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

[OKTexas]

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?

Not discriminating based sexual orientation is NOT forced servitude. You're being terribly dramatic.

Really, what do you call threatening someone's livelihood to serve people they object to under penalty of law? Laws by their very nature are FORCE. Forced service is not voluntary service.

 

[kaz]

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?

You'll have to ask the founders of this country who said all men are created equal. Who I'm boinking is not anyone else's business! So it isn't yours, either, and gives you no right to refuse to serve them because you don't care for their lifestyle.

Positive rights aren't rights, they are just an excuse for oppression. I'm not forcing anyone to do shit. You're forcing me to yield to your superiority. Get off your high horse as if you're protecting anyone. You're the oppressor

 

[TemplarKormac]

If God is unwavering, etc, then why do you assume that God changed his mind about women in the NT? Because God never once condemns sex between women in the OT. Nor does Jesus ever condemn it.

Question: If God is unwavering, etc, then why do you assume that God changed his mind about women in the NT? Because God never once condemns sex between women in the OT. Nor does Jesus ever condemn it.

Answer: Read Romans 1:26.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones."

Now, what would this verse be referring to when it says "unnatural sexual relations"? Wanna take a crack at it? God himself punished the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual impurity/immorality, meaning God himself deemed any form of sexual immorality to be sinful, including sexual relations between women. God is the overruling authority here.

If you're such a proponent of gay marriage and same sex relations, why are you worried about what the Bible says? Are you afraid that you may come to discover your error within the pages?

 

[kaz]

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?

Not discriminating based sexual orientation is NOT forced servitude. You're being terribly dramatic.

Of course it is, don't be stupid. It should be up to me who I do business with, not you. And it's for nothing, almost no business ever wants to discriminate against customers. Do you know how hard it is to get customers in the first place? This is just a ridiculous overreaction to a non problem.

As I keep pointing out even in the 50s in the south government had to force discrimination because the businesses wouldn't do it on their own

 

[Syriusly]

If God is unwavering, etc, then why do you assume that God changed his mind about women in the NT? Because God never once condemns sex between women in the OT. Nor does Jesus ever condemn it.

Question: If God is unwavering, etc, then why do you assume that God changed his mind about women in the NT? Because God never once condemns sex between women in the OT. Nor does Jesus ever condemn it.

Answer: Read Romans 1:26.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones."

Now, what would this verse be referring to when it says "unnatural sexual relations"? Wanna take a crack at it? God himself punished the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual impurity, meaning God himself deemed any form of sexual immorality to be sinful, including sexual relations between women. God is the overruling authority here.

If you're such a proponent of gay marriage and same sex relations, why are you worried about what the Bible says? Are you afraid that you may come to discover your error within the pages?

I am not worried about what the Bible says- I enjoy pointing out the cherry picking and rationalizations of Bible thumpers who use the Bible as an excuse for their prejudices.

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones"

Sure- it could be masturbation. It could be sex with sheep.

What we do know is that it doesn't say sex between two women- unlike every reference to homosexuality when it comes to men in the Bible.

You want to dance around and pretend the Bible says what it doesn't say- hey that is up to you.

You want to pretend that the Bible actually says that the marriage of two men or two women is a sin- I will point out that the Bible says no such thing.

The Bible does say of course that Donald Trump's third marriage is a sin.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones"

Sure- it could be masturbation. It could be sex with sheep.

And it can be sex with other women. Convenient for you to exclude that.

What we do know is that it doesn't say sex between two women- unlike every reference to homosexuality when it comes to men in the Bible.

Come now, don't lie. And don't mince words.

When the verse refers to unnatural sexual relations, it means any form of sexual immorality. Given that the human species has two genders, mainly for the purposes of procreation, it is therefore safe to assume sex between the same gender would be unnatural. Sex between the same gender yields no reproductive result. Hence unnatural.

You want to dance around and pretend the Bible says what it doesn't say- hey that is up to you.

