Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[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.

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

Yet she voluntarily refused the profit. Not social morals but her own.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So it's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only if your politics are in line with those in charge, if not FUCK YOU PEASANT!"?

 

[TNHarley]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

 

[TNHarley]

Some religious beliefs SHOULD be silenced as it would interfere with others liberty or it conflicts with church/state separation.
Things like this is nothing more than FORCED conformity and devaluing private property. Bullshit.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

No, the equality is very real and tangible...and so are the government benefits. Thank you.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

No, the equality is very real and tangible...and so are the government benefits. Thank you.

Gays had to get permission from the SC to fucking marry whomever they want. Its fucking ridiculous.
Govt shouldn't be involved in marriage in the FIRST place.
Our big govt ALWAYS thinks they know whats best.
Benefits for marriage are in itself unequal.

 

[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.

Yet she voluntarily refused the profit. Not social morals but her own.

in public accommodation? she has to be consistent, not arbitrary and capricious.

we have, laws regarding not-for-the-profit-of-lucre, rules in public accommodation. apparently, she chose to not be, that moral, in the Beginning.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

capitalism Always works?

 

[TNHarley]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

capitalism Always works?

Nothing ALWAYS works

 

[danielpalos]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

capitalism Always works?

Nothing ALWAYS works

are you on the right? AnCap theory clams something has to Always work under Capitalism, eventually.

 

[BlindBoo]

In reality it forces them to not discriminate.

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices;

RCW 49.60.030: Freedom from discrimination—Declaration of civil rights.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

These men were long term customers of hers. They had never been denied service. She refused to attend their wedding and did not wish to use her artistic talent on their behalf. She is reasonable. The law needs to be changed.

Artists should never be compelled to create. Not under any circumstances.

 

[peach174]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

 

[TNHarley]

are you on the right?

Depends on the issue

 

[danielpalos]

These men were long term customers of hers. They had never been denied service. She refused to attend their wedding and did not wish to use her artistic talent on their behalf. She is reasonable. The law needs to be changed.

Artists should never be compelled to create. Not under any circumstances.

She can always go, not-for-profit, if she feels that way about social morals for free.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

No, the equality is very real and tangible...and so are the government benefits. Thank you.

Gays had to get permission from the SC to fucking marry whomever they want. Its fucking ridiculous.

So did blacks, divorced people and incarcerated people. And?

Govt shouldn't be involved in marriage in the FIRST place.

Should have thought of that before you got them involved then. It wasn't gays that did that...

Our big govt ALWAYS thinks they know whats best.

"Our" big government is us. "Of the people" and all that.

Benefits for marriage are in itself unequal.

Uh huh...that's why so many people are trying to get rid of civil marriage itself instead of trying to stop consenting adult gays from doing it.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

 

[TNHarley]

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

Govt benefits and a false sense of equality

No, the equality is very real and tangible...and so are the government benefits. Thank you.

Gays had to get permission from the SC to fucking marry whomever they want. Its fucking ridiculous.

So did blacks, divorced people and incarcerated people. And?

Govt shouldn't be involved in marriage in the FIRST place.

Should have thought of that before you got them involved then. It wasn't gays that did that...

Our big govt ALWAYS thinks they know whats best.

"Our" big government is us. "Of the people" and all that.

Benefits for marriage are in itself unequal.

Uh huh...that's why so many people are trying to get rid of civil marriage itself instead of trying to stop consenting adult gays from doing it.

And what? You think that doesn't go along with the rest of them?
I didn't get them involved. Generations before me did. And my generation seems to keep on doing it. I didnt vote for that bullshit.
Doesn't mean anything. Benefits are unequal. Period.

 

[Seawytch]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Public Accommodation laws...brought to you by the Federal Government since 1964...

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

That's FEDERAL law, ya'll. Why pick on local and states laws when you've got THAT on the books?

 

[Kondor3]

...Why would they take this case when they refused to hear the Elaine Photography case?

Because a favorable outcome requires a 5-4 Court ( 5 conservatives, 4 liberals ).... coming soon to a SCOTUS near you.

Long overdue... sounds like great fun...