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

[NYcarbineer]

What if this business didn't profess to be religious? What if they just said we don't want to serve gays because we think gays are a menace to society. We think gays promote an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle and we do not want in any way to be associated with it.

What then? Shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate too? Why must old books and supernatural beings be involved?

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

 

[martybegan]

Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)

No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.

There's a big difference.

You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.

So....when is it a right to not have to follow the business laws you agreed to abide by when getting your business license?

The issue is if government can impose such conditions in the first place, specifically in these situations.

The government has already proven it can.

The government proved it could force separate but equal accommodations via plessey, so I guess no one should have fought that either, right?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Baloney

Oh....the Church of Human Sacrifice is allowed to do human sacrifices? Churches are allowed to ignore fire codes?

 

[martybegan]

What if this business didn't profess to be religious? What if they just said we don't want to serve gays because we think gays are a menace to society. We think gays promote an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle and we do not want in any way to be associated with it.

What then? Shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate too? Why must old books and supernatural beings be involved?

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

Not even close. Jim Crow was government mandated. What you are arguing for is government mandated force for any and all business transactions, which is more similar to Jim Crow than my position will ever be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the law ISN"T supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution?

Yes it is, but that isn't the argument here. the argument is if PA laws get to ignore the 1st amendment entirely (as you are claiming, even if you don't realize it)

No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.

There's a big difference.

You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.

You're not giving up rights. You don't have the right to break the law just because you claim to be under orders from an invisible supernatural being.

If the law is contrary to the concept of free exercise, it shouldn't be there in the first place.

A business is NOT the exercise of a religion. A prayer is. A Sunday sermon is.

Allowing free exercise to the extreme you desire would let Warren Jeffs off the hook for most of his convictions.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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 very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters..

yep, it's not about the cake, its about fucking over the people they don't like.

This is why they keep talking about the law, when the law isn't the issue.
.

I't amazing I am getting beaten up by both sides of this argument.

You must be doing something right, then.

 

[Silhouette]

A business is NOT the exercise of a religion. A prayer is. A Sunday sermon is.

Allowing free exercise to the extreme you desire would let Warren Jeff's off the hook for most of his convictions.

The first amendment protections don't come with a map or a time clock.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if this business didn't profess to be religious? What if they just said we don't want to serve gays because we think gays are a menace to society. We think gays promote an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle and we do not want in any way to be associated with it.

What then? Shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate too? Why must old books and supernatural beings be involved?

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

Not even close. Jim Crow was government mandated. What you are arguing for is government mandated force for any and all business transactions, which is more similar to Jim Crow than my position will ever be.

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A business is NOT the exercise of a religion. A prayer is. A Sunday sermon is.

Allowing free exercise to the extreme you desire would let Warren Jeff's off the hook for most of his convictions.

The first amendment protections don't come with a map or a time clock.

Does that sentence come with a coherent meaning?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Baloney

Oh....the Church of Human Sacrifice is allowed to do human sacrifices? Churches are allowed to ignore fire codes?

Human sacrifice implies another separate crime.

And there is a great example of fire code being violated for religious purposes. go to any Hindu temple and they use open flames for many ceremonies, indoors. Flames of that size are usually limited to candles or fireplaces by fire code, yet they are not stopped from performing the rituals.

And I know this because my wife is Hindu, and we chose the Temple because we could do the fire part of the ceremony, which we couldn't have done in say a hotel's private rooms.

 

[martybegan]

What if this business didn't profess to be religious? What if they just said we don't want to serve gays because we think gays are a menace to society. We think gays promote an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle and we do not want in any way to be associated with it.

What then? Shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate too? Why must old books and supernatural beings be involved?

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

Not even close. Jim Crow was government mandated. What you are arguing for is government mandated force for any and all business transactions, which is more similar to Jim Crow than my position will ever be.

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

Almost all of it could trace back to State or local laws mandating it or allowing it.

They were called "Jim Crow Laws" for a reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if this business didn't profess to be religious? What if they just said we don't want to serve gays because we think gays are a menace to society. We think gays promote an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle and we do not want in any way to be associated with it.

What then? Shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate too? Why must old books and supernatural beings be involved?

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

Not even close. Jim Crow was government mandated. What you are arguing for is government mandated force for any and all business transactions, which is more similar to Jim Crow than my position will ever be.

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

Almost all of it could trace back to State or local laws mandating it or allowing it.

They were called "Jim Crow Laws" for a reason.

Allowing something without interference from the law is not a law.

You want the government to ALLOW restaurants, stores, etc., to be able to turn away customers because of their color. That's government sanctioned racial discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

Not even close. Jim Crow was government mandated. What you are arguing for is government mandated force for any and all business transactions, which is more similar to Jim Crow than my position will ever be.