So why did you ignore the four verses I posted earlier to Carbine?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
As I keep pointing out even in the 50s in the south government had to force discrimination because the businesses wouldn't do it on their own

Really? No business would do it on its own?

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia

Then why did the Supreme Court have to rule that a business couldn't discriminate?

The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large, 216-room motel in Atlanta, Georgia. In direct violation of the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—an act which banned racial discrimination in public places, largely based on Congress' control of interstate commerce—the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons. The owner, Moreton Rolleston, filed suit in federal court, arguing that the requirements of the act exceeded the authority granted to Congress over interstate commerce. In addition, Rolleston maintained that the act violated his Fifth Amendment rights to choose customers and operate his business as he wished and resulted in unjust deprivation of his property without due process of law and just compensation. Finally, he contended that Congress had placed him in a position of involuntary servitude by forcing him to rent available rooms to blacks, thereby violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights.

And this one:

Katzenbach v. McClung - Wikipedia

Ollie's Barbecue was a family-owned restaurant that operated in Birmingham, Alabama, that seated 220 customers. It was located on a state highway and was 11 blocks from an interstate highway. In a typical year, approximately half of the food it purchased from a local supplier originated out-of-state. It catered to local families and white collar workers and provided take-out service to African American customers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So why do Christians keep ignoring what the Bible says?

Why are you?

This is not the first time I've debated gay marriage with you.

Each time in our previous debates, you ignored my citations of the Bible's direct condemnation of homosexuality, and its very clear definitions of marriage. You know, just because.

 

[Syriusly]

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones"

Sure- it could be masturbation. It could be sex with sheep.

And it can be sex with other women. Convenient for you to exclude that.

No- I don't conveniently exclude it- I have pointed out repeatedly- and provided citations and quotes that the Bible explicitly refers to men having sex with men as being a sin- both in Leviticus and in Corinthians.

The Bible nowhere explicitly refers to women having sex with women as being a sin. You have chosen to take one line- out of the entire Bible- and decided that is what that line means.

But you can't escape the facts- and the facts is that the Bible does not actually refer to sex between women as being a sin.

Nor does the Bible ever say that marriage between two people of the same gender is a sin.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Come now, don't lie. And don't mince words.

When the verse refers to unnatural sexual relations, it means any form of sexual immorality. Given that the human species has two genders, mainly for the purposes of procreation, it is therefore safe to assume sex between the same gender would be unnatural. Sex between the same gender yields no reproductive result. Hence unnatural.?

Where have I lied? I assume you think of yourself as a Christian, so I wouldn't want you to sin by bearing false witness.

You don't know what the verse means by 'unnatural sexual relations'.

The Bible doesn't say 'any form of sexual morality' it says any 'unnatural sexual relations'- that could be oral sex, anal sex, it could be bestiality, it could be masturbation- it could even mean a woman having sex with her man while she was menstruating- or whatever else Paul had in mind.

You are choosing to interpret this because that is the only way you can rationalize something not actually in the Bible.

 

[Syriusly]

[

So why did you ignore the four verses I posted earlier to Carbine?

You mean these four verses I responded to directly- and that you ignored my response to?
You:
Yes, it does.

First, Leviticus 18:22. The most obvious and direct condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament. That command remains unchanged throughout the entirety of the Bible.

Second, Leviticus 20:13. Homosexuality was originally a sin punishable by death. That was until Christ was crucified and resurrected which fulfilled the death penalty.

NOTE: In the Old Testament, the Mosaic Laws were divided into three categories. Priestly, Civil, and Moral. The Priestly laws dealt with the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods and represented the coming priesthood of Jesus Christ, who willingly died on the cross. The Civil laws pertained to the theocratic nature of the Jewish nation in the Old Testament. That means those laws are no long applicable today. That dispenses with the argument that a Christian citing Leviticus to condemn homosexuality as a sin must also follow all the other laws in the Old Testament as well.

