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

[Syriusly]

The homophobic printers are hypocrites. They aren't following the Bible. They are using it as a shield over their hateful bigotry. They are fake Christians.

Show me a case where they turned away a divorced person from getting wedding invitations for his biblically non-compliant second marriage.

This is about hate, not religion. Pure and simple.

Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrites. He had nothing to say about gays.

Not your call to make, you judgmental pile of shit.

What's more judgmental than deciding that gays are not worthy of associating with you as equals?

Just as judgmental as a bunch of whiny anti-trumpers not wanting to associate with anyone who even considers Trump not the anti-christ.

The difference is you want to ruin people who just think differently than you.

Where are Trump supporters being denied goods and services?

Just recently a starbucks employee refused to write Trump on a cup.

OMG!

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Damn you're a historical neanderthal, when this country was founded the government wasn't involved with marriage, it was solely in the purview of the clergy.

? No. The banns -- the notice of the marriage -- had to be posted in a public place for a certain number of weeks so if anyone knew why these two people shouldn't marry, they could come forward. The Town Clerk furnished the license. Ministers weren't always available, and they used the Justice of the Peace back then, too. The government, in this country, at least, has always had its nose in the marriage contract.

Really, people got married in areas where there were no governments, most just started living together and waited for a circuit preacher to come around to perform the ceremony. Most were just recorded in the family bible.

 

[Syriusly]

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the people, within the boundaries of the Constitution. Who does or doesn't get jollies out of it is irrelevant.

Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.

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.

Yet the courts have said a T-shirt printer could not be compelled to print a message on a shirt they found objectionable. What's the difference between the T-shirt pinter and this one?

Well the big difference is that the court in Arizona came to a different conclusion than the court in Kennedy.

And that the business in Arizona is subject to the court in Arizona, not Kentucky.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Damn you're a historical neanderthal, when this country was founded the government wasn't involved with marriage, it was solely in the purview of the clergy.

? No. The banns -- the notice of the marriage -- had to be posted in a public place for a certain number of weeks so if anyone knew why these two people shouldn't marry, they could come forward. The Town Clerk furnished the license. Ministers weren't always available, and they used the Justice of the Peace back then, too. The government, in this country, at least, has always had its nose in the marriage contract.

Really, people got married in areas where there were no governments, most just started living together and waited for a circuit preacher to come around to perform the ceremony. Most were just recorded in the family bible.

Actually the government was involved- because any legally married couple was subject to the marriage laws of the state, regardless of the religion of the couple.

But going back to the earlier argument- marriage in the United States has always been both a religious and a civil act.

Why shouldn't ministers be able to act as deputies for the state?

 

[OKTexas]

Bullshit. You get off on it, you are just to gutless to admit it.

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.

Yet the courts have said a T-shirt printer could not be compelled to print a message on a shirt they found objectionable. What's the difference between the T-shirt pinter and this one?

Well the big difference is that the court in Arizona came to a different conclusion than the court in Kennedy.

And that the business in Arizona is subject to the court in Arizona, not Kentucky.

The written word is speech, and no government has the authority to compel speech. That's why I hope this case goes to SCOTUS, It's time to get it settled.

 

[Syriusly]

Under Constitutional equality, I should be able to marry my sister. We're consenting adults and stay out of our bedroom fuckers.

Under Constitutional equality, men should be allowed to marry children. My constitutional rights are violated because I can't marry my aunt.

Under Constitutional equality, young children must be allowed drive cars, never mind vote.

Under Constitutional equality, my rights are violated when my California vote doesn't equal your Alaskan vote. Oh look, our founding fathers fucked up with the 12th amendment.

Love liberal interpretations. I can pull all kinds of shit out of my ass EQUAL to men were intended to marry, have kids, and use the women's bathroom.

So...incest and pedophilia AREN'T illegal in your "Constitutional equality" world?

