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

Sure they can. Just like they service adulterers marriages.

And no, your strawman is seriously flawed. If they sell invitations they sell invitations.

 

Meanwhile, 1/2 the christians are engaging in aduterous relationships. If they are similar to the general public. And they are.
Such whining from so called christians against gays are nothing more than hypocrisy.

 

Now you want to act as God. Shame. I don't think God likes anyone playing God's part but God.
God may not look favorable on anyone trying to be God.

 

No. I see a business offering a service to the public for profit. Upon which they applied for and received a business license. They must abide by the laws of the license in order to continue operating that business for profit.

You do see that, don't you?
If you don't or the business doesn't, they need to get out of business to the public for which they said they'd serve upon receiving the business license.

 

Don't worry too much about the Cuban influx. Really there is virtually nothing original left on the cars (they're more stolen and repurposed Russian parts than not) and will be virtually worthless to collectors, aside from their novelty value, and frankly other cigar growers have had 50+ years to improve their cigar technology. Cubans are for the most part, incredibly average compared to some of the other stuff out there these days.

BTW: I am more of a cigar smoker than a pipe guy, but I do occasionally enjoy a bowl of good Cavendish.

BBTW: If you haven't tried the new Jameson's aged in Stout barrrels you really need to. It's sublime.

 

`
On it's own merits, this lawsuit has some significant legal ramifications, in regards to the first Amendment right for freedom of religion. Unfortunately, this news article was distorted from it's original intention and is being used as an excuse for another predictable and obnoxious tirade against gays. How one looks at homosexuality is far outside from the jurisprudence this case represents. This is going to be settle in a court of law, not a court of public opinion nor in an anti-gay circle jerk. As I see it, it violates this sites rules in regards to posting in "good faith."

 

A choice given special protections in the US Constitution. As opposed to special protections in a Phoenix ordinance.

 

You're too bright for this site

 

I thought y'all were all for states rights... Oh, it's only when you agree with it - when you don't the fed should step in... Gotcha.

Religious freedom means the ability to choose the religion you identify with or none at all, and be secure that the US government will not prevent you from practicing said religion unless it violates another's rights.

It does not give religious people special provisions in any other facet of the law. Private business should be able to deny service to anyone (including religious persons) or no one. That is equality, which y'all are uninterested in but I digress.

 

Yet the thread is still active.
Sometimes one scratches their heads on what remains an open thread v what is shut down.
There is no rhyme or reason.
The OP doesn't even talk about the story linked. Just goes off on some rant about how gays aren't born that way. Ridiculous.

 

You're trying to treat this as a binary issue but you just cant do that.

The NFL sells its product to the public, can we force all players to stand for the pledge?

Hollywood sells its product to the public, can we force the most adamant liberal actors to do pro-life PSAs?

Recording artists sell their product to the public, can we force them to sing Hail to the Chief at Trump's inauguration?

And whats more is that the issue of product vs personal creation has already been tested.

Do you not recall Muslim bakeries refused to create cakes with pro gay messages and themes upon them?

How come none of them were ever sued or fined?

Because of the difference between simply selling a product and creating something that goes against your own beliefs.

I'll give you another example, two of them in fact.

A bakery in Colorado was legally allowed to refuse to create a cake because said cake had a message opposing same sex marriages, the State civil rights board found that no discrimination occurred because an "artist" is under no obligation to create something that they don't agree with.

And three employees at a bakery in a Georgia Walmart refused to make a cake for a retiring police officer because "wah wah wah cops are racist", and the the State never stepped in with legal action.

Now I think this fully demonstrates that forcing somebody to create something that they don't agree with is wrong, and in fact it is a violation of our civil rights.

The State cannot command you to use your talents to produce things, its an outright attack on freedom.

 

Most of your response is strawman BS. I'll address one of the BS. The NFL's product is football. They can't discriminate someone from playing because of any of the protected classes. They can't not sell someone a ticket to their games because of the protected class. Whether one stands for the national anthem is not even remotely related to the topic.
So I dismiss the rest of your BS.

The rest has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum over the last 3 yrs.

Get over it. People's personal beliefs don't trump the law their business decided to uphold when applying for their business license.

 

In the OP you posted a clearly bogus story from a clearly bogus source. This was shown in post #2 and other posts.

Now you are making a statement that a florist lost her business. Care to try to provide evidence of that?

 

For over two thousand years, Christians have stoned gay people to death, imprisoned gay people, chemically castrated gay people, had gay people fired from their jobs and disrespected their military service.

Now some Christians have the unmitigated gall to whine about "persicution" of Christians by gay people because they "might" get fined for refusal of service ( do remember this is a fake headline by the OP ).

