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

[Syriusly]

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.

I have no problem with religious people just people who use their religion to justify their bigotry

There is absolutely no cogent argument that printing words on paper for a sinner makes the printer a participant in that sin

There is even less of an argument for ruining someone over them not wanting to bake a cake, or take a photograph, or make an invitation for an event, especially if the service is easily obtainable elsewhere, is non-essential, and non-time sensitive.

Then your argument is that the law should be changed.

Because right now the Phoenix law protects these women from being discriminated against for their religion- as much as it protects anyone else.

Remember- no one has done anything to these women- they just don't think that they should have to follow the city ordinance.

Not changed, but a public accommodation is not every single instance where money changes hands.

In the case of a non-essential, non time sensitive, contracted service that has multiple other options, The right of these women to free exercise outweighs some gay couple's "right" to said women's product.

And who determines that? You? Them? Their potential future customer that hasn't yet materialized? A judge?

The current Phoenix ordinance applies to them- they don't want to have to follow it. And by the way- I absolutely support their right to go to court to fight the law.

They have two avenues to try to change a law that they do not agree with:
- the courts- just like gay couples went to court
- legislatively.

I believe these two women have the right to pursue either. But until they change the law- they are subject to it.

 

[Syriusly]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constitutional_law

"While the topic also covers the interpretation and implementation of state constitutions, without qualification it is usually understood as referring to the Federal Constitution.


Article VI of The United States Constitution states (art. VI, § 2.) – “ Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it.”


YES, the Federal Government has the authority to step in an invalidate / strike down state laws that violate the US Constitution, to include constitutionally protected rights."

The US Constitution established the government recognized and protected freedom of religion and the exercising thereof.

It protects persons of all religions from anyone seeking to define their religion, define what it is they can believe, and / or seeking to set limits on their religion.

No one has the right to impose THEIR own biases, prejudices, or beliefs on those of religious faith - those people are FREE as are their right to exercise their faith.

This does not mean the government / USSC will find in their favor all the time, and it has not. It seems, however, that as the 'change' Barry called for spreads the more intolerance there is and the more eagerness to seek to impose their will on groups anyway no matter what the Constitution states.

President Obama and Democrats sought to do this when they declared medial institutions run by faith organizations had to perform abortions. This was quickly identified as a violation of the Constitution, specifically regarding religious freedom, and it was quickly amended (by EO). This, of course, was at the federal level, but the authority for the federal government to step in at the state and municipal level has already been proven.

The exact location in the Constitution where it states the Federal Government does have the authority to do so has now been provided:

Article VI / art. VI, § 2:
"This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it.”


(Since Barry is such an acclaimed Constitutional Scholar you would think HE would know this.)

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.

What 'tiny' minority?

This was an ordinance passed through the legislative process in Phoenix- i.e. by the Phoenix city council- representing all of the citizens of Phoenix.

The tiny minority of a small minority that has decided to punish people who disagree with them.
.

Again- what minority?

The city council is the legal representative legislative body for Phoenix- and the ordinance was passed by the legally elected representatives of the citizens of Phoenix.

If you don't like that then you need to do away with representative government and go for pure democracy.

You are dodging the actual argument with process and procedure.

Then you better spell out the argument.

You keep referring to a 'tiny minority' and i have kept addressing that claim of yours.

If you want to argue that the government cannot tell a business that they have to serve customers even if they don't want to serve them because they are black, or Jewish, or Mexican, or gay, or handicapped, or divorced, or female- then make that argument.

 

[Syriusly]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957

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.

LOL

You are clueless about the actual case and just jumped into the argument clueless.

'the guy' is two women.

No one is demanding that they do anything.

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

it's called a pre-emtive strike.

And they are claiming religious exercise as an exception in this one instance to the PA law, which isn't really a PA law, but a "any time money changes hands law"

So we are in agreement

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

They are saying their right to free exercise outweighs the local governments authority to regulate commerce in this specific case.

I agree- that is their argument for why they believe they shouldn't have to follow the Phoenix ordinance that every other business is obligated to follow.

 

[TheDude]

Wrong fagism isn't a race or a religion. It's personal preferences and conduct.

Christism is a personal preference and conduct.

Why do Christofascists think that they should be excluded from obeying the law?

