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

[kaz]

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.

Or three people or a person and a cat or ...

But those are different, she doesn't agree with them.

I believe in true marriage equality. It shouldn't be a government function for anyone

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 I wouldn't agree.

 

[kaz]

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.

Let's make it a requirement of getting a drivers license that you can't be a Muslim. After all, you don't have to get a drivers license

 

[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.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Federal, state and local laws require licenses to perform products and services, would all of them be required to be public servants or just those that apply to those licensed to perform a marriage?

 

[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.

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.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

 

[OldLady]

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

No, I don't know that. You don't have to treat me equally as a fellow citizen, neighbor, whatever. But if you are in business, you MUST, as an extension of my rights to equal treatment. Yours is an interesting stance, though, that I had not heard before.

 

[kaz]

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

No, I don't know that. You don't have to treat me equally as a fellow citizen, neighbor, whatever. But if you are in business, you MUST, as an extension of my rights to equal treatment. Yours is an interesting stance, though, that I had not heard before.

Where does the Constitution say that your rights can be limited by going into business? I only see due process. Where did you find business subjugates you to government?

What can government compel you to do as positive rights for other citizens outside business?

And seriously, you thought the equal protection clause was a power of government? No, sweetie, it's a limit on government

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You are arguing that people should be able ro refuse service for any reason because THAT"S FREEDOM!

If you want to do that then yes you have to change the constitution

Of is freedom to you just denying service to gays?

 

[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.

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.

The state considers marriage a civil union. as far as the state is concerned marriage in nothing but a property contract

 

[martybegan]

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.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

The f

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

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

 

[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.

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.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

marriages performed by clergy are recognized civilly so they are civil unions

 

[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.

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.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Federal, state and local laws require licenses to perform products and services, would all of them be required to be public servants or just those that apply to those licensed to perform a marriage?

A person who chooses to be legally authorized by the state to perform civil marriages has to obey the law.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

 

[martybegan]

`

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.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Federal, state and local laws require licenses to perform products and services, would all of them be required to be public servants or just those that apply to those licensed to perform a marriage?

A person who chooses to be legally authorized by the state to perform civil marriages has to obey the law.

So good luck forcing that Imam to do a SSM.

 

[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.

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.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

The f

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

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Your religion is not a ticket to break the law without consequences.

 

[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.

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.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

I don't know why a gay person would want anything to do with the hypocrites and bigots of the catholic church

 

[kaz]

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.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

The f

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

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Ad absurdum was my point. Skull said you don't have to follow government's rules because you can chose to not go into business. That is ad absurdum. I was making exactly that point. I said that to him, not you, you may note. I never saw you make that argument.

Nowhere did I use a slippery slope argument, you made that up.

In your case, I'm tired of you ignoring my arguments completely and just begging the question

 

[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.

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.

The performance of a civil marriage ceremony is a civil service.

Stop being stupid. Stop. Now.

and all the celebrant is doing is being an offical witness to it. The license itself is still issued by the government, nothing more.

So your wank off dreams of forcing Catholic Priests to perform Same sex marriages is of course,a non-started.

If a priest won't perform a civil legal same sex marriage, then he shouldn't be allowed to perform any civil marriages.
If he doesn't want to do it in his church, he can do it somewhere else. Religion is not a free ticket to ignore the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

Well considering they don't get

The f
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

First, where did I say the government can do whatever it wants? And your "don't know anything about liberty" is the chant of the absolutist. Own your tag.

And then you roll right into argumentum ad absurdum.

And then you go with slippery slope.

Ad absurdum was my point. Skull said you don't have to follow government's rules because you can chose to not go into business. That is ad absurdum. n

No it's not. Going into business requires compliance with hundreds of rules, laws, regulations.

They are not an a la carte menu.

 

[Mac1958]

What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint.

The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished.

They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters.
.