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

[OKTexas]

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.

There's a third, they can move their business out of the city and deprive the city of sales tax revenue.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I can tell the difference between homosexuality and handedness- one you are against, and the other you are not. Both are deviations from the norm, which is what you brought up, and both have been at times taboo in society- but neither involves assaulting another person.

You equated rape to homosexuality and handedness.

Why do you think that someone violently raping someone is the same as being as a man being attracted to a man?

 

[martybegan]

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

I agree on the card thing. My issue is that I do believe that if a store opens itself up to the public, it cannot discriminate on point of sale items, it cannot designate certain areas "group A, group B" etc, and it cannot selectively let people enter.

 

[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.

There's a third, they can move their business out of the city and deprive the city of sales tax revenue.

Good point- apparently they don't want to do that.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Not really, because again, they are not rebelling.

 

[TheDude]

I can tell the difference between homosexuality and handedness- one you are against, and the other you are not. Shucks, your previous angle must have run dry. I couldn't care less if someone is gay or not. I just don't fall victim to false narrative.

Both are deviations from the norm, which is what you brought up, and both have been at times taboo in society- but neither involves assaulting another person. You should look up the term context. I said deviation, you said LH was a deviation and I countered with molestation is a deviation. Remember?

You equated rape to homosexuality and handedness. Looks like it didn't run dry after all. LOL. You said you have trouble following along.

Why do you think that someone violently raping someone is the same as being as a man being attracted to a man? Why do you think LH is the same thing as homosexuality?

 

[martybegan]

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.

No PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim.

But yes, some small contracted service provider of a non-essential, non time sensitive, easily replaceable contracted service should be able to choose who they want to provide service to.

 

[kaz]

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

I agree on the card thing. My issue is that I do believe that if a store opens itself up to the public, it cannot discriminate on point of sale items, it cannot designate certain areas "group A, group B" etc, and it cannot selectively let people enter.

At least you're part way there, but where does the Constitution say you give up the right to property when you sell POS items? It does say your right to property cannot be removed without due process of law.

Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?

 

[Syriusly]

You should look up the term context. I said deviation, you said LH was a deviation and I countered with molestation is a deviation. Remember?

I do remember.

Once again I am disturbed that you find a sexual crime- like rape or molestation- to be the same as being left handed.

Rape and molestation is not a 'deviation'- they are crimes committed by a person against another person.

Sexual orientation and handedness both are a spectrum of deviation from the norm- and are not crimes against anyone.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I disagree, any business should have the freedom to decide their own model, let the market decide if it's a sustainable model or not. If they piss off too many they won't be in business long.

 

[OKTexas]

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

It threatens their need to control people.

 

[kaz]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

 

[martybegan]

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

I agree on the card thing. My issue is that I do believe that if a store opens itself up to the public, it cannot discriminate on point of sale items, it cannot designate certain areas "group A, group B" etc, and it cannot selectively let people enter.

At least you're part way there, but where does the Constitution say you give up the right to property when you sell POS items? It does say your right to property cannot be removed without due process of law.

Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?

When you create a business that relies on public traffic, and you willfully allow that public traffic, then the rules change. If anyone can walk into your store, they should be able to purchase non-custom point of sale items. They should be able to sit anywhere in your restaurant if you let people sit where they want, and they should be able to get a hotel room if you offer hotel rooms to the public.

And the hotel example is interesting to me, because most hotels rent out their spaces for events. To me the hotel should be allowed to determine what hosted events it wants to handle, so if it doesn't want to book SSM's, it shouldn't have to. But it should NOT deny a hotel room for someone staying over based on any discriminatory reasons.

So you don't have to host that SSM wedding, but you do have to rent a room to that gay couple attending a OSM wedding.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim.

But yes, some small contracted service provider of a non-essential, non time sensitive, easily replaceable contracted service should be able to choose who they want to provide service to.

So you are in agreement in concept with PA laws, but only with public accommodations such as hotel's, restaurants, hotel rooms- but not for all business's that serve customers.

I don't have an actual problem with your concept- just that governments need to change those laws to change those laws. In the specific case of these women- their court challenge either applies to all PA laws- or none. Either there is a basis for the law- or there isn't.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No it doesn't, they have the liberty to vote with their dollars and purchase form someone else.

 

[TheDude]

If LGBT wants to play these stupid games, there are ways around it. Lets say you're a baker. You offer a decor strictly for a man and a woman. If the gay couple doesn't like the decor they can move on. If they're happy with it they can purchase the cake. If they complain then "we only offer these choices" aka "get the fuck off my property if you don't like it".

 

[martybegan]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

 

[kaz]

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.

I disagree, any business should have the freedom to decide their own model, let the market decide if it's a sustainable model or not. If they piss off too many they won't be in business long.

What I do think businesses should be required to do is post their discrimination policy so customers, employees and vendors can all decide if we want to deal with them on an informed basis. Government like privacy policies should only hold them accountable for their stated policy

 

[martybegan]

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.

I disagree, any business should have the freedom to decide their own model, let the market decide if it's a sustainable model or not. If they piss off too many they won't be in business long.

You don't want a patchwork of bodgeas, each catering to a different group, with rules on who goes in, who sits where, who gets served, etc. THAT is economic harm, and not something worth fighting for.

There are actual Public Accommodations, and those should be regulated in the interest of preventing confrontations that are a detriment to commerce.

 

[martybegan]

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.

No PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim.

But yes, some small contracted service provider of a non-essential, non time sensitive, easily replaceable contracted service should be able to choose who they want to provide service to.

So you are in agreement in concept with PA laws, but only with public accommodations such as hotel's, restaurants, hotel rooms- but not for all business's that serve customers.

I don't have an actual problem with your concept- just that governments need to change those laws to change those laws. In the specific case of these women- their court challenge either applies to all PA laws- or none. Either there is a basis for the law- or there isn't.

It all depends on what you define as a public accommodation, and more specifically, which transactions fall under PA laws.

So with the baker, if they have a walk in store, they cannot deny purchase of a non-customized cake by anyone, but if contracted for a certain even, they can deny as they choose.