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

Almost all of it could trace back to State or local laws mandating it or allowing it.

They were called "Jim Crow Laws" for a reason.

Allowing something without interference from the law is not a law.

You want the government to ALLOW restaurants, stores, etc., to be able to turn away customers because of their color. That's government sanctioned racial discrimination.

Wrong. i have been on record stating that point of sale, common area, essential, time sensitive, not easily replaceable services are actually PA's and should be covered by PA regulations.

So a restaurant could not turn away a black or gay or Jewish or christian couple who wants to have dinner, or a group dinner in the common area, but could deny a private room due to the beliefs of the owner.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A business is NOT the exercise of a religion. A prayer is. A Sunday sermon is.

Allowing free exercise to the extreme you desire would let Warren Jeff's off the hook for most of his convictions.

The first amendment protections don't come with a map or a time clock.

OK so I'm still waiting for a cogent argument as to how doing business with a gay person violates anyone's first amendment rights . Do you care to try?

 

[bodecea]

No they don't because running a business isn't a religious act, it's a commercial act carried out by people who may or not be of a particular religion.

There's a big difference.

You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.

So....when is it a right to not have to follow the business laws you agreed to abide by when getting your business license?

The issue is if government can impose such conditions in the first place, specifically in these situations.

The government has already proven it can.

The government proved it could force separate but equal accommodations via plessey, so I guess no one should have fought that either, right?

Sure people could fight it....legally...just like people can fight Public Accommodation laws legally. Organizations like the NAACP worked tirelessly for decades to gather the data to PROVE that "Separate but Equal" wasn't really equal. If they'd not been able to prove it, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be in place.

Now.....what are anti-PA law people doing to WORK to get those PA laws either struck down or repealed? Just whining on the internet doesn't really accomplish anything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if this business didn't profess to be religious? What if they just said we don't want to serve gays because we think gays are a menace to society. We think gays promote an unhealthy, immoral lifestyle and we do not want in any way to be associated with it.

What then? Shouldn't they be allowed to discriminate too? Why must old books and supernatural beings be involved?

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

Not even close. Jim Crow was government mandated. What you are arguing for is government mandated force for any and all business transactions, which is more similar to Jim Crow than my position will ever be.

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

Almost all of it could trace back to State or local laws mandating it or allowing it.

They were called "Jim Crow Laws" for a reason.

Why would you deny the voters of a state or county or town or city to democratically choose 'separate but equal'?

 

[TheDude]

You know you've run out of ideas when:

Men were intended to marry.
Men were intended to have children.
Men were intended to use the women's bathroom.
Transvestites were intended to lead the Boy Scouts of America.
Transvestites were intended to be ministers.

 

[martybegan]

You don't give up being a citizen with rights just because you decide to sell something.

So....when is it a right to not have to follow the business laws you agreed to abide by when getting your business license?

The issue is if government can impose such conditions in the first place, specifically in these situations.

The government has already proven it can.

The government proved it could force separate but equal accommodations via plessey, so I guess no one should have fought that either, right?

Sure people could fight it....legally...just like people can fight Public Accommodation laws legally. Organizations like the NAACP worked tirelessly for decades to gather the data to PROVE that "Separate but Equal" wasn't really equal. If they'd not been able to prove it, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be in place.

Now.....what are anti-PA law people doing to WORK to get those PA laws either struck down or repealed? Just whining on the internet doesn't really accomplish anything.

Who wants them repealed? What most people want is for them to apply to actual public accommodations, not "any time money changes hands"

And the people in question here are doing exactly what you want them to do, they are suing prior to any law being violated.

 

[kaz]

Well considering they don't get
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.

And the law is not there for you to punish people you disagree with politically.

punish
really?

It's punishing business owners to have them treat everyone equally?

Don't think for a minute if some chrisitan walked into a business run by a gay person and was denied service because he was a christian that the gay store owner would not be hauled into court faster than Jeebus turned water into wine

Equal protection is not a power of government, it is a limit on government

Good we agree everyone should be treated equally

They should be, but you have no right to be other than by government

 

[martybegan]

They should be allowed to decide to not provide the service, as long as it is non-necessary, non time sensitive, non point of sale and easily replaceable.

I don't think you're aware that you're arguing for bringing back Jim Crow. Or maybe you are and don't care.

Not even close. Jim Crow was government mandated. What you are arguing for is government mandated force for any and all business transactions, which is more similar to Jim Crow than my position will ever be.

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

Almost all of it could trace back to State or local laws mandating it or allowing it.

They were called "Jim Crow Laws" for a reason.

Why would you deny the voters of a state or county or town or city to democratically choose 'separate but equal'?

because on the macro scale, separate is almost never equal. That's why PA laws are needed for actual Public Accommodations. My issue is the extension of PA laws to every single transaction involving money changing hands.