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

Fascism on parade. The very thing the LGBT community accuses others of, they endorse.

 

You obviously don't know enough science or you wouldn't be making that statement.

#1 Race can be tested for. Archaeologists do it all the time.

#2 Religion is protected by the 1st amendment specifically.

These are very basic facts. Its a shame you aren't aware of them.

 

Yeah because that sounds much worse than "Boo hoo, I can't discriminate against people even though I feel like I deserve special rights to be able to do so boo hooooo"

 

Those who want to insist homosexuality is a chosen "lifestyle" should probably start defending the idea they are supporting that a religious lifestyle is deserving of legal protections, a lifestyle that is absolutely unequivocally something you choose for yourself.

Yes, religion is protected by the 1st amendment. But why should it be? It's just a lifestyle choice. And if lifestyle choices aren't deserving of protections, according to those using this argument against equality, why should this part of the 1st amendment even exist?

 

I have to take issue with this statement.

While you can certainly test to see the origins of someone, meaning what area their DNA comes from, I am not aware of there being any tests for race that archeologists may use, nor anyone else.


Can you please link me to it?


http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...n-you-tell-your-ethnic-identity-from-your-dna


The answer as to whether a DNA test can tell you your ethnic identity? Yes — and no.

We know that, when it comes to DNA, geography matters. Although in principle anyone can mate with anyone else, in practice we tend to mate with people nearby. If we could assemble all the DNA of everyone everywhere, we would expect to find that people living near each other were more likely to be gentically similar than people living farther apart.

In principle, then, it ought to be possible to compare the DNA of an arbitrarily selected individual with DNA from around the world to make a judgment of that individual's genetic origins. Direct-to-consumer ancestry companies offer just this kind of "admixture" test, and it is not uncommon for consumers to be told that they have a certain percentage of African, or Asian, or Native American DNA, for example.

(See this paper for an excellent guide to these issues.)

But there are problems with tests of this kind. First, there is no complete database of the world's DNA. Data have been collected for different purposes, and different companies have access to different data bases. This is why different companies may give you different results.

Second, even if, in the ideal case, we find meaningful clusters of similarity in the space of genetic variation, there is no reason to think that these will map onto ethnicity or other categories in terms of which we understand our own identity. Identity, after all, varies non-continuously. French and German villages may be separated by the smallest of geographic distances. Genetic variation, on the contrary, so far as we now know, varies continuously. DNA is just not going to carve up groups at their culturally significant "ethnic" joints. (See also here.)

According to one study, "customers who were shown by the tests to have less than 28 percent of African ancestry self-describe as European American." Does this mean that their self-indentifications are incorrect? They are really black?

There's is no doubt that we can make — and, indeed, as scientists interested in our human origins must make — generalizations about the genetic makeup of populations across the globe and over time.

The question is, can it ever be more than fantasy to try to draw meaningful conclusions about an individual's origins on the basis of the sort of DNA information that is available to us now?

The answer, I think, is a qualified negative.

Consider: Even if you are a descendant of Shakespeare, there is only a negligible chance of your having any of his DNA. This is because autosomal DNA gets passed on randomly. Shakespeare's kid probably had 50 percent of his DNA; his kid in turn, on average, a quarter, and so on. Within 10 generations, Shakespeare's DNA has spread out and recombined so many times that it doesn't even really make sense to speak of a match. Putting the same point the other way, each of us has so many ancestors that we have no choice but to share them with each other. Moreover, we don't share any DNA with the vast majority of them. True, you will share Y-chromosome DNA or mtDNA with very distant ancestors, but these make up a vanishingly small percentage of your total ancestry.

 

What is most amazing, to me, about this story is no one has asked these calligraphers to make same sex wedding invitations.

The outrage, the plaintive bleating of cult belief persecution in this matter is totally and completely fabricated. this tow "Christians" are not being asked to make invitations that woudl go against their Jesus based bigotry homosexuals.

