Freedom of Religion? Christian Artists Face Jail Time For Not Making Same-Sex Wedding Invitations

[TheDude]

Like I said earlier, as a business you can work around the idiocy. As a baker you can offer decor for man+woman only. If the couple doesn't like it, they can take their business elsewhere or place their own decor on the cake.

For invitations, the verbiage can be a template for men and women only. For example, "Please join us for marriage between Bride [insert name] and Groom [insert name].".........."As a policy we can only change the names". It's not discrimination, because it's the businesses template and they're "happy" to sell their product to a gay couple. Therefore:

"Please join us for marriage between Bride Rolando on bottom and Groom Bubba on top."..................................................Bubba is very manly but he prefers boys, while Rolando plays the female role.

Another option is to simply provide them a bad product. Sure word gets around, but for a conservative, they'll hear the product was intended for gay marriage. The result may be increased sales. Look at chick fil a for example. Their business improved post attack by the thought police/revise definitions to suit us.

 

[Nosmo King]

So the tenets of their faith are suspicion, fear, hatred and untolerance. And they are Christians ya say? What dogmatic, weird and anti-Christian principles type of church is that?

Face it. These people are using Christianity as a baseball bat to enforce their hatred. What a perversion of what people here in Sane World understand as a beautiful, loving, forgiving and inclusive faith.

No, the tenets of their faith is that they disapprove of homosexuality and would prefer not to be a part of a ceremony that celebrates a union involving homosexuality.

Hate the sin, not the sinner doesn't mean you have to condone the sinner.

When they bake a cake or print an invitation or take a photograph, are they also supposed to participate in the wedding ceremony? Do they officiate the ceremony, give the bride away, STEP on a small glass goblet, take vows? Are they supposed to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper to the reception? Is there a baker/bride dance, do they propose a special weddI got vendor toast?

Nope! They are not part of the ceremony. They are just masquerading as Christians so they can foment hatred.

And is their immortal soul imperiled? Why don't these faux Christians adhere to all of God's commandments? Are they nearly as righteous and pious as they can possibly be? Which Christians are? The Amish? Pentecostals? Snake handliers? Coptics?

Nope! These folks are merely good old fashioned homophobes under the guise of Christianity.

They are providing a good or service for something celebrating a concept they find morally wrong.

And all of the rest of your statement is meaningless, because it isn't your place to judge, and it's definitely not government's place to judge.

As long as their businesses are licensed, they are subject to all the commerce laws. That makes it the government's determination.

Do these vendors morally vet all their clients? What if a Mafia Princess comes in their shop? The money the vendors receive in payment probably was made b immoral means. But, it's green, just like the money from their homosexual clients. Morality be damned, unless you're a bigot.

Arguing the how when the discussion is about the why is a dodge, and not a very good one.

And you don't get to apply a standard to a person's morals in this country, and government only does so when there is a compelling interest, and even then they have to apply the least stringent remedy.

and bigot is another word that has lost all meaning. All the major monotheistic religions find homosexuality to be sinful, so every person who thinks so is a bigot?

Presbyterians don't. Episcopalians don't. Unitarian universalists don't. Seems that there is some cherry picking going on to protect, well let's just call them bigots in spite of your perception of a diluted definition.

Just like the cherry picking that goes on when a Mafia Princess wants her wedding catered or a serial adulterer wants a cake for his next wedding. These vendors aren't worried about sin. They just hate homosexuals and want church cover for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh....the Church of Human Sacrifice is allowed to do human sacrifices? Churches are allowed to ignore fire codes?

Human sacrifice implies another separate crime.

And there is a great example of fire code being violated for religious purposes. go to any Hindu temple and they use open flames for many ceremonies, indoors. Flames of that size are usually limited to candles or fireplaces by fire code, yet they are not stopped from performing the rituals.

And I know this because my wife is Hindu, and we chose the Temple because we could do the fire part of the ceremony, which we couldn't have done in say a hotel's private rooms.

Do you think that Hindu temples are exempt from fire codes? Really?

Inspectors might decide to turn a blind eye to some violations, but churches, temples, etc are all subject to fire codes, safety codes, and building codes.

So why doesn't the FDNY fine them when they have a Hindu Ceremony? Plenty of fire at one of those.

Do you know that they are violating the fire code?

Every other place we asked to have the ceremony said no indoor fire. The Temple didn't even blink when we asked for the fire part.

You do realize that you just don't know the answer- and that your anecdotal experience just doesn't support what you want it to support- right?

 

[Syriusly]

The biggoted, ignorant Christian Bashers .

