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

[kaz]

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

And I agree on those three situations, however I do think government has an interest in saying "if you sell ham sandwiches, you sell them to all comers if you let the public into your place of business"

Sure it is, government loves to use force to compel us to do it's bidding, it's totally in their interested to force us to do that. Government is all about power.

It is not however in the people's interest for government to use force to compel citizens to do government's interest. It's called liberty, it is what our country is founded on

Yes, government is about force and power, and if not present, then that force and power would come from the biggest and strongest (or best armed) person in the vicinity.

All government regulation and law is some kind of force.

That's exactly what happens, government is the biggest and strongest oppressor, and you advocate that. Government should be a tool to protect citizens from each other, not a tool of force where one citizen compels another to serve them. Your trust in government to give them the power to force one citizen to serve another is an incredible force for evil to solve a virtually non-existant problem and in the rare cases it happens it's a problem with no harm since businesses compete at everything.

Positive rights are an oxymoron. A positive right infringes on the rights of someone else. Think about it

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

So a Catholic Priest can be forced to marry a gay couple?

Churches take fees for marriages all the time.

Again, a public accommodation is not "every time money changes hands"

they can probably get around that by calling the fee a rental for the church space as long as the priest does not get paid by the people getting married

Why the need to "get around it" How about we just let them do the marriages without this overwhelming need to enforce our moral code on them?

but it's OK for them to force their morality on everyone else ?

If these people were denied service simply because they were christian they would be in court faster than grease through a goose

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

So a Catholic Priest can be forced to marry a gay couple?

Churches take fees for marriages all the time.

Again, a public accommodation is not "every time money changes hands"

they can probably get around that by calling the fee a rental for the church space as long as the priest does not get paid by the people getting married

Why the need to "get around it" How about we just let them do the marriages without this overwhelming need to enforce our moral code on them?

Religion cannot be a dodge of the law. If it were, there would be chaos.

 

[kaz]

The f

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

Fifth?

And no one is forcing anyone to serve anyone. If those people don't want to comply with public accommodation laws they are not forced to open a business that serves the public

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

 

[OldLady]

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

I'm happy to "oppress" you if insist on discriminating against a group because of their lifestyle. It ain't your business and it interferes with their equal rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The f

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

Fifth?

And no one is forcing anyone to serve anyone. If those people don't want to comply with public accommodation laws they are not forced to open a business that serves the public

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

 

[NYcarbineer]

Freedom of religion gives you the right to personally practice your religion, not the right to trump civil and criminal law with it.

If your religion demands that you not run a business that is legally required to serve homosexuals,

then your 'freedom' is the freedom to not run such a business.

 

[OldLady]

How many of you on each side of this argument would agree to the PA laws if it excluded marriage related services? Would that one exception satisfy any/some of you? Would that defeat the PA laws entirely?

 

[kaz]

So to you, due process is government weighing my right to commerce against the rights of other people. And the rights of other people includes forcing me to do commerce against my will.

And I never said I have an "absolutist" right to property. You just have to provide me due process. You're just flapping your jaws now

Running to "due process", meaning every time something comes up a judge has to get involved, is basically ignoring the concept that government can regulate commerce, even though at the State level States have authority to do so if granted by the constitution, (or not explicitly banned by it).

I'm sorry, but if you own a deli, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose your customers wanting to buy a ham sandwich.

Yes, every time you want to violate a citizen's right to life, liberty and property you have to get a judge involved. That's really onerous to you to remove someone's freedom?

And again, the Federal government has no power to regulate any commerce except trade between the States. States can regulate commerce, but cannot compel us into servitude with our liberty or property. Discover freedom

Again, while I can appreciate an absolutist position, it doesn't do anything to figure out the issue.

You're just repeating your canards. I already pointed out my position is not "absolutist." You can limit our right to life, liberty and property with due process. It is not absolute

Due process is just a fig leaf you use to hide your absolutist view of commerce regulation.

Strawman, I'm dropping out of the conversation since you're ignoring what I said

 

[Iceweasel]

Bigotry and hypocrisy are part of freedom. The First Amendment gives you the right to be a bigot. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a private business from discriminating against whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants.

yes they are you just can't violate the law while being a bigot

it really is that simple

if you don't like it then get the laws repealed and amend the constitution

The Constitution doesn't need amending, that's why local areas have added accommodation laws and then sexual preferences on top of that. That was explained to you before, you are as dense as a bowling ball.

You want people to be able to deny anyone service for any reason including race or religion to do that you would have to amend the constitution

That's not what I said Skull Pussy. You said forcing someone to produce something against their character was not imposing on them, clearly it is. You got increasingly ridiculous to defend it, bring up sin to a non believer, now you want to drag race and religion into it.

The side that constantly moves the goal posts is the side that's full of shit.

So now it's not impinging on the freedom you say you love so much to force a racist to serve Blacks but it is an impingement to force religious people to serve gays

Seems like you like to cherry pick your freedoms

Sexual orientation isn't in the Constitution. Try to pay attention.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm happy to "oppress" you if insist on discriminating against a group because of their lifestyle. It ain't your business and it interferes with their equal rights.

Here's another one that can't focus. The problem arises when they make their identity your business. Like a clansman making a black guy make his rebel cake. The inconsistency is on your side of the argument.

