Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

LOL. I think that we can leave it there Joe. Good discussion! UNTIL NEXT TIME!

 

I have this argument with people who try to force their 'progressive' gay values on my faith. They believe I am wrong and that I should bow down to their every requirement.

They don't like it when I point out their hypocrisy, they are doing to me what they are trying to accuse me of doing. Except I don't force my beliefs on them, I love and accept them, I just don't agree with it. They resent Christianity and want us Christians to accept their beliefs but have a serious hissy fit when it's pointed out that they the ones forcing their beliefs on others.

No Christian should be forced to marry or accept homosexuality. The same as no gay should be forced to accept Christianity.

 

You should ask these people if they would participate in an anti-gay hate group meeting.

 

I do not consider to to be discrimination for a business to refuse service, unless that refusal would prevent the customer from having access to that service, such as if the business had a monopoly on the service in that area.

 

I guess you were just joking. I took you as 100% serious! Silly me.

 

And another victory for the 1st Amendment and I say that as a atheist. Seems the case has been resolved

Arizona artists win suit over same-sex wedding invitations

The free speech rights of two Christian artists who make wedding invitations were violated by an anti-discrimination ordinance in Phoenix that makes it illegal to refuse service to same-sex couples for religious reasons, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 4-3 decision reversed lower-court rulings favoring the city.

The state Supreme Court said its ruling is limited to only the creation of custom wedding invitations by Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski and isn't a blanket exemption from the ordinance for all their business operations.

The artists, who believe a marriage should be between only a man and woman, had argued that the ordinance would violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to custom-make products for same-sex marriage ceremonies.

The high court said the city can't force them to make same-sex wedding invitations.

"Duka and Koski's beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some," the court majority wrote. "But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone."
https://news.yahoo.com/artists-prevail-lawsuit-over-same-220443738.html

 

That should not be a limiting factor on our constitutional rights.

 

We have at least TWO sexual perverts on the SC.

I don't see this as a surprising outcome when we choose to accept the kind of behavior we see in our president and in those justices.

 

Im confused.

Your link concludes:
"Thankfully, on September 16, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the city of Phoenix cannot use a criminal law to force Joanna and Breanna to design and create custom wedding invitations expressing messages that conflict with their core beliefs. Such coercion, the court held, would violate the fundamental principle that “an individual has autonomy over his or her speech and thus may not be forced to speak a message he or she does not wish to say.”

Looks to me like the State of AZ pretty successfully knocked the City of Phoenix back into line.

What exactly is the problem?

 

The problem I have with that is that it is NOT the invitation printer's speech.

The only people "speaking" are the two who are getting married.

When you send someone a card, the words therein are a message from the person or persons sending the card.

If you received a Christmas card, would you call up Hallmark and ask them if they really, really meant it?

The very idea that it is the speech of the printer is preposterous.

 

Should I be able to call up Hallmark and demand they print me a 'happy first assault rifle day!' card when my kids are old enough to get one? It would have a picture of a cute dog nuzzling an AR-15 with smoke coming out the barrel. If they refuse, are they discriminating against me?

 

Your argument has been dismissed by the court.

Can the local chapter of the KKK force a local black song writer/jingle writer to write a song for the next rally promoting white supremacy?

 

if one wants to discriminate they need to become a private members only club and publish their rules to the public and be restricted to zoning that allows such

that was people that one discriminates against and those that do not like companies that discriminate know to avoid them

we had a company refuse inter-racial couples - it's getting ridiculous

I say if you can't do a business without discriminating, pick another business to go into

 

There are two perverts on the Arizona Supreme Court? Which ones?

 

How many times do the courts have to say different for you to accept THE LAW?

OK in which ones can you then?

And I will ask you

Can the local chapter of the KKK force a local black song writer/jingle writer to write a song for the next rally promoting white supremacy?

 

Constitutional Provision trumps any and all Federal Laws beneath the provision in this case the 1st Amendments Religious Protection they can and should be allowed to discriminate however the community is free to respond within the law boycotting, picketing and alienating them for anti-community practices. The government passing an antidiscrimination law involving violations of religious belief is unconstitutional.

 

Are they selling it to everyone else but you?

 

A central issue here is whether it is a public accommodation. We have laws about how people may be treated when they enter a public accommodation.

I STRONGLY doubt that a song write would EVER have a storefront where one of the standard products is a song writing service.

I've hired talent for stuff like this, plus graphic design, etc., etc. Your scenario just doesn't happen.

However, if there WERE such a storefront, I would say they do have to honor their promise of song writing.

I will point out that the SC has ruled that there are limits concerning what the song writer would be required to put into the song.

 

I was speaking of the USSC.

And, that is where this case might end up, as it does involve a federal law.

 

Who are they? Also, this was the Arizona STATE Supreme Court.

 

There IS no problem. There WAS a problem, until it was resolved yesterday. Why are you confused?

 

It's not about whether or not it is the speech of the printer, it's about whether or not it impedes on their religious freedom. Perhaps you completely missed what the court majority wrote: "the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone."

 

I don't accept the ridiculous notion that denying equal treatment of America citizens who are abiding by the law is a "solution".

 

The Arizona Supreme Court obviously disagrees with you.

 

Whoever said that does not know what they are talking about.

It goes so far as to suggest that public accommodations may deny service on the grounds of religious differences.


Arizona is a crackpot state on this subject. A couple years back they passed a bill through congress that said that pretty much any law could be broken if the lawbreaker felt it impeded his/her religious practice. That would have covered all land use, for example. It would mean your neighbor could hold naked pig roasts, burn animal sacrifices, broadcast loud calls to prayer early in the morning, or whatever else. It would have been an open way around building placement, etc.

The idea that since you have a religion that supports hate, you can ignore public accommodation law? Good lord! What kind of crap religion is that in the first place?