minersville v. Gobitas (1940)

This case actually supports MY argument, since the court sided with the States (in the person of the State run public schools).

• Everson v. Board of Education (1947) ...

This case doesn't support your argument as it was a activist decision that simply expanded the establishment clause to include the states.

.

• Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ...
• Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ...
• Engel v. Vitale (1962) ...
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) ...
• McDaniel v. Paty (1978)

Now since I've been overly generous, YOU tell me how the rest of these cases support your argument

(BTW, this took me all of 4 seconds using Google. Glad you didn't have to strain yourself searching....)

LOL, yeah I can tell you did a simple search without actually reading any of the details, IT SHOWS since all you did was throw a list of cases out there without actually bothering to explain how each one supported your argument.

.,.....And since when did case law get written into the U.S. Constitution? to whit

WHERE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT?

You still haven't answered this simple question.

 

[easyt65]

This case actually undermines your argument since this is a case of the federal courts explicitly DENYING religious liberties

I stopped here because the rest is moot - you keep moving the goal post so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

You demanded to be given examples of where the US government has had the authority to step in regarding cases of religious liberties.

I provided you with those. It does not matter how the USSC ruled - it was proven that the US federal govt DID step in. If they had not had any jurisdiction to step in they would have refused to do so.

In the case you mentioned and declared I was wrong because the USSC did not rule in favor of the plaintiff's claim to religious freedom the USSC simultaneously defended the rights of everyone else by ruling in THEIR favor.

YOU ARE WRONG.

YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG.


As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. Discussion over...

Now... GO AWAY or be placed on the "ignore' list.

 

[NightFox]

This case actually undermines your argument since this is a case of the federal courts explicitly DENYING religious liberties

I stopped here because the rest is moot - you keep moving the goal post so you don't have to admit you're wrong.

You demanded to be given examples of where the US government has had the authority to step in regarding cases of religious liberties.

I didn't demand, I asked and I assumed that you would actually explain how said cases supported your argument; bad assumption on my part, since apparently you think that someone should just take a googled list as actual evidence supporting an argument, that works if you're baking fucking cookies, not so much if you're attempting to argue against constitutional conservative principles.

...and I notice you're still DUCKING the original question.

WHERE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT???

Now... GO AWAY .

Yes, ok, I see your white flag, I hear your plea for mercy, I *may* decide to take pity on you.

or be placed on the "ignore' list

ROFLWTIME!!!!!!! is that supposed to be some sort of fucking threat? Hey pal do what you gotta do, if you need to run away and hide, HAVE AT IT! there's plenty of people out there espousing left wing judicial activist arguments for me to destroy, one less target of opportunity makes absolutely no difference to me.

 

[easyt65]

Continued ranting.

Ignore.

 

[NightFox]

Ignore.

LOL, my work is done here for today, I got a snowflake to run to his safe zone.

 

[jknowgood]

'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

The Constitution doesn't protect human sacrifice no matter how religious someone might claim it is.

 

[jknowgood]

'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.

Well if you want an all black cast you can have it. Hamilton the play requested nobody white apply. Liberalism is hypocrisy in all forms.

 

[easyt65]

Reality / Truth / Hypocrisy sometimes stings like a bitch, don't it?!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

 

[jknowgood]

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

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Is the guy the only printer in the city or artist? This is a free s country. Even liberals thinks it as long as it fits their agenda.

 

[Skull Pilot]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957

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

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Is the guy the only printer in the city or artist? This is a free s country. Even liberals thinks it as long as it fits their agenda.

I hate to break it to you but this is not a free country.

 

[martybegan]

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

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Again, you or the government doesn't get to decide how a person follows their faith, unless their is a compelling government interest, and even then the government has to use the least intrusive means of mitigating the issue.

And the only bigotry I am seeing is coming from you. You don't like religious people, we get it.

 

[jknowgood]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957

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

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Is the guy the only printer in the city or artist? This is a free s country. Even liberals thinks it as long as it fits their agenda.

I hate to break it to you but this is not a free country.

I know, not if you are a christian.