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

[Syriusly]

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.

Actually I agree with you- up to the point if they ever actually turn a customer away without the ordinance being changed- then they are ignoring the Bible, while claiming what they are doing is because of the Bible.

 

[TheDude]

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'.

Oh sure, I get it. Great comparison. Your IQ is well beyond mine, I don't even have a valid comeback. Say, raping young children is a deviation as well. Heck, so is disease and deformity. Want to play the game some more?

 

[Syriusly]

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. ”

Until an ordinance is ruled unconstitutional- all business's are obligated to follow the law.

 

[boilermaker55]

HEY! Look everyone, a keyboard warrior.
LOL!!!

I can't believe this is happening in AZ.

If someone attempted to destroy my business I'd be in the news also, but for entirely different reasons.

I guarantee they would NEVER fuck with me (or anyone else) again though.

 

[kaz]

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.

LOL, there are those days ...

 

[Syriusly]

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'.

Oh sure, I get it. Great comparison. Your IQ is well beyond mine, I don't even have a valid comeback. Say, raping young children is a deviation as well. Heck, so is disease and deformity. Want to play the game some more?

We have previously established that my IQ is well beyond yours.

You claim that homosexuality is a deviation. I pointed out- accurately- that left handedness is likewise a deviation- a deviation that was likewise persecuted.

Now you want to say that 'rape' is a deviation? You really want to equate the act of rape with someone's natural inclination to use their left hand?

Rape is a violent crime perpetuated against someone. If you can't tell the difference between rape and what gender someone is attracted to- you have bigger problems than your low IQ.

 

[OldLady]

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.

I'm not familiar with "universal law" but since you don't care what they do, why would you refuse to serve them? Or maybe you wouldn't.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Then your argument is you want to change all of the public accommodation laws- and that has nothing to do with 'tiny minorities'.

Change the laws then- but until they are changed- the law protects these 'Christians' from discrimination, in exactly the way it protects blacks, Jews, Mexicans and gays.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I am not arguing a process- I am arguing the point.

Who determines when the right of these women to free exercise outweighs some gay couple's "right" to said women's product?

As the law is written they would be in violation. They are going to court to argue that they don't have to follow the law- so in this case a judge will decide.

I believe that your 'issue' is you believe that PA laws should be eliminated. Then that is what you should be arguing- then it doesn't matter what the reason why these women don't want to comply with the law.

 

[easyt65]

Until an ordinance is ruled unconstitutional- all business's are obligated to follow the law.

I would add that if a business deems an ordinance is not in compliance with the Constitution it has the choice to refuse to comply and deal with the consequences, that is to accept or defy the punishment applied - as they challenge the ordinance in court.

My argument is that I feel the ordinance is wrong.

I believe the city has the right to impose penalty on the business for failure to comply.

I also believe the business can reject that penalty while challenging the Constitutionality of that ordinance.

Legally the city can escalate the fines and punishment as far as they want to go while the challenge continues unless a 'stay' is issued.

I am not saying the business is above the law and can not be punished for non-compliance, I am saying I personally believe this is Un-Constitutional.

This is a message board where people give opinions and try to post supporting documents / links / material. This is my strong belief - that it is un-Constitutional.

I agree with you - The courts have not stepped in to render a decision.

I understand why people may disagree and respect their opinions.

Hope that helps clarify my stance.

 

[Syriusly]

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

You do like to ask that question.

Since you apparently believe that the only reason why gay marriage or incestuous marriage should not be allowed is because they were 'taboo'- I can see why you equate the two.

And if that were the only reason that sibling marriage was illegal, then it shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Syriusly]

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

I love it when kaz goes full kaz and argues with himself- supplying his stupid arguments for both sides.

 

[TheDude]

We have previously established that my IQ is well beyond yours. I get it. Say, I'm Batman dude, the real Batman. Looks like we have pretend in common. I'm also your dad. You're a disappointment.

You claim that homosexuality is a deviation. I pointed out- accurately- that left handedness is likewise a deviation- a deviation that was likewise persecuted. You implied your IQ was worth a brag, but somehow you missed the message and took things out of context. Sure, LH is a deviation, so is beastiality. Let's go tit for tat fucker, see whose IQ wears thin fastest.

Now you want to say that 'rape' is a deviation? You really want to equate the act of rape with someone's natural inclination to use their left hand? Wait, LH is to homosexuality but rape isn't to homosexuality? Sounds to me like your butt hurt. See my last response.

