Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[danielpalos]

So you got nothin', just as I suspected.

I don't blame you for being upset the SCOTUS will be conservative for a generation or two.....

You're still not explaining why this case would go before the SCOTUS when they, prior to Scalia's death, refused to hear the Elaine Photography case. What gives this case more merit than that one?

And if Public Accommodation laws (brought to you by the Federal Government since the 60s) are "fascist", why aren't y'all demanding they be challenged instead of going after state and local law?

1A....

what about it? Public accommodation laws don't discriminate based on Religion.

Actually, they do .....

A law that demands that a Christian doctor perform an abortion, for example, is discrimination based on religion. A law that demands that a Christian make a floral arrangement for celebration of a gay wedding, in the Christian's opinion, is discrimination based on religion.

We have more than Ten simple Commandments from a God. Why should anyone take Deists, seriously about morals?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Barronelle Stutzman should never have needed to resort to a religious argunent. She is an artist. No artist should ever be compelled to create against their will. This is the hallmark of tyrants.

 

[danielpalos]

Barronelle Stutzman should never have needed to resort to a religious argunent. She is an artist. No artist should ever be compelled to create against their will. This is the hallmark of tyrants.

She is in it for the profit of lucre, not social morals for free; that is the difference, dear.

 

[The Great Goose]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

do you also care about what others make/have?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said I cared either way. If I want a laugh I'll go watch a fag marriage.

 

[The Great Goose]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

For the same reason opposite sex people marry each other. What is there to work out, exactly?

I just can't see any romance in it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Barronelle Stutzman should never have needed to resort to a religious argunent. She is an artist. No artist should ever be compelled to create against their will. This is the hallmark of tyrants.

She can stay out of the business.

 

[owebo]

Barronelle Stutzman should never have needed to resort to a religious argunent. She is an artist. No artist should ever be compelled to create against their will. This is the hallmark of tyrants.

She can stay out of the business.

They can stay out of her business....

 

[g5000]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

So they can receive the same government gifts straight married people get.

Duh.

 

[danielpalos]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

do you also care about what others make/have?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said I cared either way. If I want a laugh I'll go watch a fag marriage.

whence, any appeals to emotions, then.

 

[danielpalos]

Barronelle Stutzman should never have needed to resort to a religious argunent. She is an artist. No artist should ever be compelled to create against their will. This is the hallmark of tyrants.

She can stay out of the business.

They can stay out of her business....

in public accommodations? nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Barronelle Stutzman should never have needed to resort to a religious argunent. She is an artist. No artist should ever be compelled to create against their will. This is the hallmark of tyrants.

She can stay out of the business.

They can stay out of her business....

What do you have against Jews?

 

[The Great Goose]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

So they can receive the same government gifts straight married people get.

Duh.

Civil union.

 

[g5000]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

So they can receive the same government gifts straight married people get.

Duh.

Civil union.

Civil unions did not create the same state and federal government gifts heterosexuals get for being married.

Duh.

 

[The Great Goose]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

So they can receive the same government gifts straight married people get.

Duh.

Civil union.

Civil unions did not create the same state and federal government gifts heterosexuals get for being married.

Duh.

Maybe they should!

 

[Clementine]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

 

[Timmy]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

The law is specific to certain protections . Politics is not one of them .

 

[Clementine]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

The law is to certain protections . Politics is not one of them .

Political beliefs = creed. Read the law again. It contains the word 'creed.'

Since the left seems to think it's okay to make exceptions to the law and refuse service to those they disagree with on politics, is it okay for businesses to refuse all liberals? That would mean anyone who obviously supports a liberal cause or belief could be denied. Or is discriminating something libs want to do themselves but not allow others the same privilege?

 

[danielpalos]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

So they can receive the same government gifts straight married people get.

Duh.

Civil union.

Civil unions did not create the same state and federal government gifts heterosexuals get for being married.

Duh.

did you know; Religious marriage is covered under our First Amendment?

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

 

[danielpalos]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

it is about politics not religion. That is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics, even if we do have a First Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

The law is specific to certain protections . Politics is not one of them .

We have a Bill of Rights. Only the right wing is that, national and that social, with their policies.