Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

some peoples posts sound that way, but feel free to set the record straight, easy to say you respect gay peoples rights to not be discriminated against and do not hate gays

 

Wow. What is amazing is that you never question the elasticity of these people's definition of 'participation' for rationality. They get to insert as wild and ridiculous a definition of 'participation' as they like, on a vague notion of a holy text ( remember that bible says nothing about same sex marriage or baking cakes or what control Christians should exert on wages of gay people) My money or my cake, is not going near a perfectly legal wedding, and government endorsed contract, if it is not my money or my cake. There in an intermedial ransaction based on contract law, that forcibly ends my ownership of that cake and that pay, so my cake or my money were not invited or involved, in that otherwise completely legal act.. Its not mine anymore. If I cannot claim control over that property, I cannot claim accountability for that property to justify some thinly clothed and arbitrary effort to control the consumer of the cake or the worker who got paid. The law is supposed to endorse whatever definition they want to their own notion of 'participate' created and fed by their own minds, to justify their refusal of service, termination of employment or eviction of gay people, however indirect or circuitous, because they feel 'compromised'.

What makes this more irrational, is that you will not entertain as a justification for discrimination, a more consequential and ongoing fiscal and thus participatory relationship between the Christian and the actual act the Bible declares an abomination. Gays get to freely commit abominations, in an apartment that is not theirs, and use money they got from an employer to pay and facilitate that specific sex act, despite any contrary claim of 'participation' in the actual abomination, without risk of discrimination, but the wedding never discussed or mentioned in the Bible, is a 'bridge too far'?

You buy all this nonsense without much question, because the potential discriminators, tell you that is how their mind leaps, what 'participate' entails or does not, and how their clerics chose to interpret Leviticus. The direct and ongoing acts has government protection for its ahderants , but the indirect one-timer wedding , a step removed and never literally opposed in the scriptures , gets to set up a 'conscientious defender' defense. They have no connection with that legal and government sanctioned marriage outside their own imagination. Their property has no connection with that legal and government sanctioned marriage outside their imagination.

 

Would you say that Arizona has the same control over Phoenix as any other state has over a city? Or can it vary state to state?

 

Is a wedding caterer participating? What about the celebrant? Is ANYONE participating?

Have you ever actually heard anyone saying that it is STILL theirs?

Have you ever actually known of someone who claims control over it? And how are they trying to "control the consumer?"

What special labor does the landlord have to do in order to provide the service of the room? What special labor does the employer have to do to give wages to the employee?

Have you ever actually heard anyone saying that they and their property have a connection with the same sex marriage?

But you think that they SHOULD care about a gay couple being "troubled" by being told that they cannot provide a wedding cake for the gay couple's wedding? Isn't that a gross double standard?

 

Alright, that's easy. I respect gay people's rights to not be discriminated against and do not hate gays and I condemn anyone who does. However, I do not consider a private service to be a right and neither does the United States Constitution.

 

THE LAW is saying that they have to! Why do you think these wedding services cases exist?

What is "art" then in your eyes?

What exception?

Absolutely not. This is a government service.

 

Are you a Christian?

Certainly a verse that can confuse people and lead them astray! To believe that Jesus is saying that by following these 6 commandments he will enter heaven, is not taking all of scripture into account. First of all, why would he give a summarised version of the commandments as opposed to just simply saying "the commandments?" Second of all, the commandments are impossible to follow perfectly. In verse 21, Jesus says, "if you want to be perfect..." Perfection is impossible and Jesus has never said that it IS possible! He appears to be playing mind games with the man, serving as some sort of test. Not to mention all of the scripture which describes FAITH ALONE, NOT WORKS!

They do not accept that they are discriminating against them on the basis of sexual orientation! For the millionth time, they serve gay people all the time!

 

wedding cakes are not art if they are on display and in a business open to the public.. that is food service

if they want to be a private member only business, then they can discriminate, but they need to add that info to all ads that they discriminate

 

we know what God says about the rich... yet republican only seem to support the rich, they could care less about the poor, why is that?

 

I agree, as I have said many times, if they want to discriminate there is legal ways, such as becoming a private club via members only and advertising that they do not serve gays on all ads

they do not want to do that though as they know most Americans would not do business with a business like that if they knew that before going there

now towns may district them in the slummy parts of town with the porn shops and stuff as they want to keep the non-discriminatory businesses in the main part of town as they are open to everyone

 

Any evidence to support that I hate gays?

 

What does this have to do with these wedding services cases?

Does this actually happen?

 

How so?

 

You think that wedding cakes are purchased off the shelf, not custom made? Surely you can't be serious!

 

Reread my sentence and put back the original pronoun before the verb phrase 'should care'. I have no interest in them 'caring' and never claimed such an interest.