However, as seen in the two verses below, the Moral laws were never abolished in the New Testament. They represented the very character and nature of God himself. Since God is an unwavering, unflinching, and unchanging deity, his character never changes, and thus, the Moral laws cannot be abolished. The Civil and Priestly laws aren't reestablished in the New Testament, but the Moral laws are--for the reasons mentioned heretofore--except without the penalty of death.

Third, 1 Cor. 6:9-10. It mentions that homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Fourth, Romans 1:26-28. It refers to homosexual acts as unnatural, depraved and improper.


Me: Well lets go through that list- shall we?

Leviticus of course says that sex between men is a sin(and doesn't mention women)- just as cutting your hair or eating shrimp, or women wearing pants. Generally Christians ignore Leviticus except when it comes to gays for some odd reason- oh yes- by the very tortured rational you provided.

Now lets move onto the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Note the very specific language above- Paul is only gender specific when it comes to 'men who have sex with men'. Everything else is gender inclusive- clearly Paul is not talking about women who have sex with women. Otherwise he would have said so- like he did for idolators and thieves.

Finally the favorite and oft cited Romans

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Once again- note how Paul is specific about men lusting for other men- but doesn't say anything about women lusting for other women- just a vague reference about 'unnatural ones'. Christians chose to interpret this as a prohibition against women having sex with women- but of course that is both an interpretation- and a rationalization.

Lets go with this interpretation also of yours

Since God is an unwavering, unflinching, and unchanging deity, his character never changes, and thus, the Moral laws cannot be abolished.

If God is unwavering, etc, then why do you assume that God changed his mind about women in the NT? Because God never once condemns sex between women in the OT. Nor does Jesus ever condemn it.

The best you come up with is a vague inference- an inference you want to see. Yet you ignore how Paul and the OT specifically over and over refer to men lusting after each other, having sex with each other- and not women.

And finally to my point- the Bible never once says that same gender marriage is a sin- you have yet to disprove my point.

But the Bible does say that remarriage after divorce is a sin- unless of course the wife(and only the wife) is unfaithful.

So by the clear language of the Bible- Donald Trump's current marriage is prohibited by the Bible- by Jesus himself- but never are gay marriages explicitly prohibited.

 

[Syriusly]

So why do Christians keep ignoring what the Bible says?

Why are you?

This is not the first time I've debated gay marriage with you.

Each time in our previous debates, you ignored my citations of the Bible's direct condemnation of homosexuality, and its very clear definitions of marriage. You know, just because.

The Bible directly condemns men having sex with men. The Bible never condemns women having sex with women.

The Bible does say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Except of course in the Old Testament when marriage was also between a man and many women.
Exodus 21 "If he take another wife for himself; her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish".

But- the Bible never says that marriage between two men or two women is a sin.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No- I don't conveniently exclude it- I have pointed out repeatedly- and provided citations and quotes that the Bible explicitly refers to men having sex with men as being a sin- both in Leviticus and in Corinthians.

And in Romans 1:26 it shows God condemning all forms of sexual immorality. The mention of women "exchanging natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" covers a wide range of sexually immoral acts women could commit. It could be bestiality, sex with a doorknob, masturbation, and yes, sex with other women.

Why are you denying that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

So why did you ignore the four verses I posted earlier to Carbine?

You mean these four verses I responded to directly- and that you ignored my response to?
You:
Yes, it does.

First, Leviticus 18:22. The most obvious and direct condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament. That command remains unchanged throughout the entirety of the Bible.

Second, Leviticus 20:13. Homosexuality was originally a sin punishable by death. That was until Christ was crucified and resurrected which fulfilled the death penalty.

NOTE: In the Old Testament, the Mosaic Laws were divided into three categories. Priestly, Civil, and Moral. The Priestly laws dealt with the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods and represented the coming priesthood of Jesus Christ, who willingly died on the cross. The Civil laws pertained to the theocratic nature of the Jewish nation in the Old Testament. That means those laws are no long applicable today. That dispenses with the argument that a Christian citing Leviticus to condemn homosexuality as a sin must also follow all the other laws in the Old Testament as well.