Rape is a violent crime perpetuated against someone. LH is a dominating hand and sometimes not even that. See second response above.

If you can't tell the difference between rape and what gender someone is attracted to - you have bigger problems than your low IQ. If you can't tell the difference between the hand you write with and the gender someone is attracted to - you have bigger problems than your low IQ self-declared awesome.

 

[Syriusly]

Until an ordinance is ruled unconstitutional- all business's are obligated to follow the law.

I would add that if a business deems an ordinance is not in compliance with the Constitution it has the choice to refuse to comply and deal with the consequences, that is to accept or defy the punishment applied - as they challenge the ordinance in court.

My argument is that I feel the ordinance is wrong.

I believe the city has the right to impose penalty on the business for failure to comply.

I also believe the business can reject that penalty while challenging the Constitutionality of that ordinance.

Legally the city can escalate the fines and punishment as far as they want to go while the challenge continues unless a 'stay' is issued.

I am not saying the business is above the law and can not be punished for non-compliance, I am saying I personally believe this is Un-Constitutional.

This is a message board where people give opinions and try to post supporting documents / links / material. This is my strong belief - that it is un-Constitutional.

I agree with you - The courts have not stepped in to render a decision.

I understand why people may disagree and respect their opinions.

Hope that helps clarify my stance.

Hey-that is a pretty good post.

I disagree with you regrading the ordinance being unconstitutional- but pretty much agree with you on the rest.

 

[kaz]

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.

What about wanting to boink someone of the same sex gives you a legitimate right to force other citizens to serve you?

 

[OKTexas]

They are protected in the Constitution, just not related to business. The feds have no authority over intrastate business constitutionally.

Well in this case, the Christofascists want to be able to exempt from local law that every other business is obligated to follow.

No they aren't, name one muslim business charged for not catering to fags.

Well in this case- the Christofascist business hasn't been charged for anything- not for catering to n*ggers, k*kes, or f*gs.

All that time to come up with a deflection, you're just not too smart, are ya?

Now you want to actually answer the question?

No- I am not going to dance with your strawman- feel free to dance with him yourself.

Meanwhile in this case- the Christofascist business hasn't been charged for anything- not for catering to n*ggers, k*kes, or f*gs

Feel free to point where I said they've been charged, others have.

 

[Syriusly]

Now you want to say that 'rape' is a deviation? You really want to equate the act of rape with someone's natural inclination to use their left hand? Wait, LH is to homosexuality but rape isn't to homosexuality? Sounds to me like your butt hurt. See my last response.

Rape is a violent crime perpetuated against someone. LH is a dominating hand and sometimes not even that. See second response above.

Left handedness is an inclination for a person to have a dominant left hand and use that hand rather than the societal approved right hand.

Homosexuality is an inclination for a person to be attracted to the same gender, rather than the societal approved opposite gender.

Rape is a violent sex crime, where one person sexually assaults, and commits a crime against another.

If you can't tell the difference between rape and handedness- you have a problem that is bigger than your reading comprehension problem.

 

[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.

What about wanting to boink someone of the same sex gives you a legitimate right to force other citizens to serve you?

Of course nothing- no more than wanting to worship some specific fairy in the sky.

However, our government- through our elected officials and our legislative process- for the last 50 years- has said that business's can be required to do business with customers even if the business does not want to serve blacks, or Mexicans, or Christians - and more recently- handicapped, gays, divorced.

 

[TheDude]

Left handedness is an inclination for a person to have a dominant left hand and use that hand rather than the societal approved right hand. Neat. I'm LH dominant, tell me all about it. LOL @ "societal approved".

Homosexuality is an inclination for a person to be attracted to the same gender, rather than the societal approved opposite gender. Neat. Same applies to Necrophilia and Sexual Objectification. Course objects may not have a sex, but it's definitely a deviation, much like homosexuality and men pretending to be chicks.

Rape is a violent sex crime, where one person sexually assaults, and commits a crime against another. Thanks for the clarification.

If you can't tell the difference between rape and handedness- you have a problem that is bigger than your reading comprehension problem. If you can't tell the difference between homosexuality and handedness, you have a problem that is bigger than your reading comprehension problem.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I don't hate anyone, I just like freedom, you on the other hand have no problem threatening someone's livelihood to force association and involuntary servitude. That child ain't freedom, in fact I think we have an amendment outlawing forced servitude, don't we?