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

I agree they should be able to - state laws prevent them from doing so. That's why I have issue with just gay people being singled out

I agree

The people that try to dictate the lives of others with their version of religion. Does not apply to most Christians or even many people that are against same sex marriage.

 

It's federal laws that dictate it, state laws must be in compliance.

Or their own morals? Wouldn't the persons in this case be the gay couple trying to force their beliefs and morals on someone else?

 

The constitution and public accommodation law are pretty darn clear about the requirement for equality.

If you think that needs to be strengthened, I'd listen to what you have to add.

 

I love how progressives are crying how "authoritarian" Trump allegedly is (he isn't), yet progressives FORCE people to bake them cakes and make wedding invitations.

This is just another example of progressives projecting.....

Oh yeah, with these progressives tho it's: "do as I say, not as I do"...

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing Nazi's...

 

The public accommodation law being a bastardization of interstate commerce which the federal government used to claim authority and the basis for many of the state anti-discrimination laws forced on business merely doing business with the public.

 

That's not actually a sentence, so I'm not sure how to respond here.

But, it sounds like you don't agree with the law - which is your right.

Mostly, I'm just pointing out that equality IS what the legal direction is. The only real question is whether the law is successful in requiring that equality, or whether the forces of discrimination have an opening.

 

Many on the right feel states should be able to have the final say, except on equal accommodation laws because they are disagreeing with the outcomes. So marriage should be a state right - is Ben though it's backed by the federal government but equal accommodation should be a federal right even though states must enforce it... The hypocrisy is palpable.

I don't think they are forcing morals on them, forcing them to serve equally doesn't really have anything to do with morals - although as it is their business, that they built, they should be able to deny service as they see fit. They are not forced to be a public business, no forced to serve specific goods, not forced to open the type of business they opened. Baking a cake is not a religious industry - nor is fixing cars, taking photographs, or printing words on a piece of paper. Forcing morals would be kicking them out of the military, denying them the right to sign civil documents, asauiting them in the streets, and pushing therapy to "cure" them.

That's why they will never win this argument, no court is going to accept a group receiving special accommodation and protection crying that another group is being treated the same way.

 

Yes....that's what I thought.

 

Just as progressives forced restaurants to serve black people.

Just as the Nazis prohibited equal access for Jews.

 

Sure it is when you are asking someone to forego their moral beliefs and use their artistic talents to create something in support of something to which they are morally opposed. This isn't selling someone a can of beans or even a blank cake they can take home and do with as they please. The gay couple is forcing the artisan to forego those believes and accept theirs so who is imposing on whom?

 

I am morally opposed to serving people that would refuse service to me, I am denied the ability to do so. I think anyone should be able to deny anyone for any reason - but that's not what is occouring here. As long as I have to serve people I find morally questionable - then I will stand behind any force necessary for them to serve me.

You either want equality or you don't - this "we get special rights and you get to beg for basic freedoms" (*)(*)(*)(*) isn't going to fly any longer.

 

What service is the customer giving the baker?

 

Hmmm seems its OK to deny service if you are a leftist, even base on race and gender

Washington Airbnb Hosts Pull Listings to Avoid Renting to Donald Trump’s Supporters

Airbnb may have recently overhauled its listing policies to discourage racial discrimination among its hosts, but that doesn’t mean it has managed to cleanse its property-rental app of all internalized biases—particularly against Trump supporters.

Donald Trump’s inauguration in January has his legions of fans from across the country snapping up houses and apartments on Airbnb with abandon, especially as Democrats, who booked their short-term leases months ago in anticipation of a Hillary Clinton inaugural, are canceling.

But even though cancelation rates are hovering around 70%, some DC homeowners say they feel “conflicted” about renting to Trump’s supporters and are taking down their Airbnb listings to avoid having to share their homes and properties with the residents of flyover country.

“I have a visceral reaction to the thought of having a Trump supporter in my house,” said one host, who was planning on renting one of three of her bedrooms to an inauguration guest. “No amount of money could make me change my mind. It’s about moral principles.”

Another host, identifying herself as “Meredith,” told the Huffington Post that she was concerned about what Trump supporters would do to her condo, particularly to the “priceless” works of art she’d collected on her international travels. “We don’t trust Trump supporters to stay in our place,” Meredith said—though she did note that she didn’t mind overcharging (or “gouging”) Trump-loving guests as punishment for their support, if the opportunity presented itself.