Simply f**king pathetic thread. End of story.

 

I guess, that by your reckoning, everyone who commits adultery is also not a Christian. Not surprising. Many Christians have many reasons for stating that other "Christians" are not really Christians. If we take all of them at their word, no one is really a Christian.

You display a lot of hatred towards others who do not share your opinions.

1 John 3:15 ESV / 39
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.​

 

The same logic was applied in the south against blacks.
The same logic was applied in Germany against Jews.

You do see that, don't you?

 

The NFL sells its product to the public...Can player refuse to play if there are Muslims in the stands?

Hollywood sells its product to the public...Can theater owners refuse admittance to Jews?

Recording artists sell their product to the public...Can they restrict purchases to white people?



Do you not recall Muslim bakeries refused to create cakes with pro gay messages and themes upon them? Source?

How come none of them were ever sued or fined? Source?


A bakery in Colorado was legally allowed to refuse to create a cake because said cake had a message opposing same sex marriages Source?


And three employees at a bakery in a Georgia Walmart refused to make a cake for a retiring police officer because "wah wah wah cops are racist", and the the State never stepped in with legal action. Source?

 

Fake news abounds, as of late.

The cogent issues evoked by this bogus tale:

• 1) Nowhere does Christianity proscribe making wedding invitations for anyone. Such a capitalistic enterprise is not sinful under the strictures of any Christian sect.
  
  
• 2) If you are in business to serve the public, you serve the public - without discriminating based upon whatever personal prejudices may impair you - whether you attempt to do so by playing your bogus "religion card" in an attempt to violate certain customers' constitutional rights or not.

.

 

`
I agree. That's why I'm in favor of a federal court ruling on the constitutionality of the UCC, specifically it's application in non-discrimination for public businesses. I don't see where religious freedom is being transgressed here.
`
`
`
`
`

 

Your civil rights don't come with a free pass to discriminate on very specific issues, as in race, religion, etc. Otherwise we would have this "fair but equal" thing back, where you can legally deny the service to black people.

 

OP Doesn't care about facts and truths. Only partisan politics, and has proven to primarily rant and rage about homosexuality almost exclusively.

Doesn't matter that there is no proof.

What matters is that the echochamber is secure.

 

Discrimination is a wide and complicated field!

Is it permissible for a shopkeeper to refuse people with different skin color as customers because he don't like them?
Is it possible for a taxi driver to refuse passengers from Asia just because they are Asians and he hates Asians?
Can a Muslim restaurant owner refuse to serve Christians, because they miss his faith because they eat pork in life and are therefore unclean according to his view on his religion?

Certainly not a question of homosexuality above, but at the core same problem at least! But how is the answer on this ... and is there a general answer possible?

 

That’s not true. None of them were sued because no actual customers sought to buy from them, were refused on grounds of their orientation and then chose to sue. If that had happened, the Muslim bakers would (certainly per the law) have been treated exactly the same as the Christian ones, or indeed any other.

Refusing to provide a specific product for anyone is very different to providing a product to one group of people but refusing to provide exactly the same product to another. The nature of the message and the faith of the business owner is irrelevant.

I don’t know the details of that case. If the employees refused but the company didn’t, it’s an entirely different question. Public accommodation laws apply to businesses, not directly to individual employees. Also, occupation (or indeed “being racist&#8221 isn’t a category that applies in any anti-discrimination legislation.

Nobody is being forced to create anything that they wouldn’t create anyway. If they have a major objection to creating products for particular classes of people (on the basis of things like race, religion, gender or sexual orientation) they will have to work out how they can deal with that, just like everyone else does and has done for the many decades anti-discrimination laws have existed.

 

Which is why I said the issue isn't binary. Its multifaceted and because of that there is no one size fits all approach.

Each of those things were national news events, and discussed here for the matter, they're not obscure occurrences so you will have no trouble finding them on the Google.

 

And as we've seen the law comes down on either side which proves my point; its not a one size fits all issue.

Forcing people, under penalty of prosecution, to create with their own hands, their own minds, their own talents, something they disagree with is wrong ...its just flat out wrong.

Its an absolute violation of civil rights and personal freedoms.

An artist shouldn't be forced to make a pro-gay marriage creation no more than should they be forced to make an anti-gay marriage creation.

If they don't want to they don't have to and nobody should try to force them.

But the ground which that stands on shouldn't extend to refusing to simply sell something generic to somebody because that person represents what they don't believe in.

You've clearly seen that the law, as well as your own position, is hypocritical as we force people to do one thing but not another when both are just two sides of the same coin.