However, as seen in the two verses below, the Moral laws were never abolished in the New Testament. They represented the very character and nature of God himself. Since God is an unwavering, unflinching, and unchanging deity, his character never changes, and thus, the Moral laws cannot be abolished. The Civil and Priestly laws aren't reestablished in the New Testament, but the Moral laws are--for the reasons mentioned heretofore--except without the penalty of death.

Third, 1 Cor. 6:9-10. It mentions that homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Fourth, Romans 1:26-28. It refers to homosexual acts as unnatural, depraved and improper.


Me: Well lets go through that list- shall we?

Leviticus of course says that sex between men is a sin(and doesn't mention women)- just as cutting your hair or eating shrimp, or women wearing pants. Generally Christians ignore Leviticus except when it comes to gays for some odd reason- oh yes- by the very tortured rational you provided.

Now lets move onto the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Note the very specific language above- Paul is only gender specific when it comes to 'men who have sex with men'. Everything else is gender inclusive- clearly Paul is not talking about women who have sex with women. Otherwise he would have said so- like he did for idolators and thieves.

Finally the favorite and oft cited Romans

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Once again- note how Paul is specific about men lusting for other men- but doesn't say anything about women lusting for other women- just a vague reference about 'unnatural ones'. Christians chose to interpret this as a prohibition against women having sex with women- but of course that is both an interpretation- and a rationalization.

Lets go with this interpretation also of yours

Since God is an unwavering, unflinching, and unchanging deity, his character never changes, and thus, the Moral laws cannot be abolished.

If God is unwavering, etc, then why do you assume that God changed his mind about women in the NT? Because God never once condemns sex between women in the OT. Nor does Jesus ever condemn it.

The best you come up with is a vague inference- an inference you want to see. Yet you ignore how Paul and the OT specifically over and over refer to men lusting after each other, having sex with each other- and not women.

And finally to my point- the Bible never once says that same gender marriage is a sin- you have yet to disprove my point.

But the Bible does say that remarriage after divorce is a sin- unless of course the wife(and only the wife) is unfaithful.

So by the clear language of the Bible- Donald Trump's current marriage is prohibited by the Bible- by Jesus himself- but never are gay marriages explicitly prohibited.

Actually, I quoted that post. I ignored the rest for it's overtly arrogant tone. You don't expect me to take arrogance sarcasm seriously do you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So why do Christians keep ignoring what the Bible says?

Why are you?

This is not the first time I've debated gay marriage with you.

Each time in our previous debates, you ignored my citations of the Bible's direct condemnation of homosexuality, and its very clear definitions of marriage. You know, just because.

The Bible directly condemns men having sex with men. The Bible never condemns women having sex with women.

The Bible does say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Except of course in the Old Testament when marriage was also between a man and many women.
Exodus 21 "If he take another wife for himself; her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish".

But- the Bible never says that marriage between two men or two women is a sin.

Romans 1:26 again. I'll keep citing that verse over and over.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do Muslims have the 'freedom of religion' right to blow up buildings?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If God is unwavering, etc, then why do you assume that God changed his mind about women in the NT? Because God never once condemns sex between women in the OT. Nor does Jesus ever condemn it.

This was the question I answered. So, you want to apologize to me now? Hey, if you're a Christian, you should get on your knees and plead forgiveness for bearing false witness against me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

At any rate, Syrius, debating gay marriage with you is like beating a perfectly healthy horse. I'd much rather ride that horse home, thanks.

Later.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

where in the bible does it say you cannot enter a business transaction with a gay person? And how does entering a business transaction with a gay person prohibit you from freely practicing your religion?

Hint
The answers are
nowhere and it doesn't

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

marriage as far as the state is concerned is nothing but a property contract