Not mine, YOURS

Why do you think incest and pedophilia should be legal in his world?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Government's principle job is to protect the rights of its citizens

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Yet the courts have said a T-shirt printer could not be compelled to print a message on a shirt they found objectionable. What's the difference between the T-shirt pinter and this one?

Well the big difference is that the court in Arizona came to a different conclusion than the court in Kennedy.

And that the business in Arizona is subject to the court in Arizona, not Kentucky.

The written word is speech, and no government has the authority to compel speech. That's why I hope this case goes to SCOTUS, It's time to get it settled.

It's not the printer's speech it's the speech of the paying customer. The customer tells the printer what to print then pays him there is no compulsion

It would be compelling speech if you told some guy on the street to say what you told him under threat of violence. This is not that

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Damn you're a historical neanderthal, when this country was founded the government wasn't involved with marriage, it was solely in the purview of the clergy.

? No. The banns -- the notice of the marriage -- had to be posted in a public place for a certain number of weeks so if anyone knew why these two people shouldn't marry, they could come forward. The Town Clerk furnished the license. Ministers weren't always available, and they used the Justice of the Peace back then, too. The government, in this country, at least, has always had its nose in the marriage contract.

Really, people got married in areas where there were no governments, most just started living together and waited for a circuit preacher to come around to perform the ceremony. Most were just recorded in the family bible.

Actually the government was involved- because any legally married couple was subject to the marriage laws of the state, regardless of the religion of the couple.

But going back to the earlier argument- marriage in the United States has always been both a religious and a civil act.

Why shouldn't ministers be able to act as deputies for the state?

So nobody got married in the territories before there were towns or States?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yet the courts have said a T-shirt printer could not be compelled to print a message on a shirt they found objectionable. What's the difference between the T-shirt pinter and this one?

Well the big difference is that the court in Arizona came to a different conclusion than the court in Kennedy.

And that the business in Arizona is subject to the court in Arizona, not Kentucky.

The written word is speech, and no government has the authority to compel speech. That's why I hope this case goes to SCOTUS, It's time to get it settled.

It's not the printer's speech it's the speech of the paying customer. The customer tells the printer what to print then pays him there is no compulsion

It would be compelling speech if you told some guy on the street to say what you told him under threat of violence. This is not that

Of course it is, telling some to write or print something they find objectionable under threat of fines or jail is compelling speech. To use your example the written press wouldn't be protected speech.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

Damn you're a historical neanderthal, when this country was founded the government wasn't involved with marriage, it was solely in the purview of the clergy.

? No. The banns -- the notice of the marriage -- had to be posted in a public place for a certain number of weeks so if anyone knew why these two people shouldn't marry, they could come forward. The Town Clerk furnished the license. Ministers weren't always available, and they used the Justice of the Peace back then, too. The government, in this country, at least, has always had its nose in the marriage contract.

Really, people got married in areas where there were no governments, most just started living together and waited for a circuit preacher to come around to perform the ceremony. Most were just recorded in the family bible.

Actually the government was involved- because any legally married couple was subject to the marriage laws of the state, regardless of the religion of the couple.

But going back to the earlier argument- marriage in the United States has always been both a religious and a civil act.

Why shouldn't ministers be able to act as deputies for the state?

So nobody got married in the territories before there were towns or States?

Not really, no. The couple might have a dinner where both families sat and agreed to help the new couple. There might be a barn dance. But no ceremony. The record would be a circuit preacher's book when he came around to write the marriages and deaths. They just called themselves married.

Interestingly, circuit judges did not keep those records. There wasn't much of a concept of legal marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Not really, no. The couple might have a dinner where both families sat and agreed to help the new couple. There might be a barn dance. But no ceremony. The record would be a circuit preacher's book when he came around to write the marriages and deaths. They just called themselves married.

Interestingly, circuit judges did not keep those records. There wasn't much of a concept of legal marriage.