I haven't seen any in this thread.

I have seen several bigoted, ignorant Christians posting in this thread.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Point being there are many parallels between incest and homosexuality for protection under the Constitution etc.

Only to someone who is ignorant on the topic.

I can just as easily say that there are many parallels between heterosexual and homosexual marriages for protection under the law.

Oh wait- the court has already said that- but the court has not said that you have the right to commit incest.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you think incest and pedophilia should be legal in his world?

According to the arguments douche bags like you used to justify gay marriage, incest should be legal so long as both participants are over 18.

Douchebags like you sure do want to legalize incest over 18 years old.

No I don't, douche bag. I want marriage to be used for its intended purpose: raising healthy, well adjusted children.

So you want to tell my 80 year old uncle who married his 75 year old bride to fuck off- because their marriage is not its intended purpose.

Along with any other couple who never intend to raise children.

I'm not going to waste my time debunking that argument for the 1000th time. The bottom line,?

The bottom line is that you are whiny foul mouthed coward who can't figure out how to explain why you think marriage is for raising children but do not oppose my 80 year old uncle marrying his 75 year old bride.

 

[Jackson]

'Two Arizona Christian artists face the possibility of being jailed, in addition to being fined, after they recently refused to make invitations for a same-sex wedding.'

Ummmm...did we go to bed and suddenly wake up in Communist Russia, China, or North Korea?

Liberals have been pushing the GLBT Lifestyle on everyone as 'the norm', except it ISN'T to many Americans, especially those who have a religious objection to it. Those religious beliefs - and the practice of them - are actually PROTECTED by the Constitution:

"The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What do the Liberal / LGBT 'Nazi's' not understand about that?!

Liberals can argue all day long about how it's discrimination, but it's not. It is one's personal religious belief, part of their faith, and THAT, again, is protected by the Constitution.

So Liberals are going to demand everyone else comply with their demands, regardless of what the Constitution says, and if the individuals refuse they are going to judicially punish them?!

This is an example of WHY we have the Constitution, why we have the Bill of Rights - to protect us from tyranny that encroaches on our personal rights!

I am NOT comparing these, but let's say in the future somehow liberals ram a law onto the books allowing Pedophilia, Bestiality, or Necrophilia? If Christians refuse to participate in any part of those, even if it has been approved by the government, will the government move to punish Christians - to jail Christians - for exercising their Constitutional Right to exercise their religion?
(-- Pretty ironic since this nation only exists because of a people who left England so they could freely exercise their religion without Government oppression, condemnation, and control.)

I understand laws against discrimination - I do, and I do support them....but I draw the line here. The Constitution clearly states, again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The government, however, is encroaching more and more on our rights while justifying doing so more and more. Doing so, allowing it to be done, is the start down a very dangerous road (IMO).


TOPIC:
Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations

SUPPORTING:
Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

I don't see it as discrimination either. There is always another business open to the LGBT, so stop whining, people.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you think incest and pedophilia should be legal in his world?

According to the arguments douche bags like you used to justify gay marriage, incest should be legal so long as both participants are over 18.

Douchebags like you sure do want to legalize incest over 18 years old.

No I don't, douche bag. I want marriage to be used for its intended purpose: raising healthy, well adjusted children.

Douchebags like you want the government to decide who can raise 'healthy well adjusted children' - and only allow them to marry- douchebags like you love Big Brother interjecting themselves into a family.

So who will you have forbidden to marry?
Smokers?
Drinkers?
Muslims?
Jews?
Mexicans?
People in wheel chairs?
Democrats?

You're obviously a douche bag who wants to prevent certain people from marrying. You want to prevent a man from marrying his sister and you want to prevent a man from marrying more than one woman. All we're arguing about is who is on your list, not the principle of government deciding who can be married.

You're obviously a douche bag who wants Big Brother to make all Americans live the life that you have decided is appropriate.

I was just trying to get an idea of what couples on your list you think that the government should prevent from marrying

So who will you have forbidden to marry?
Smokers?
Drinkers?
Muslims?
Jews?
Mexicans?
People in wheel chairs?
Democrats

 

[Syriusly]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

So a Catholic Priest can be forced to marry a gay couple?

Churches take fees for marriages all the time.

Again, a public accommodation is not "every time money changes hands"

The enter into commercial contract, they are subject to the laws of the state.

If you cannot get a court to agree with you- they certainly are.

Laws that violate constitutional protections are not valid.

If you cannot get a court to agree with you- they certainly are.

 

[Syriusly]

'Two Arizona Christian artists face the possibility of being jailed, in addition to being fined, after they recently refused to make invitations for a same-sex wedding.'