 

DentalFloss said: ↑
What if? In most places, discrimination based on sexual orientation is a crime. I suspect it will be all places (at least in the US) fairly quickly. You're allowed to hate gays, which you clearly do, but you're not allowed to fire them because of it. Or, in many/most places refuse to provide a product/service you offer to the general public. Sorry. Not sorry.

Case of not being able to address the other poster's post Did you miss everything else they posted ? Why?

 

Yes, but in order to claim the protection of the EPC, you have to be claiming it based on something, whether that something is religion or some other qualification the court has previously recognized. Saying you can discriminate simply because you're an American won't fly.

Yes, but no guarantee it would win. It was hammered into us in law school that just because someone won't win their case doesn't mean they can't sue. Consider the cases where someone sued McDonald's for making him fat and someone sued a bar for serving him drinks after he got into a drunk driving accident. Both thrown out, but they still sued and cost the defendants money and time.

Close cases can go either way. A court could decide that the EPC doesn't apply to the Neo-Nazi's hate, that his anti-Semitism is simply irrational and hold that as a taxi driver, his job is simply to provide a service, not make judgements about his passengers. Same for the Muslim. We have laws protecting the users of public services from discrimination based on religion, race, sex, and national origin, and since the law applies uniformly, the court could well rule that it may burden a Muslim taxi driver to ferry a Jewish passenger, but it does not constitute an undue burden on his religion under the 1st Amendment, so the Muslim loses.

 

Mischaracterization of reality, claim made without substantiating evidence, leftist straw man. It is the leftist belief that only supporting government programs means you "care" about the poor, but the evidence is overwhelming that Republicans actually give more of their own money to charity than Democrats do. Opposition to government programs does not mean that you don't care about the poor. And in my view, voting for other people to give money to the poor means you care less about the poor than Republicans do.

 

if they are in a catalog, they are as custom mad as any other food stuff

but like I said, open a private club to members only and on all adds describe how you discriminate, and your fine, it's legal then - try to hide the discrimination and pretend to be a business open to the public and that is not ok

 

you compared baking a cake to a "private service", I was saying if they want to be a private members only club, then they can discriminate... they just can't pretend to be a business open to the public at large if they discriminate

 

so now your saying a big mac is art, so ok not to serve based on gender or race? do we really want to live in a world like that, where people go to a store and some say your kind is not served here?

these business are in court cause they were masquerading as businesses open to the general public, they should of been private clubs that advertised their discrimination

all they have to do to legally discriminate is become private clubs open to members only and not hide there descriminitive ways

 

1) what is your definition of a Christian ?

2) you asked for scripture .. and I gave it to you. Jesus does not state that perfection is required to get through the pearly gates... do not blame Jesus for your lack of reading comprehension.

"Sola Fide" Salvation by faith alone. This protestant doctrine is not accepted by the majority of Christianity - Orthodox and Catholic.

The scripture you are referring to is the writings of Paul. Paul never met Jesus, does not relate any of the life of Jesus or the direct teachings of Jesus in his epistles and he was not part of the Church of Jerusalem (founded by the disciples and led by James).

James calls salvation by faith alone the doctrine of fools (James 2).

Pauline scripture contradicts Jesus .. not just in the passage given but the entire sermon on the mount ... an entire sermon on how one gets into heaven. That sermon does not once mention "faith in Jesus" as a requirement. It is works , works and more works.

Jesus in fact derides the "faith alone" crowd in the sermon on the mount. Matt 5-7

Matt 7

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Jesus is not talking in riddles - it is by their works/actions "fruit"

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So much for "faith alone" "Only the one who does the will of My Father" which is what was described previously in the Sermon - works works works.

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

And if there was any doubt - for the slow ones in the crowd - Jesus clarifies further. It is those who put the words of Jesus into practice (works) that have a solid foundation.

The Jesus of Matt/Mark is all about works.

You - like most Christians - do not understand what the teachings of Jesus are. Instead you rely on man made dogma/doctrine.

I am a follower of the teachings of Christ ... you on the other hand can not say the same.

 

I'm typically in agreement with this sentiment, but if this is happening as reported in the OP, it is a clear violation of their First Amendment rights. Businesses can be required to provide basic services and sell to homosexuals, but it is a violation of their rights to free speech to force them to provide SPEECH for causes they do not believe in, against their will. Hence why bakers have to sell a cake, but they can't be forced to write pro-gay marriage messages on the cake, so far as I know.

However, that's if it is actually happening as reported, which I'm skeptical about.

 

No, not pro-gay marriage messages on the cake. At least not in the cases that I'm aware of. However, this doesn't mean that artistic expression is not involved in the making of the cake. In the case of Jack Philips, he says that he makes a custom designed cake for each and every couple. If he was to use his artistic expression to custom design a cake for a gay wedding, he would be expressing something that he disagrees with. Hence why he is unable to do it. He said that they were welcome to any product in the shop that is normally sold. So obviously he doesn't have a problem with serving gay people therefore it cannot be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.