Christian Artists Could Be Fined, Jailed for Refusing to Make Same-Sex Wedding Invita

Good deal. Hate never pays....

 

"Christian Artists Could Be Fined, Jailed for Refusing to Make Same-Sex Wedding Invitations"

false...

if you advertise something as for sale to the public, you must sell it though

now you can be like a costco and be membership only then can discriminate if you want

.

 

That kind of flies in the face of N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama (195. I'll quote the salient portion of the Decision:

I can see, and completely agree, with the idea that truly PUBLIC services ie: Government services, are protected. I would maintain, however, private businesses are just that; private, and are outside of the reach of the Constitution, much like the fact you have no First Amendment speech protections at your employer. Lets be honest here, the Commerce Clause has been improperly used for all sorts of overreach.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think a business that engaged in discriminatory practices would last very long. People vote with their wallet every day. I just don't think it is within the reach of Government to dictate how one conducts their business. If the freedom to behave poorly does not exist, the freedom itself is meaningless.

 

Here in Fundamentally Transformed Amerika, when the State told you to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

 

Well in other news, trump continues to add to an "anti-LGBT Cabinet" so maybe these christian artist wont get in trouble for refusing.
i personally could care less either way lol.

http://pinnaclepolitics.com/featured/news/trump-continues-add-anti-lgbtq-cabinet

 

Whether businesses that discriminate would last very long - and I suspect that "White's Only" lunch counters would have endured for quite some time - one's constitutional rights are not contingent upon the whim of consumers.

Government regulates businesses in matters of fair labor practices, workers' compensation contributions, corporate taxation, safety regulations, hygiene, truth in advertising, packaging, labeling, etc., etc., etc.

Businesses are free to comply in the public interest or choose not to do business with the public.

 

I am not buying it, but its a good conversation. If someone wants to produce Christian Art and they are open to the public, they cannot refuse to sell to gay people. They should never be forced to inventory a specific product. If you sell cakes, you sell to everyone. If they ask for a big penis on top of the cake, you can simply say that you don't carry that item and that they will have to find it elsewhere.

A Christian book store may not refuse to sell to homosexuals, but shouldn't be forced to carry specific products.

 

The point I was trying to make is one's Constitutional Rights do not apply within the sphere of private enterprise, or at least not in the sense that legislation and law can supersede the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Let me give an admittedly absurd example. Let's borrow from my list above. Say I'm named Bob, and I operate Bob's Lunch Counter. Now I only serve people like me, namely people named Bob, and perhaps ladies named Roberta Say you're named Bob and you're offended by my inexplicably bizarre business model. You are free to not patronize my business; likewise you are free to tell everyone you know named Bob to not go there. You can even organize everyone named Bob and even people not named Bob to boycott, protest, march and generally raise Cain and awareness about my Bob Supremacist ways. You should not, however, be able to force me to serve Jim's, Franks's, or even (heaven forbid) Bill's. You are not, after all, running my business; I am (for guys named Bob). You could even open a competing Bob's Friendly Lunch Counter right across the street and try to drive me out of business.

 

A Christian cannot engage in gay-sex

education about Christianity might help you

 

you are being drawn into their false equivalency. First, in almost all of the anti-Christian cases we've seen the Christians have a history of serving those who have gay sex. There is no discrimination and in fact it's difficult to discriminate because unless they have gay-sex in front of you, how do you know they do it?

The anti-Chrisitian cases are when people ask a Christian to service a celebration of gay-sex which a Christian cannot do that. A Muslim also cannot serve a celebration of gay-sex.

The govt has no business intervening as in all cases that have been made public, there are plenty of other providers who were willing to service the gay-sex celebration.

 

If the person was obviously missign an arm and was refused service because of that then I could see it as discrimnation. If the person was white and was refused service because they are white then again, I can see discrimination

These cases are when a choice of how one has sex is treated akin to race when it is not.

Christians view gay-sex as a sin and cannot participate in gay-sex nor enable gay-sex thus they cannot service the celebration of gay-sex.

The govt has no business in forcing another to service a lifestyle which goes against their deeply held beliefs and morals

The new SCOTUS will start to strike down these cases as they come to them because there is no amendment within the Constitution which demands the servicing of deviant sexual lifestyles by those who disagree with those deviant lifestyles.

It falls under liberty and freedom and those who choose gay-sex will be served by those who are OK with gay-sex.