Can a law be a law if it contradicts the supreme law of the land? Where does the Constitutions say if you want to provide for your family you have to give up the freedom to exercise your religion as you see fit, or the right to chose who you associate with?

Well that is an interesting question isn't it?

Over 50 years ago, when the first such laws were passed, good Christian business owners felt it was their right not to serve blacks or Jews.

They lost that fight.

Because here is the thing- a business still has to follow the law. A business can't for example ignore city sanitation rules by claiming that his religion doesn't allow him to sanitize his business.

What you're missing is all discrimination laws, except for faghadist, are based on genetics and not personal preferences or conduct. There is nothing in the Constitution as amended that protects personal preferences or conduct form discrimination. Just because a bunch of fags and feel good regressives think it's a good idea to invent some kind of protection doesn't make it constitutional or right. BTW there are protections in the Constitution about involuntary servitude.

Homosexuality is no more of a choice than heterosexuality. What turns you on is pretty much born in you. So yes, you can insist people not have sex, but really, do you think that has or ever would work, anywhere? It may as well be genetic. I've never understood why it is such skin off anyone's nose. You take it to a whole nother level with your hatred.

Incorrect. Some may lean gay because of genetics, while others it's acquired, which varies on environment and level of intelligence. Lets assume I'm wrong, explain why homosexuals were more likely to have been molested? At the end of the day homosexuality is not normal behavior. It's a deviation. Do I care? Other than molestation I could give a shit. Do whatever the fuck you want. Just don't expect me to accept that homosexuality is somehow equal to heterosexuality, which happens to be the agenda. Universal law and logic dictates they cannot and must not be equal.

 

[martybegan]

Because, it seems okay for someone to force their same sex way of life on the religious, whether through direct or indirect means.

Turnabout is fair play.

Christians are supposed to follow the law and obey authorities.

Romans
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

So why do Christians keep ignoring what the Bible says?

How is suing a city in court "rebelling?"

Where did I say rebelling? I was quoting the bible.

How is suing a city in court submitting to governing authorities?

The quote says "rebelling", read your own posts, dippy.

You are submitting to the process using courts, not rebelling.

Reading is fundemental.

As I said- Where did I say rebelling? I was quoting the bible- the bible mentions 'rebelling'- but not only rebelling- once again:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.


How is suing a city in court submitting to governing authorities?

It's using the process given to us by the "authorities" to redress grievances, which in our system is part of the "authority"

Nice try at attempted biblical interpretation, but its just as terrible as your understanding of the constitution.

 

[easyt65]

I agree- that is their argument for why they believe they shouldn't have to follow the Phoenix ordinance that every other business is obligated to follow.

If the ordinance is Un-Constitutional NO ONE has to follow it.

"Article VI of The United States Constitution states (art. VI, § 2.) – “ Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it.”

 

[OKTexas]

Are faghadist invitations on the artist menu?

Try wedding invitations.

And where did they say wedding invitations between anyone and anything?

There are reasons we have judges to interpret the law. One big one is so people like you can't.

Wrong, judges are there to apply law not decide what it means, legislatures say what they mean and how they should be applied. If a law is questionable the courts should set it aside and ask the legislature that wrote it to fix it. Courts have no legislative authority.

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

 

[martybegan]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957 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.

LOL

You are clueless about the actual case and just jumped into the argument clueless.

'the guy' is two women.

No one is demanding that they do anything.

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

it's called a pre-emtive strike.

And they are claiming religious exercise as an exception in this one instance to the PA law, which isn't really a PA law, but a "any time money changes hands law"

So we are in agreement

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

They are saying their right to free exercise outweighs the local governments authority to regulate commerce in this specific case.

I agree- that is their argument for why they believe they shouldn't have to follow the Phoenix ordinance that every other business is obligated to follow.

Only in this one specific case. Their view is their free exercise outweighs the States interest in regulating commerce.

 

[martybegan]

Try wedding invitations.

And where did they say wedding invitations between anyone and anything?

There are reasons we have judges to interpret the law. One big one is so people like you can't.

Wrong, judges are there to apply law not decide what it means, legislatures say what they mean and how they should be applied. If a law is questionable the courts should set it aside and ask the legislature that wrote it to fix it. Courts have no legislative authority.