Ummmm...did we go to bed and suddenly wake up in Communist Russia, China, or North Korea?

Liberals have been pushing the GLBT Lifestyle on everyone as 'the norm', except it ISN'T to many Americans, especially those who have a religious objection to it. Those religious beliefs - and the practice of them - are actually PROTECTED by the Constitution:

"The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What do the Liberal / LGBT 'Nazi's' not understand about that?!

Liberals can argue all day long about how it's discrimination, but it's not. It is one's personal religious belief, part of their faith, and THAT, again, is protected by the Constitution.

So Liberals are going to demand everyone else comply with their demands, regardless of what the Constitution says, and if the individuals refuse they are going to judicially punish them?!

This is an example of WHY we have the Constitution, why we have the Bill of Rights - to protect us from tyranny that encroaches on our personal rights!

I am NOT comparing these, but let's say in the future somehow liberals ram a law onto the books allowing Pedophilia, Bestiality, or Necrophilia? If Christians refuse to participate in any part of those, even if it has been approved by the government, will the government move to punish Christians - to jail Christians - for exercising their Constitutional Right to exercise their religion?
(-- Pretty ironic since this nation only exists because of a people who left England so they could freely exercise their religion without Government oppression, condemnation, and control.)

I understand laws against discrimination - I do, and I do support them....but I draw the line here. The Constitution clearly states, again:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The government, however, is encroaching more and more on our rights while justifying doing so more and more. Doing so, allowing it to be done, is the start down a very dangerous road (IMO).


TOPIC:
Christian artists face jail time for refusing to make same-sex wedding invitations

SUPPORTING:
Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia

I don't see it as discrimination either. There is always another business open to the LGBT, so stop whining, people.

The only ones whining are the people who want to be able to discriminate against gays.

Remember- not a single gay person is involved in the OP. This is the case of a business suing the city of Phoenix claiming that as Christians they should not have to follow the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Selling a commercial product for money is not a religious rite, period.

Therefore, this issue has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. No one's exercising of their religion is being interfered with.

Again, the 1st amendment protects free exercise, not just rites, or churches, or clergy

Get the fucking stuffing out of your brain.

Then tell us why Warren Jeffs is in prison.

because its still illegal to propagate sex between a minor and an adult.

So you finally acknowledge that religion cannot be used as a free ticket to break the law.

I never said it was a free ticket, my entire position is that is has to be considered when determining if someone has the right to refuse providing a certain good or service.

The current standard, of "fuck religious people, bake the cake, peasant" is wrong and unconstitutional.

And what about 'fuck religious people, serve the black and white couple"?

 

[Syriusly]

You're not giving up rights. You don't have the right to break the law just because you claim to be under orders from an invisible supernatural being.

If the law is contrary to the concept of free exercise, it shouldn't be there in the first place.

A business is NOT the exercise of a religion. A prayer is. A Sunday sermon is.

Allowing free exercise to the extreme you desire would let Warren Jeffs off the hook for most of his convictions.

I think that an ordained minister could refuse to perform a marriage that is outside their faith. There is no obligation because the decision is not based on race, or sex.

Same sex marriage is now constitutionally protected.

No, it is protected at the whim of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, just like Roe is.

LOL- let me quote you:

Laws that violate constitutional protections are not valid.

Funny how you apply that standard in a rather hypocritical fashion.

The Supreme Court has said that the laws against gay marriage violated constitutional protections- and are not valid.

But when its convenient- you then say it is just a whim of the court.

 

[TheDude]

[
Point being there are many parallels between incest and homosexuality for protection under the Constitution etc.

Only to someone who is ignorant on the topic.

I can just as easily say that there are many parallels between heterosexual and homosexual marriages for protection under the law.

Oh wait- the court has already said that- but the court has not said that you have the right to commit incest.

Ignorant on the topic huh? Cool words. Care to put your opinion to the test? Personally, I'm a results guy. Cite an argument in support of gay marriage. Cite a bunch, I don't care. We'll see who is ignorant.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Point being there are many parallels between incest and homosexuality for protection under the Constitution etc.

Only to someone who is ignorant on the topic.

I can just as easily say that there are many parallels between heterosexual and homosexual marriages for protection under the law.

Oh wait- the court has already said that- but the court has not said that you have the right to commit incest.

Ignorant on the topic huh? Cool words. Care to put your opinion to the test? Personally, I'm a results guy. Cite an argument in support of gay marriage. Cite a bunch, I don't care. We'll see who is ignorant.

