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

[bripat9643]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married..

Clearly reading comprehension is not your strength.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.

A couple does not need to prove that their marriage serves a societal purpose- the State needs to prove that it doesn't.

Now- you asked me for the argument for 'gay marriage'- I provided it.

You can either actually reply to my argument- or you can't

So far you haven't been able to.

Why are you so hung up on what some hand picked political hack has to say about it?

 

[bripat9643]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the tenets of their faith is that they disapprove of homosexuality and would prefer not to be a part of a ceremony that celebrates a union involving homosexuality.

Hate the sin, not the sinner doesn't mean you have to condone the sinner.

When they bake a cake or print an invitation or take a photograph, are they also supposed to participate in the wedding ceremony? Do they officiate the ceremony, give the bride away, STEP on a small glass goblet, take vows? Are they supposed to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper to the reception? Is there a baker/bride dance, do they propose a special weddI got vendor toast?

Nope! They are not part of the ceremony. They are just masquerading as Christians so they can foment hatred.

And is their immortal soul imperiled? Why don't these faux Christians adhere to all of God's commandments? Are they nearly as righteous and pious as they can possibly be? Which Christians are? The Amish? Pentecostals? Snake handliers? Coptics?

Nope! These folks are merely good old fashioned homophobes under the guise of Christianity.

They are providing a good or service for something celebrating a concept they find morally wrong.

And all of the rest of your statement is meaningless, because it isn't your place to judge, and it's definitely not government's place to judge.

As long as their businesses are licensed, they are subject to all the commerce laws. That makes it the government's determination.

Do these vendors morally vet all their clients? What if a Mafia Princess comes in their shop? The money the vendors receive in payment probably was made b immoral means. But, it's green, just like the money from their homosexual clients. Morality be damned, unless you're a bigot.

Of course, where you go wrong is your delusion that the federal government has the authority to regulate a private business. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of the commerce clause.

Tell us how Public Accomodation squares with the commerce clause.

It doesn't.

 

[TheDude]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

Incorrect, but this is one of my favorite arguments. Let me know when a pair of siblings share the same tax structure as a married couple, or can include their sibling on their insurance. Try again.

 

[Nosmo King]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Arraigned marriages for political or economic benefit? Are you down with that level of originality, or can you admit that society evolves and institutions like marriage are not immune to that evolution?

 

[TheDude]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married..

Clearly reading comprehension is not your strength.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.

A couple does not need to prove that their marriage serves a societal purpose- the State needs to prove that it doesn't.

Now- you asked me for the argument for 'gay marriage'- I provided it.

You can either actually reply to my argument- or you can't

So far you haven't been able to.

Clearly nothing. My R/C has been keen since I was a kid. I also recognize BS when I see it. What YOU'RE saying is gay marriage is legal because they say so. Gay marriage cannot possibly serve a societal purpose. It's a waste of time, money and leads to confusion and decay. On the topic of BS, the court decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right, not that " they couldn't prove it wasn't". Speak of reading comprehension, read this "Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

So once again, in the name of twisting definitions and the Constitution as a liberal agenda, WHAT ARGUMENT FOR GAY MARRIAGE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO MARRIAGE BETWEEN CLOSE RELATIVES? Take note, the courts decided against gay marriage in the past, just as they have marriage between relatives. Can you comprehend that?

 

[bripat9643]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Arraigned marriages for political or economic benefit? Are you down with that level of originality, or can you admit that society evolves and institutions like marriage are not immune to that evolution?

Then you admit that raising health well-adjusted children was the original purpose of marriage. That purpose has "evolved" only because queers have waging war on it for the last 20 years. The question we are discussing is "should it evolve?"

 

[Nosmo King]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Arraigned marriages for political or economic benefit? Are you down with that level of originality, or can you admit that society evolves and institutions like marriage are not immune to that evolution?

Then you admit that raising health well-adjusted children was the original purpose of marriage. That purpose has "evolved" only because queers have waging war on it for the last 20 years. The question we are discussing is "should it evolve?"

If you are naive enough to believe that only healthy, well adjusted children are possible as the offspring of a heterosexual marriage, you shouldn't have to answer for birth defects and neurosis.

 

[bripat9643]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Arraigned marriages for political or economic benefit? Are you down with that level of originality, or can you admit that society evolves and institutions like marriage are not immune to that evolution?

Then you admit that raising health well-adjusted children was the original purpose of marriage. That purpose has "evolved" only because queers have waging war on it for the last 20 years. The question we are discussing is "should it evolve?"

If you are naive enough to believe that only healthy, well adjusted children are possible as the offspring of a heterosexual marriage, you shouldn't have to answer for birth defects and neurosis.

That obviously isn't a reasonable conclusion based on anything I have posted, now is it?

 

[WillReadmore]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

SUPPORTING:
Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

Were these folks prevented from attending worship services? Was their church closed? How were they prevented from practicing their religion, exactly?

Freedom of religion isn't just about going to church, or being able to go to church.

So the tenets of their faith are suspicion, fear, hatred and untolerance. And they are Christians ya say? What dogmatic, weird and anti-Christian principles type of church is that?

Face it. These people are using Christianity as a baseball bat to enforce their hatred. What a perversion of what people here in Sane World understand as a beautiful, loving, forgiving and inclusive faith.

No, the tenets of their faith is that they disapprove of homosexuality and would prefer not to be a part of a ceremony that celebrates a union involving homosexuality.