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

or at least keep PA laws to actual public accommodations, hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, point of sale stores of commodity items.

 

[kaz]

Try wedding invitations.

And where did they say wedding invitations between anyone and anything?

There are reasons we have judges to interpret the law. One big one is so people like you can't.

Wrong, judges are there to apply law not decide what it means, legislatures say what they mean and how they should be applied. If a law is questionable the courts should set it aside and ask the legislature that wrote it to fix it. Courts have no legislative authority.

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

That's the problem, freedom scares leftists

 

[martybegan]

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.

I have no problem with religious people just people who use their religion to justify their bigotry

There is absolutely no cogent argument that printing words on paper for a sinner makes the printer a participant in that sin

There is even less of an argument for ruining someone over them not wanting to bake a cake, or take a photograph, or make an invitation for an event, especially if the service is easily obtainable elsewhere, is non-essential, and non-time sensitive.

Then your argument is that the law should be changed.

Because right now the Phoenix law protects these women from being discriminated against for their religion- as much as it protects anyone else.

Remember- no one has done anything to these women- they just don't think that they should have to follow the city ordinance.

Not changed, but a public accommodation is not every single instance where money changes hands.

In the case of a non-essential, non time sensitive, contracted service that has multiple other options, The right of these women to free exercise outweighs some gay couple's "right" to said women's product.

And who determines that? You? Them? Their potential future customer that hasn't yet materialized? A judge?

The current Phoenix ordinance applies to them- they don't want to have to follow it. And by the way- I absolutely support their right to go to court to fight the law.

They have two avenues to try to change a law that they do not agree with:
- the courts- just like gay couples went to court
- legislatively.

I believe these two women have the right to pursue either. But until they change the law- they are subject to it.

Again arguing process and not the issues behind it. "The law is the law is the law" isn't a valid point of discussion when one questions the application of said law in this example.

 

[BlindBoo]

Holey moley batman. I'm not the one claiming my belief in some supernatural creature entitles me to discriminate against gay people in my business.

So how is this different from a Muslim restaurateur who refuses to serve me ham and eggs because of his religion?

I doubt if ham was on his menu.

Eggs? I admit I know squat about Muslims. Do they have a thing against eggs too?

So yeah it's different.

Show were any of the artists or bakers said they served fags and dykes. Go ahead

The restaurateur cannot discriminate against a gay couple either. If you own and run a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where the PA law include protection for LGBT it is implied that you must follow the law.

Thanks for pointing out the butt obvious. I know what the law says. The law is an abomination to liberty. Government forcing citizens to do business with each other is sick and it's wrong. Government is just being a tool of oppression for totalitarians

I think it extends civil liberty to those who in the past have been denied it.

 

[kaz]

LOL

You are clueless about the actual case and just jumped into the argument clueless.

'the guy' is two women.

No one is demanding that they do anything.

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

it's called a pre-emtive strike.

And they are claiming religious exercise as an exception in this one instance to the PA law, which isn't really a PA law, but a "any time money changes hands law"

So we are in agreement

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

They are saying their right to free exercise outweighs the local governments authority to regulate commerce in this specific case.

I agree- that is their argument for why they believe they shouldn't have to follow the Phoenix ordinance that every other business is obligated to follow.

Only in this one specific case. Their view is their free exercise outweighs the States interest in regulating commerce.

States don't have a right to force someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a gay wedding either. It's a violation of due process, which applies to the States as well. Being in business doesn't relegate our liberty or property to government control

 

[kaz]

So how is this different from a Muslim restaurateur who refuses to serve me ham and eggs because of his religion?

I doubt if ham was on his menu.

Eggs? I admit I know squat about Muslims. Do they have a thing against eggs too?

So yeah it's different.

Show were any of the artists or bakers said they served fags and dykes. Go ahead

The restaurateur cannot discriminate against a gay couple either. If you own and run a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where the PA law include protection for LGBT it is implied that you must follow the law.

Thanks for pointing out the butt obvious. I know what the law says. The law is an abomination to liberty. Government forcing citizens to do business with each other is sick and it's wrong. Government is just being a tool of oppression for totalitarians

I think it extends civil liberty to those who in the past have been denied it.