Oh sure:

Americans have a right to marriage. States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support.

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom of religion isn't just about going to church, or being able to go to church.

So the tenets of their faith are suspicion, fear, hatred and untolerance. And they are Christians ya say? What dogmatic, weird and anti-Christian principles type of church is that?

Face it. These people are using Christianity as a baseball bat to enforce their hatred. What a perversion of what people here in Sane World understand as a beautiful, loving, forgiving and inclusive faith.

No, the tenets of their faith is that they disapprove of homosexuality and would prefer not to be a part of a ceremony that celebrates a union involving homosexuality.

Hate the sin, not the sinner doesn't mean you have to condone the sinner.

When they bake a cake or print an invitation or take a photograph, are they also supposed to participate in the wedding ceremony? Do they officiate the ceremony, give the bride away, STEP on a small glass goblet, take vows? Are they supposed to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper to the reception? Is there a baker/bride dance, do they propose a special weddI got vendor toast?

Nope! They are not part of the ceremony. They are just masquerading as Christians so they can foment hatred.

And is their immortal soul imperiled? Why don't these faux Christians adhere to all of God's commandments? Are they nearly as righteous and pious as they can possibly be? Which Christians are? The Amish? Pentecostals? Snake handliers? Coptics?

Nope! These folks are merely good old fashioned homophobes under the guise of Christianity.

They are providing a good or service for something celebrating a concept they find morally wrong.

And all of the rest of your statement is meaningless, because it isn't your place to judge, and it's definitely not government's place to judge.

As long as their businesses are licensed, they are subject to all the commerce laws. That makes it the government's determination.

Do these vendors morally vet all their clients? What if a Mafia Princess comes in their shop? The money the vendors receive in payment probably was made b immoral means. But, it's green, just like the money from their homosexual clients. Morality be damned, unless you're a bigot.

Of course, where you go wrong is your delusion that the federal government has the authority to regulate a private business. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of the commerce clause.

 

[Nosmo King]

So the tenets of their faith are suspicion, fear, hatred and untolerance. And they are Christians ya say? What dogmatic, weird and anti-Christian principles type of church is that?

Face it. These people are using Christianity as a baseball bat to enforce their hatred. What a perversion of what people here in Sane World understand as a beautiful, loving, forgiving and inclusive faith.

No, the tenets of their faith is that they disapprove of homosexuality and would prefer not to be a part of a ceremony that celebrates a union involving homosexuality.

Hate the sin, not the sinner doesn't mean you have to condone the sinner.

When they bake a cake or print an invitation or take a photograph, are they also supposed to participate in the wedding ceremony? Do they officiate the ceremony, give the bride away, STEP on a small glass goblet, take vows? Are they supposed to bring a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper to the reception? Is there a baker/bride dance, do they propose a special weddI got vendor toast?

Nope! They are not part of the ceremony. They are just masquerading as Christians so they can foment hatred.

And is their immortal soul imperiled? Why don't these faux Christians adhere to all of God's commandments? Are they nearly as righteous and pious as they can possibly be? Which Christians are? The Amish? Pentecostals? Snake handliers? Coptics?

Nope! These folks are merely good old fashioned homophobes under the guise of Christianity.

They are providing a good or service for something celebrating a concept they find morally wrong.

And all of the rest of your statement is meaningless, because it isn't your place to judge, and it's definitely not government's place to judge.

As long as their businesses are licensed, they are subject to all the commerce laws. That makes it the government's determination.

Do these vendors morally vet all their clients? What if a Mafia Princess comes in their shop? The money the vendors receive in payment probably was made b immoral means. But, it's green, just like the money from their homosexual clients. Morality be damned, unless you're a bigot.

Of course, where you go wrong is your delusion that the federal government has the authority to regulate a private business. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of the commerce clause.

Tell us how Public Accomodation squares with the commerce clause.

 

[TheDude]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

 

[Nosmo King]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

Insestuous marriages are redundant. The marriage contract establishes a next-of-kin relationship where no existing relationship is established. Married couple in effect create a new legal entity where their holdings are combined and a new next-of-kin relationship is legally established by the marriage contract.

 

[Syriusly]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married..

Clearly reading comprehension is not your strength.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.

A couple does not need to prove that their marriage serves a societal purpose- the State needs to prove that it doesn't.

Now- you asked me for the argument for 'gay marriage'- I provided it.

You can either actually reply to my argument- or you can't

So far you haven't been able to.

 

[bripat9643]

Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.

States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married.

Gay couples have the right to marry exactly as mixed race couples, and couples who owe child support. Neat.

"Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy."

Says who?