 

[Iceweasel]

How many of you on each side of this argument would agree to the PA laws if it excluded marriage related services? Would that one exception satisfy any/some of you? Would that defeat the PA laws entirely?

PA laws were designed so handicapped people had access to goods and services. Some locales had added sexual orientation to it so the baby doesn't need to be thrown out with the bath water, just get rid of the whiny baby.

 

[kaz]

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

I'm happy to "oppress" you if insist on discriminating against a group because of their lifestyle. It ain't your business and it interferes with their equal rights.

Positive rights are an oxymoron. They by definition trod on the rights of someone else. Only negative rights are legitimate rights.

I also like your stupid little gimmick of continuing to make it personal, that I want to discriminate against gays. No, I want the liberty. Gays is just the subject at hand. No citizen should be compelled by government to do business or anything else with another citizen. So you can go ahead and discriminate against all the Christians you want, it's fine with me

 

[Papageorgio]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

Marriages are a religious issue, civil unions are a state issue. The mixing of the two is creating issues.

 

[kaz]

The f

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

Fifth?

And no one is forcing anyone to serve anyone. If those people don't want to comply with public accommodation laws they are not forced to open a business that serves the public

Um, I've repeatedly quoted the fifth, the right to due process? Are you serious?

So you consider it a legitimate power of government to say if you want to go into business then you will do what government compels you to do, that is liberty. You have the option of not going into business.

I can't take you seriously now

well if they break the law they will get their due process and their day in court and they will lose

You don't understand what due process is obviously.

When you said we are free because government can do whatever it wants to do but we can chose not to earn a living, you seriously did lose all credibility with me. You don't know the first thing about liberty.

Government should be able to force you to give $100 to the DNC for every TV you buy. After all, you have the right to not buy a TV. It's stupid. According to you, government can even remove your constitutional rights by offering you the option to not do something.

Government can prohibit you from buying an ad criticizing government. After all, you have the right to not buy an ad.

Government can remove your right to a warrant to search your house if you buy food. After all, you don't have to buy food.

That is the door you are opening

 

[OldLady]

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

I'm happy to "oppress" you if insist on discriminating against a group because of their lifestyle. It ain't your business and it interferes with their equal rights.

Positive rights are an oxymoron. They by definition trod on the rights of someone else. Only negative rights are legitimate rights.

I also like your stupid little gimmick of continuing to make it personal, that I want to discriminate against gays. No, I want the liberty. Gays is just the subject at hand. No citizen should be compelled by government to do business or anything else with another citizen. So you can go ahead and discriminate against all the Christians you want, it's fine with me

Your liberty to discriminate against another is interfering with their rights, whether they are gay, Jewish, black, whatever. All those groups have the right as American citizens to be treated equally. It was because people refused to recognize and act on that fairly that these laws had to be imposed. Sorry, can't buy your argument, but I'm glad to know it isn't a personal vendetta against gays.

 

[kaz]

How many of you on each side of this argument would agree to the PA laws if it excluded marriage related services? Would that one exception satisfy any/some of you? Would that defeat the PA laws entirely?

No, we should have no PA laws

 

[Iceweasel]

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

I'm happy to "oppress" you if insist on discriminating against a group because of their lifestyle. It ain't your business and it interferes with their equal rights.

Positive rights are an oxymoron. They by definition trod on the rights of someone else. Only negative rights are legitimate rights.

I also like your stupid little gimmick of continuing to make it personal, that I want to discriminate against gays. No, I want the liberty. Gays is just the subject at hand. No citizen should be compelled by government to do business or anything else with another citizen. So you can go ahead and discriminate against all the Christians you want, it's fine with me

Your liberty to discriminate against another is interfering with their rights, whether they are gay, Jewish, black, whatever. All those groups have the right as American citizens to be treated equally. It was because people refused to recognize and act on that fairly that these laws had to be imposed. Sorry, can't buy your argument, but I'm glad to know it isn't a personal vendetta against gays.

Wrong. Liberals believe if they repeat misinformation enough it becomes fact. The Constitution doesn't classify sexual orientation as a race or religion.

Also, two brothers can use your same argument. Don't want to make their love affair announcements? You're discriminating.

 

[kaz]

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

I'm happy to "oppress" you if insist on discriminating against a group because of their lifestyle. It ain't your business and it interferes with their equal rights.

Positive rights are an oxymoron. They by definition trod on the rights of someone else. Only negative rights are legitimate rights.

I also like your stupid little gimmick of continuing to make it personal, that I want to discriminate against gays. No, I want the liberty. Gays is just the subject at hand. No citizen should be compelled by government to do business or anything else with another citizen. So you can go ahead and discriminate against all the Christians you want, it's fine with me

Your liberty to discriminate against another is interfering with their rights, whether they are gay, Jewish, black, whatever. All those groups have the right as American citizens to be treated equally. It was because people refused to recognize and act on that fairly that these laws had to be imposed. Sorry, can't buy your argument, but I'm glad to know it isn't a personal vendetta against gays.

Everyone has the right to be treated equally ... by government. You have zero right to demand other citizens treat you equally. Grow up, you know that

 

[Papageorgio]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

So when you get a license to drive, you become a civil servant? When you get a business license, you become a civil servant. You get a liquor license and you become a public servant.

That is stretching the issue to force religious compliance and I believe that infringes on religious freedom.