They have a legitimate right to freedom from government discrimination, that is in no way a power of right to remove the freedom of other citizens

 

[martybegan]

it's called a pre-emtive strike.

And they are claiming religious exercise as an exception in this one instance to the PA law, which isn't really a PA law, but a "any time money changes hands law"

So we are in agreement

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

They are saying their right to free exercise outweighs the local governments authority to regulate commerce in this specific case.

I agree- that is their argument for why they believe they shouldn't have to follow the Phoenix ordinance that every other business is obligated to follow.

Only in this one specific case. Their view is their free exercise outweighs the States interest in regulating commerce.

States don't have a right to force someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a gay wedding either. It's a violation of due process, which applies to the States as well. Being in business doesn't relegate our liberty or property to government control

States can commerce within their borders, and I find PA laws, when properly applied are valid and even needed.

it's when they are extended to any transaction that I have an issue.

 

[kaz]

So we are in agreement

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

They are saying their right to free exercise outweighs the local governments authority to regulate commerce in this specific case.

I agree- that is their argument for why they believe they shouldn't have to follow the Phoenix ordinance that every other business is obligated to follow.

Only in this one specific case. Their view is their free exercise outweighs the States interest in regulating commerce.

States don't have a right to force someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a gay wedding either. It's a violation of due process, which applies to the States as well. Being in business doesn't relegate our liberty or property to government control

States can commerce within their borders, and I find PA laws, when properly applied are valid and even needed.

it's when they are extended to any transaction that I have an issue.

Government cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process of law. You know Constitutional rights were extended to the States, right?

Explain how forcing me to design a card is not both a violation of my liberty and property

 

[TheDude]

Once again I ask, what argument for same-sex marriage does not apply to marriage between close relatives?

I like to keep things in perspective, and politically correct has no meaning to me.

 

[kaz]

Once again I ask, what argument for same-sex marriage does not apply to marriage between close relatives?

I like to keep things in perspective, and politically correct has no meaning to me.

What argument for same-sex marriage also does not apply to polygamy?

Leftists: Gays should be able to marry anyone they want

kaz: So polygamists should be able to marry anyone they want?

Leftists: No, that's stupid, people can't marry anyone they want

 

[TheDude]

What argument for same-sex marriage also does not apply to polygamy? None really. Perhaps the count.

kaz: So polygamists should be able to marry anyone they want? I want another wife. Really, I'd like to trade mine in for two.

 

[Syriusly]

Christism is a personal preference and conduct.

Why do Christofascists think that they should be excluded from obeying the law?

Can a law be a law if it contradicts the supreme law of the land? Where does the Constitutions say if you want to provide for your family you have to give up the freedom to exercise your religion as you see fit, or the right to chose who you associate with?

Well that is an interesting question isn't it?

Over 50 years ago, when the first such laws were passed, good Christian business owners felt it was their right not to serve blacks or Jews.

They lost that fight.

Because here is the thing- a business still has to follow the law. A business can't for example ignore city sanitation rules by claiming that his religion doesn't allow him to sanitize his business.

What you're missing is all discrimination laws, except for faghadist, are based on genetics and not personal preferences or conduct. There is nothing in the Constitution as amended that protects personal preferences or conduct form discrimination. Just because a bunch of fags and feel good regressives think it's a good idea to invent some kind of protection doesn't make it constitutional or right. BTW there are protections in the Constitution about involuntary servitude.

Homosexuality is no more of a choice than heterosexuality. What turns you on is pretty much born in you. So yes, you can insist people not have sex, but really, do you think that has or ever would work, anywhere? It may as well be genetic. I've never understood why it is such skin off anyone's nose. You take it to a whole nother level with your hatred.

At the end of the day homosexuality is not normal behavior. It's a deviation. Do I care? Other than molestation I could give a shit. Do whatever the fuck you want. Just don't expect me to accept that homosexuality is somehow equal to heterosexuality, which happens to be the agenda. Universal law and logic dictates they cannot and must not be equal.

Left handedness is not normal behavior- it is a deviation. And 100 years ago left handedness was not tolerated in many places- children were forced to not use their left hands, even the word sinister derives from that notion.

Do I care? Well I think lefthandedness should be treated equally with right handedness. I don't know what 'universal law has to do with anything being 'equal'.