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

[Skull Pilot]

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?

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

 

[Timmy]

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.

where in the bible does it say yo 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

The Bible also bans tattoos . Do these good Christians not sell to tattooed customers ??

I'm sure they do . Because they are fake religious.

 

[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?

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

How fascist of ya. Why do you hate freedom?

 

[jillian]

'Two Arizona Christian artists face the possibility of being jailed, in addition to being fined, after they recently refused to make invitations for a same-sex wedding.'

Ummmm...did we go to bed and suddenly wake up in Communist Russia, China, or North Korea?

Liberals have been pushing the GLBT Lifestyle on everyone as 'the norm', except it ISN'T to many Americans, especially those who have a religious objection to it. Those religious beliefs - and the practice of them - are actually PROTECTED by the Constitution:

"The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What do the Liberal / LGBT 'Nazi's' not understand about that?!

Liberals can argue all day long about how it's discrimination, but it's not. It is one's personal religious belief, part of their faith, and THAT, again, is protected by the Constitution.

So Liberals are going to demand everyone else comply with their demands, regardless of what the Constitution says, and if the individuals refuse they are going to judicially punish them?!

This is an example of WHY we have the Constitution, why we have the Bill of Rights - to protect us from tyranny that encroaches on our personal rights!

I am NOT comparing these, but let's say in the future somehow liberals ram a law onto the books allowing Pedophilia, Bestiality, or Necrophilia? If Christians refuse to participate in any part of those, even if it has been approved by the government, will the government move to punish Christians - to jail Christians - for exercising their Constitutional Right to exercise their religion?
(-- Pretty ironic since this nation only exists because of a people who left England so they could freely exercise their religion without Government oppression, condemnation, and control.)

I understand laws against discrimination - I do, and I do support them....but I draw the line here. The Constitution clearly states, again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The government, however, is encroaching more and more on our rights while justifying doing so more and more. Doing so, allowing it to be done, is the start down a very dangerous road (IMO).


TOPIC:
Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations

SUPPORTING:
Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

I love the pretend freedoms of religion argument.

Bigots always try to get away with that.

If you can't run a business that accommodates the public without discriminating based on color, gender or religion that isn't a business for you.

But thanks. I'm pretty sure the pretend christians would be singing a different tune and shrieking about sharia law if a Muslim employee was complaining about having to handle pork.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

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

What it does say is that we shouldn't participate in sacrilegious rituals that make a mockery of Christian sacraments.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

Having a business doesn't mean you must serve every person no matter what they ask, what utter hogwash.

 

[TheDude]

Gay marriage is the result of a corrupt, dumbed down and bored public. From men marrying children to inmates losing rights, you can declare about anything unconstitutional if the government prevents it and you're unhappy. In other terms, common sense is no longer common.

 

[Syriusly]

'Two Arizona Christian artists face the possibility of being jailed, in addition to being fined, after they recently refused to make invitations for a same-sex wedding.'

Ummmm...did we go to bed and suddenly wake up in Communist Russia, China, or North Korea?

Liberals have been pushing the GLBT Lifestyle on everyone as 'the norm', except it ISN'T to many Americans, especially those who have a religious objection to it. Those religious beliefs - and the practice of them - are actually PROTECTED by the Constitution:

"The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What do the Liberal / LGBT 'Nazi's' not understand about that?!

Liberals can argue all day long about how it's discrimination, but it's not. It is one's personal religious belief, part of their faith, and THAT, again, is protected by the Constitution.

So Liberals are going to demand everyone else comply with their demands, regardless of what the Constitution says, and if the individuals refuse they are going to judicially punish them?!

This is an example of WHY we have the Constitution, why we have the Bill of Rights - to protect us from tyranny that encroaches on our personal rights!

I am NOT comparing these, but let's say in the future somehow liberals ram a law onto the books allowing Pedophilia, Bestiality, or Necrophilia? If Christians refuse to participate in any part of those, even if it has been approved by the government, will the government move to punish Christians - to jail Christians - for exercising their Constitutional Right to exercise their religion?
(-- Pretty ironic since this nation only exists because of a people who left England so they could freely exercise their religion without Government oppression, condemnation, and control.)

I understand laws against discrimination - I do, and I do support them....but I draw the line here. The Constitution clearly states, again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The government, however, is encroaching more and more on our rights while justifying doing so more and more. Doing so, allowing it to be done, is the start down a very dangerous road (IMO).


TOPIC:
Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations

SUPPORTING:
Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

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?

No- Romans 1:26 does not do that. It does not condemn all forms of sexual immorality

Again- lets look at the words of Romans- Romans is Paul telling Christians what happens to 'bad Christians'

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him,

What is God's punishment to these 'bad Christians'? Specifically 'bad Christian men'

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

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.

Note how this is worded: God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women

"them" "their women"- Paul is talking about how 'bad Christian men are punished with having their women having unnatural relations.

This entire section is a warning to Christians to worship God- and is not a condemnation of sex.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

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

Nowhere, but specially supporting a gay marriage is different.

 

[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.

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.

Apologize for what? Not lying to you?

[

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?

I have seen you don't take any actual quotations of the Bible seriously.

 

[jknowgood]

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 yo 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

The Bible also bans tattoos . Do these good Christians not sell to tattooed customers ??

I'm sure they do . Because they are fake religious.

You talking old testament or new?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

One wonders why you would be thinking about beating a sick horse.

 

[Iceweasel]

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

Open to the public doesn't mean publicly owned. You are free to take your business elsewhere.

 

[koshergrl]

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

Open to the public doesn't mean publicly owned. You are free to take your business elsewhere.

And refusing to participate in a homosexual mockery of a sacrament is not the same as *forbidding* them from engaging in it themselves.

 

[Syriusly]

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

Open to the public doesn't mean publicly owned. You are free to take your business elsewhere.

And refusing to participate in a homosexual mockery of a sacrament is not the same as *forbidding* them from engaging in it themselves.

Exactly- just like refusing to participate in a mixed race mockery of the sacrament is not the same thing as forbidding a mixed race couple from engaging in it themselves.

Or like refusing to participate in the Hindu mockery of Christian marriage if a Hindu couple marries in a Hindu ceremony.....

 

[Timmy]

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 yo 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

The Bible also bans tattoos . Do these good Christians not sell to tattooed customers ??

I'm sure they do . Because they are fake religious.

You talking old testament or new?

What's the difference. Both are part of the religion .

 

[Syriusly]

The funny thing about Phoenix's law is that it protects Donald Trump from discrimination too.

If a Christian business owner was so disturbed by Donald Trump's mockery of the holy sacrament by his third marriage in violation of Jesus' commandment, he still would be forbidden by law from refusing to sell to Trump for that reason, because Phoenix law also forbids discrimination based upon marital status.

 

[jknowgood]

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 yo 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

The Bible also bans tattoos . Do these good Christians not sell to tattooed customers ??

I'm sure they do . Because they are fake religious.

You talking old testament or new?

What's the difference. Both are part of the religion .

 

[Syriusly]

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 yo 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

The Bible also bans tattoos . Do these good Christians not sell to tattooed customers ??

I'm sure they do . Because they are fake religious.

You talking old testament or new?

What's the difference. Both are part of the religion .

View attachment 101012

My favorite are the Christians who read horoscopes 'religiously'.......LOL

 

[jknowgood]

where in the bible does it say yo 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

The Bible also bans tattoos . Do these good Christians not sell to tattooed customers ??

I'm sure they do . Because they are fake religious.

You talking old testament or new?

What's the difference. Both are part of the religion .

View attachment 101012

My favorite are the Christians who read horoscopes 'religiously'.......LOL

I don't.