But what there always was, was a concept of marriage meaning "mother and father for expected children". Always. Since day #1. The main beneficiaries of man/woman marriage have always been children and the society that depends on their functioning well as adults from boys having a father and girls having a mother. Marriage was invented to remedy the lack of these irreplaceable roles in children's lives so they wouldn't become a burden on all of us.

Shall I now cite thousands of studies saying children that grow up without either a mother or father grow up with problems and at a disadvantage? I'm talking preponderance here in statistics. ....not the typical rare LGBT "case scenarios" supposedly refuting the Rule. I suppose single parents have occasionally set their children up right and not at a disadvantage. But we don't set standards on expecting miracles. We set standards on observable data in statistical preponderance.

If a few single parents or say, polygamist families have raised children in defiance of the rule to really be equal to their peers, do we give benefits of marriage "therefore" to single parents or polygamists? See the problem with the argument?

 

[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

Actually the 5th and 14th deal with due process.

OK? It's in the 5th and I know that, but I don't know why I need to site both. Or are you just emphasizing they meant it ...

 

[kaz]

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

Government's principle job is to protect the rights of its citizens

Exactly, it's not to oppress them by making them serve each other or the State

 

[OKTexas]

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

Actually the 5th and 14th deal with due process.

OK? It's in the 5th and I know that, but I don't know why I need to site both. Or are you just emphasizing they meant it ...

Actually I was just pointing out that both the 5th and the 14th have the same due process language. The reason to use both is the 5th is a mandate to the feds, the 14th is a mandate to the States.

 

[mdk]

^^ Which one is the mom?....vital and necessary in marriage to it's implied sharers: Children

There was no representation at Obergefell to the most vital participants and beneficiaries (children) of the marriage contract's gutted revision. Which is illegal.

How do you know they even have children?

Which one is the dad in your household? Worry about your own house before you start smearing the houses of others, Mrs. Kravitz.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q See the problem with the argument?

Yes the same problem always with your argument Silhouette.

You want to harm the children of gay couples.

And that is wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The homophobic printers are hypocrites. They aren't following the Bible. They are using it as a shield over their hateful bigotry. They are fake Christians.

Show me a case where they turned away a divorced person from getting wedding invitations for his biblically non-compliant second marriage.

This is about hate, not religion. Pure and simple.

Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrites. He had nothing to say about gays.

Not your call to make, you judgmental pile of shit.

What's more judgmental than deciding that gays are not worthy of associating with you as equals?

Just as judgmental as a bunch of whiny anti-trumpers not wanting to associate with anyone who even considers Trump not the anti-christ.

The difference is you want to ruin people who just think differently than you.

Where are Trump supporters being denied goods and services?

Just recently a starbucks employee refused to write Trump on a cup.

And if the company offers some sort of weird policy for writing things on cups then the employee probably discriminated against that customer.

So?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The homophobic printers are hypocrites. They aren't following the Bible. They are using it as a shield over their hateful bigotry. They are fake Christians.

Show me a case where they turned away a divorced person from getting wedding invitations for his biblically non-compliant second marriage.

This is about hate, not religion. Pure and simple.

Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrites. He had nothing to say about gays.

Not your call to make, you judgmental pile of shit.

What's more judgmental than deciding that gays are not worthy of associating with you as equals?

Just as judgmental as a bunch of whiny anti-trumpers not wanting to associate with anyone who even considers Trump not the anti-christ.

The difference is you want to ruin people who just think differently than you.

Where are Trump supporters being denied goods and services?

This part of the discussion is about being judgmental, pay attention.

I said,
What's more judgmental than deciding that gays are not worthy of associating with you as equals?

 

[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?

Damn you're a historical neanderthal, when this country was founded the government wasn't involved with marriage, it was solely in the purview of the clergy.

Historically, civil marriage began before religious marriage.

But to your point, when marriage becomes a civil union, it becomes secular, and it becomes part of the legal code,

and therefore people have to obey the law as it applies to all aspects of civil marriage,

and your 'religion' is not a free ticket to scoff the law without consequences.