 

The government has no right to force someone to do something. I am in support of the LGBT community and I feel as though business owners should be allowed to deny service. That being said those with brains have the right to say that since they do not serve Homosexuals,that we will not do business with them.

 

Here is what was stated in the OP as quoted from Fox News From Post #1

Two Arizona-based Christian artists face fines and the possibility of being jailed after they refused to make invitations for same-sex weddings...
​

Here are the facts From Post #2

Even though they haven’t yet been asked by such a couple, they’re partnering with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to file a legal complaint in Arizona state​

Note that Post number 1 states:
after they refused

The implication is that this is something that has already happened. Clearly this is not something that has already happened.

This is an excellent example of the way Fox panders to it's audience by intentionally distorting information.

This is an excellent example of the way the author of the OP intentionally posts bogus information to begin yet another anti-gay rant.

 

Anti gay rant? It's more like pro Constitution. Feel free to spin it how you wish so it can serve your agenda

 

Again. The OP doesn't match your argument.
What makes one gay has nothing to do with whether christians could be jailed. Which this is nothing more than flat out fabrication also.

This is just another false flag, troll type thread, typical of those adulterer type people who don't like gay people.

 

So, give us one example.
What is the state, AZ in this case, a republican state, dictating people do in their own lives?
NOTE: A business isn't a person running their own life. A business is that, and is subject to the business laws of the state. Which is agreed on by the owners when they apply for the business license.

We'll all wait, forever, for your answer.

 

This thread qualifies as one example.

With the law an artist could be in jail for not creating material the State tells them they have to create.

 

it has nothing to do with the constitution. it is about legal discrimination.

 

The government does have a right to force people to do things, certainly to force us not to do things (within the scope of legal legislation of course). That’s why we can’t drive on the highway at 150mph and have to pay our taxes. Not discriminating on specified grounds in business is just another example (and an established one at that).

 

Easily.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...h-ancestry-confirmed-european-by-mtdna-tests/

So despite your doubts and personal feelings, yes it can be done and is done. So now what.

 

In my mind the owner of a private business should be able to pick and choose their clientele however they see fit, even if it is stupid to turn down business.

Want a business that only serves straight people? OK
Only gay? OK
Only white? OK
Only black? OK
Smokers? Sure
Non Smokers? Be my guest
Italians?
Jews?
Guys named Bob? Why not?

It should not be a matter of religion. That somehow elevates religious beliefs over and above other deeply held convictions and is in and of itself discriminatory. The simple fact is we have Freedom of Association here and that implies the Freedom to NOT associate. No one should have to supply a reason for that..

 

So far it appears the article is a lie.
The OP didn't make the case. Instead started a rant about what a gay is or is not.

So how about a real case.
And this would be a case of a business discriminating, not individuals.

 

There is no "Christian" taboo concerning the making of wedding invitations, whether for fellow Christians who are gay or for others.

There are laws that prohibit businesses that serve the public discriminating against members of the public based upon arbitrary factors such as race, gender, etc., whatever the excuses made for trying to do so.

Someone might not consider doing business with certain members of the public to be "PC" from their perspective, but there is no religious stricture that prohibits it.

 

No one has to.
But one does have to comply with the license they apply for if they want to operate a for profit business. If one can't follow the rules of the license, don't apply and don't go into business.

 

The law is real and the law is what I was talking about all along.

 

So they violated the law. What specifically did they violate?
I see a whole lot of dancing coming from you.
I don't see a law that says a christian will go to jail for not drawing some sketch.

 

Some more B.S.

People actually have the right to not serve them, there should be no violation of the law here. If this is something the business owner wants, that's their right not the governments. Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech!

This is how it should be with any business. If they lose sales because of it that's their choice.

 

The 'tolerant' left and their thought policing is getting more and more disgusting every day...

 

It's unconstitutional. An American has the right to be treated equally by a business purportedly serving the public, regardless of certain identity traits. If the business owner would prefer not to serve the public, he is not being forced to be in business.

After the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, there were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers". Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process".

In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...n-americadiv/1BB22A5B24483E272516E297C84E0580​