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

I'm honestly shocked to see so many people that are in full support of the government being able to force people to create things with their own hands, minds, and talents.

Its such an utter violation of rights and freedoms.

 

A customer wanted a specific creation.

The artist didn't want to produce said creation because they didn't believe in it.

The State civil rights board ruled the artist had the right to refuse to create something they opposed.

The State civil rights board was 100% correct in their ruling to protect the rights of the artist.

The problem is these laws are not extending that protection to all people.

Under the banner of "equality" we're actually doing things that aren't equal.

Its hypocritical and its wrong.

 

I respect the beliefs of others up until there is an attempt to force them on me.

Be a Christian. The moment you open a business, you are no longer acting as an individual. A business cannot be a Christian. If the thought of having to sell your product or service to someone with beliefs inconstant with yours causes a personal conflict, don't open a business. You don't get to decide which beliefs are worthy of protection.

 

States rights don't include the right to violate the constitution. State rights involve those realms not specified in the US Constitution as Federal.

 

Declining to bake your cake isn't forcing beliefs on you. Using state action to compel the baker to bake your cake because its for a gay wedding, is forcing beliefs on others.

 

What do you mean the law comes down on each side?
No one is forcing anyone to do as you say. NO one. Unless they want to take their talents to the public and sell them.
When one want to deal with the secular public, religious beliefs go out the window.
Prove it to be different.

What is a Public Accommodation?

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against certain protected groups in businesses and places that are considered "public accommodations." The definition of a "public accommodation" may vary depending upon the law at issue (i.e. federal or state), and the type of discrimination involved (i.e. race discrimination or disability discrimination). Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most (but not all) businesses or buildings that are open to (or offer services to) the general public. More specifically, the definition of a "public accommodation" can be broken down into two types of businesses / facilities:

Government-owned/operated facilities, services, and buildings
Privately-owned/operated businesses, services, and buildings
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enfo.../discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html

 

Odd you didn't give a source to any of your claims. I think we all know why. You'd lose each and every debate topic you listed.

 

You mean like the Fashion designers who have publicly stated that they will refuse to make dresses for Melania Trump?

 

Notice how your linked to page doesn't as much as mention sexual orientation? These Phoenix artists could relocate their business outside of Phoenix, bring their religious beliefs in through the window and refuse ANY business related to same sex weddings.

 

Unless, of course, its a marriage between two people of the same sex that "they don't agree with."

 

You're wrong. Exactly the same laws apply to everyone. Any baker could refuse to bake the cake specifically opposing (or promoting) gay marriage and no baker can refuse to sell a wedding cake to gay couple if they would sell it to a straight couple. Some Christians would have moral issues with this and some non-Christians would have moral issues with this. They all have to deal with the situation, just as any of us who has a moral objection to a particular law or regulation, which can include presenting arguments for changes to the relevant legislation.

Proposing changes to anti-discrimination legislation which makes a specific exemption for specific subgroups is unlikely to get very far though.

 

Specific exemptions for specific subgroups is what these public accommodation laws are built upon.

 

No they aren't. They don't say you can't discriminate against women, blacks, Muslims or homosexuals. They say you can't discriminate on grounds of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. Obviously many of these categories came in to play because of common discrimination against specific groups and they're more often applied in defence of members of groups because a lot of that discrimination is ongoing but the laws themselves are very deliberately balanced.

If you were discriminated against for being a heterosexual white male Christian, you'd have exactly the same right to legal protection.

 

But friend this thread is about a law that would punish people for exactly the part in bold.

 

Don't pull that weak nonsense with me.

I know you're aware of each of those instances because they were discussed here and you participated.

Nice try, but fail ...epic fail.

And not for nothing but, dropping "source please" is the weakest card in the deck.

These were issues that made national coverage.

If people weren't aware of them they can make use of the Google to get up to speed - if they cant be bothered to do that then, honestly, I don't believe they should be participating in a discussion forum.

 

No it isn't. The specific case that was referring to was about a cake with a specific political message written on it (almost certainly ordered where it was to make a political point at that), not a cake for an actual wedding. It was a deliberate distraction from the point of the thread.

 

dixon76710
This message is hidden because dixon76710 is on your ignore list.

Both sides are making their point.

Gay people want equal treatment.

Religious people want to use their business to discriminate against what they believe is a sin, while they enjoy legal protection for their own beliefs. "My beliefs are better than yours!"

Anyone care to predict which side will ultimately prevail?

 

They could.

 

They were, and your side of the argument has lost most all of them, if not all of them.
So, it's your same ole same ole argument that is weak.
And you refuse to source, because you know they've been beaten.

And I did not participate in them all.
And most of my participation only stated what is law and how those business people broke the law.

 

Now that is opening up a whole different perspective of "equality" now isn't it.

 

Well if you have some need to claim victory on a forum then go for it.

But just to refresh you've moved from having a position, to being unable to explain why that position isn't applied equally, to saying examples of it not being applied equally don't exist because "source", to recognizing that they did happen (which you knew all along), to now saying they're somehow a "weak point" despite being literal example of exactly what is being discussed.

Odd...

Bottom line is I don't think the government should be able to command people to use their minds/talents/skills to produce thing the State approves of, essentially robbing them of their freedoms and civil rights.

You believe the State should have that power ...so long as they're being forced to create something you agree with.

And that's just the way it is so I guess we're done talking about it.

 

I guess my statement saying my position is always what the law says.
The law pertaining to how a business must operate, which a business owner agrees to when they apply and accept the business license.
So my position has not changed.

If you have some point, present it.

 

What part of the constitution would they be violating?

 

It's sad, and maybe just plain pathetic, that someone who claims to be a Christian is so obsessed with sexual activity that every romantic relationship is entirely about sexual activity.

As for the lawsuit in Phoenix, I'm all for religious liberty. The state has no legitimate authority to interfere in the freedom of association. Not that you really care about state interference in what peaceful people do when it suits your agenda.

 

....the free exercise thereof.