 

To be fair, I was deliberately avoiding the religious angle and was attempting to make a Freedom of Association case. The reason I took this tack is because I think the religious approach is discriminatory against those of no faith, which I find equally reprehensible. Just like I don't want to turn people who happen to be gay, or black, or Muslim, or what have you into a special class, I think it important to not turn Christians or any other religious group into one either.

 

Is the law not able to punish an artist if they don't want to design homosexual themed cakes, invitations, etc?

 

If a baker does not want to put a crucifix onto my cake because he/she is an atheist then I support that baker and would do it myself or go elsewhere

If a baker lives the gay lifestyle and did not want to put a bride and groom atop a cake then so be it.

I do not look for the govt to impose my beliefs upon anyone however I do not want the beliefs of others imposed upon me.

In the above cases, the service isn't being refused because of me the person but because of the specific event.

That is why as a non-white person, I get a little bent out of shape when I see people try and use race as being equivalent to the gay lifestyle.

 

One thing these people should bear in mind before posting these silly stories also, and before getting personally worked up about them, is that the law applies equally to Christians and non-Christians. Doesn't matter who does it or why, the law protects people against discrimination by businesses, simple as that.

Christians had better consider this when going into business, and consider leaving their religion at the door when they go to work!

 

I'm with you. The point I was trying to make is it doesn't matter what the motive is. Merely having the opinion is sufficient enough.

 

Very well said! I completely agree!

 

This is the same old argument used against racial intermarriage, African Americans doing ... anything, being female, being of the wrong religion, etc., etc.

This is America.

You're going to need to get over yourself - just like all those times in the past.

And, the thing is, it won't be that many years before your grand kids will look back and wonder how we could have been so disgusting toward our fellow citizens.

 

I was not born white and no matter how much I try, I will never be white

those who engage in gay-sex do so by their own free will and choice. A person does not "do white", it's what they are, so you are using a false equivalency which is why the SCOTUS must, and will stop the nonsense of treating a specific sexual lifestyle as being akin to how one is born.


If you are having trouble with the comprehension simply replace "homosexual" with the word "vegan" and now tell me if you think the govt should mandate that ALL restaurants serve vegan dishes.

The good news is that the wind of change is coming and it's called a SCOTUS which will protect and honor the Constitution as opposed to going with the latest politically correct flow.

 

The same can be said about heterosexuality.

Or people who prefer blondes or brunettes
Or guys who like big tits/asses

Just because there isn't a test doesn't mean anything.

 

No they are not.

Now if they are in business to do invitations and claim to refuse some couple because of their skin color, sex orientation, gender, etc, then yes, they are breaking the law they said they'd uphold when they applied for their business license.
Nothing to do with their personal belief. And if they can't separate their business life from their personal life, they don't belong as a public business in some cities and states with such discrimination laws.

It might be better for the law to say to anyone who is religious, they can never get a business license. How do you think that'd fly over with religious people? Reverse discrimination.

 

Which only strengthens the opposite sides points.

- - - Updated - - -

BFD - who one has sex with is not a reason to discriminate in some areas of the country.

 

it's not discrimination. It's no different than a vegan restaurant not serving meat. They are against meat.

Anyone who engages in gay-sex should know that a Christian cannot service a celebration of gay-sex.

 

All that is well and good for guys named Bob, but the hapless guy named Wally who works at Wally's Wonderful World of Wallets across the street (accommodating the public without undo attention to nomenclature) must otherwise ride his tricycle eighteen miles for his midday repast, all local Bobs being a cruel and clannish lot. The mean gang of Bobs could conspire to starve Wally, or Wally could declare, "I'm an American, dadgummit, and only ask to be treated as an equal - whether you consider all Bobs inherently superior to Wallys or not! You can hate me all you want, but you're licensed to do business with the public, and I, as an upstanding member of the public - who happens to be named "Wally" - want to exercise my right as an American Wally to engage in commerce and buy a Bob's Big Burger at noon every day!"

The court has said, "Bob, Knock off the Bob Supremacist (or Bob Separatist) crap! Sell Wally a lousy burger just as if he were a Bob, Bob."

Bob snivels. Bob sulks. Bob sells Wally a burger. Wally sells Bob a wallet. Life goes on.

 

Your concept of sexual orientation has long been shown to be nonsense. People don't choose their sexuality. It is who they are.

And, your example makes as much sense as me suggesting that you consider darker skin to be equivalent to having chosen to visit a tanning booth.

Remember that the recent change concerning same sex marriage came with Scalia. And, replacing him isn't going to make the court any more conservative than it was with him.