Yet another, Ellie, said she was “feeling afraid” of “the white men” who might want to rent a bedroom in her home. She noted that she needed the money, however, and would just have to “look past our differences and happily welcome them.”

Ellie may have the right idea: the average nightly rate for an Airbnb in downtown Washington, D.C., hovers around $150. For the inauguration, some apartments and condos within walking distance of the inauguration festivities are booking for between $600 and $800 per night.

http://heatst.com/politics/washingt...to-avoid-renting-to-donald-trumps-supporters/

 

A gay baker cannot refuse service to a patron claiming religious affiliation.
But a baker claiming religious affiliation can refuse service to a gay patron.

Unequal treatment has been struck down every time it has gone through the courts.

 

You said

What service was the gay couple providing the baker?

How about. Muslim song writer being ask by a Synagogue to write a song for their Friday night service celebrating the Jewish faith? Should he be forced to do so?

What about the gay artist being asked by the Christian group to create signs and paintings promoting their opposition to same sex marriage?

What about your right to swing you fist ends at my face, its the gay couple swing the fist and the bakers nose.

 

Let me spell it out for you:
I am morally opposed to serving people in my business that would refuse service to me in theirs, I am denied the ability to deny service to those people.

I do not believe anyone should be forced to serve another person, it is indentured servitude. Under the current law on religious public accommodation, which is already subject to judicial interpretation, they very well could be forced to do so.

I do not believe anyone should be forced to serve another person, it is indentured servitude. Under the current law on religious public accommodation, which is already subject to judicial interpretation, they very well could be forced to do so.

Strange analogy seeing as how religious people were instrumental in causing homosexuals to be classified as mentally ill, subject to arrest, denied the ability to sign civil contracts and preform military service. Now they are upset because they have to take a picture or bake a cake in their chosen career that they offer to the general public (including people on their 2nd+ marriage, adulatory) and it is the ultimate injustice. Pathetic

I do agree that ones rights end when they impact another though, even the new narrative of "religious freedom" to do whatever the hell we want.

 

So what does that have to do with anything? What service are you talking about that the gay couple was offering or not?

No it wouldn't be. There is no indenturing here.

So you are the judge of morality now? And I would have no problem if a Christian baker refused to bake a cake for someone to take to someone to celebrate the affair with whom they are cheating on their spouse which somehow they knew that to be the case.

And in this case the gay couple is swinging the first at the Christians nose to get THEM to violate THEIR morals and THEIR religious freedom.

 

I don't know if you are just playing stupid of if you are another glorious failure of our public education system.

Involuntary servitude

No, I'll leave that to the christofacists.

If your "religion" does not believe in food sanitation should the business be exempt from sanction law? What about building safety, should there be an exemption there? As long as persons claiming religious affiliation are provided pubic accommodation or special consideration there will be a push to apply that metric to all people (aka equality which you people dispise). Just because you are religious does not mean you are not subject to the laws of man, if you want to open a church feel free. A bakery is not a church and is thus subject to all laws and regulations of their business license issued by the state.

 

Go outside and play in your sandbox and maybe someday you will learn the difference between morals and public health issues.

 

Like I said, your side has zero arguments so you must deflect - it's why your agenda keeps losing across the country. Morals are a personal issue - laws are not.

 

I've given you the arguments to which you refuse to respond. Now back to your sandbox, I have no interest in just trading insults. And BTW LOTS of our laws are based on morals, but I won't say anything about your education.

 

Yes indeedy!
Laws that prohibit(ed) the selling of condoms. These laws were based on good old Christian morals.
Laws that prohibit(ed) the selling of alcohol. These laws were based on good old Christian morals.
Laws that prohibit(ed) mixed marriages. These laws were based on good old Christian morals.

Thankfully these laws were discarded and replaced with laws based on true morality, not the ancient Christian views of morals.

 

You were purposely dodging the question because you didn't want to respond, in turn acting like an imbecile.
I have responded to every argument you thrown up.
Laws that are based only on <insert whoever> morals and not founded in legal principal should be dissolved. Just because a sect of a branch of a mainstream religious group was able to infiltrate our legal system does not make those laws just. The opposite actually.

 

I believe there has been at least one case where identical twins have different sexual orientations. They have identical genes, so any difference in sexual orientation is caused by environmental factor/s.

 

You "believe"? Based on what? Do you have a credible source for your "belief"? Were the twins raised in the same household or were they raised in different households?


In any case, the first environment that any embryo is subjected to is nine months in the womb. That environment is not necessarily identical for both twins.