Hate the sin, not the sinner doesn't mean you have to condone the sinner.

True.

I'd be quite surprised if these customers asked to be "condoned".

 

[Silhouette]

Clearly nothing. My R/C has been keen since I was a kid. I also recognize BS when I see it. What YOU'RE saying is gay marriage is legal because they say so. Gay marriage cannot possibly serve a societal purpose. It's a waste of time, money and leads to confusion and decay. On the topic of BS, the court decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right, not that " they couldn't prove it wasn't". Speak of reading comprehension, read this "Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”...So once again, in the name of twisting definitions and the Constitution as a liberal agenda, WHAT ARGUMENT FOR GAY MARRIAGE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO MARRIAGE BETWEEN CLOSE RELATIVES? Take note, the courts decided against gay marriage in the past, just as they have marriage between relatives. Can you comprehend that?

Also, Obergefell was the revision of a contract which used to benefit children by remedying a number of inferior situations to provide them with both a mother and father. 5 Justices revised over 1,000 years of practice and affirmation of that contract without children even having representation at that Table.

Obergefell will be short lived. Mark my words.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Not to mention all that in the face of majority protest from the voters...

 

[Silhouette]

90 pages...I come along and post #891 and the whole thing shuts down. Have I said something few want to discuss?

 

[martybegan]

90 pages...I come along and post #891 and the whole thing shuts down. Have I said something few want to discuss?

It's not just 90 pages, its the 100 other threads in the past like this. We need a few days before we all have the same arguments, among the same people, all over again.

 

[Silhouette]

90 pages...I come along and post #891 and the whole thing shuts down. Have I said something few want to discuss?

It's not just 90 pages, its the 100 other threads in the past like this. We need a few days before we all have the same arguments, among the same people, all over again.

Yeah but whenever I remind people that marriage is a contract whose main beneficiaries were children, providing them both vital mother and father for 1,000 years or more; and that therefore, the Obergefell hearing which revised that to onerous terms without their representation is a defunct Decision...suddenly the room gets real quiet.

I've noticed that a number of times. Both sides of the argument get silent. Almost like it's a weird pact or something.

It's the one point nobody can contend and it seems all are reticent to discuss. And it makes me wonder why? Not because it has no teeth surely...

 

[martybegan]

90 pages...I come along and post #891 and the whole thing shuts down. Have I said something few want to discuss?

It's not just 90 pages, its the 100 other threads in the past like this. We need a few days before we all have the same arguments, among the same people, all over again.

Yeah but whenever I remind people that marriage is a contract whose main beneficiaries were children, providing them both vital mother and father for 1,000 years or more; and that therefore, the Obergefell hearing which revised that to onerous terms without their representation is a defunct Decision...suddenly the room gets real quiet.

I've noticed that a number of times. Both sides of the argument get silent. Almost like it's a weird pact or something.

It's the one point nobody can contend and it seems all are reticent to discuss. And it makes me wonder why? Not because it has no teeth surely...

My argument against it has always been the lack of a constitutional right to it, as well as major changes to law being done by state legislatures, not courts. (or federal legislature if the constitution so warrants).

I would have preferred the court say that while States cannot be forced to issue SSM licences, they would have to recognize those issued in other States.

 

[Silhouette]

My argument against it has always been the lack of a constitutional right to it, as well as major changes to law being done by state legislatures, not courts. (or federal legislature if the constitution so warrants).

I would have preferred the court say that while States cannot be forced to issue SSM licences, they would have to recognize those issued in other States.

Your argument is equally sound to mine and half a dozen others. Another sound argument is that two of the Justices presiding over Obergefell did so illegally (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009). One of the two even advertised in a public interview how she was going to use her position to force gay marriage on an America which she knew had voted differently...but she said "was ready for gay marriage" anyway. Both were performing (as representatives of the most unbiased federal institution) gay marriages as the question of "should the fed preside over states as to the question of gay marriage" was pending before their court.

It was flatly a mistrial for a number of reasons. And as you say, no basis in the Constitution for its findings. What also supports your argument is Hively v Ivy Tech this year. What do you think about that decision's implications? I was curious to know..

 

[bodecea]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

More post hoc rationalization.

What was the original purpose of the marriage contract? All you queer marriage fanatics never want to answer that question.

Property.

 

[martybegan]

My argument against it has always been the lack of a constitutional right to it, as well as major changes to law being done by state legislatures, not courts. (or federal legislature if the constitution so warrants).

I would have preferred the court say that while States cannot be forced to issue SSM licences, they would have to recognize those issued in other States.

Your argument is equally sound to mine and half a dozen others. Another sound argument is that two of the Justices presiding over Obergefell did so illegally (Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal 2009). One of the two even advertised in a public interview how she was going to use her position to force gay marriage on an America which she knew had voted differently...but she said "was ready for gay marriage" anyway.

It was flatly a mistrial for a number of reasons. And as you say, no basis in the Constitution for its findings. What also supports your argument is Hively v Ivy Tech this year. What do you think about that decision's implications? I was curious to know..

Can't have a mistrial of an appeals level court.

I haven't read the other one yet, will get to it sooner or later.

 

[Silhouette]

Can't have a mistrial of an appeals level court.

I haven't read the other one yet, will get to it sooner or later.

Hively v Ivy Tech 2016? You haven't read that one yet? It is the essence of your argument affirmed. I would read it soon if I were you.