Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[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.

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.

And of course you're calling your representative regularly and demanding they end benefits for civil marriage, right?

Never been married or did you only marry in a church or under a tree?

 

[Seawytch]

...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.

Um...Scalia was alive when they refused the case.

 

[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.

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

This is not about morals whether social or not. It is about how far the state can go in compelling the performance of an unwilling person.

Various clothing designers have refused to provide their artistry for Melania Trump. Should they be compelled to work for her?

 

[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.

Um...Scalia was alive when they refused the case.

But conservatives lacked the complete and unstoppable political apparatus required to overturn recent social engineering, once a decision had been rendered.

That is no longer true.

What goes around, comes around.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Why don't you go search my posts and find out, lazy boy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If religion has the rights that people are claiming it does, then any law against polygamy is unconstitutional.

 

[Kondor3]

If religion has the rights that people are claiming it does, then any law against polygamy is unconstitutional.

Good luck peddling that one...

 

[TNHarley]

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.

And of course you're calling your representative regularly and demanding they end benefits for civil marriage, right?

Never been married or did you only marry in a church or under a tree?

Yeah, right. Like that would ever happen. Maybe when the tax code changes.

 

[Seawytch]

...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.

Um...Scalia was alive when they refused the case.

But conservatives lacked the complete and unstoppable political apparatus required to overturn recent social engineering, once a decision had been rendered.

That is no longer true.

What goes around, comes around...

Even with the stolen SCOTUS seat, nothing has changed. Scalia conservative, dead. Replacement, conservative. No change.

Why would the same exact ideological makeup of the court decide to hear this case when they did not hear Elaine Photography?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And of course you're calling your representative regularly and demanding they end benefits for civil marriage, right?

Never been married or did you only marry in a church or under a tree?

Yeah, right. Like that would ever happen. Maybe when the tax code changes.

So you're not really all that convicted on this about marriage in general...oh, but GAYS getting the benefits too, the horror!!!

So never married or did you marry in a church or by some sort of altar only?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

And of course you're calling your representative regularly and demanding they end benefits for civil marriage, right?

Never been married or did you only marry in a church or under a tree?

Yeah, right. Like that would ever happen. Maybe when the tax code changes.

So you're not really all that convicted on this about marriage in general...oh, but GAYS getting the benefits too.

So never married or did you marry in a church or by some sort of altar only?

I am all for equal rights. ACTUAL equal rights for everyone. I just don't party with fools...
Govt shouldn't be in marriage. Period. IDK why you are having such a hard time grasping my simple opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

The law was clear

The florist broke it

 

[Kondor3]

The nation has taken a hard turn to the right.

There are pros and cons to sea changes like this, but the Republic and its people will survive this swing of the pendulum just as it has others.

One of the PROS of the situation is that some of the worst of the LibTard social reengineering, shoved down America's throat, is likely to be reversed or downgraded.

The Gay Mafia Agenda - including that abomination known as Gay or Same-Sex Marriage, is one such agenda item - ripe for such treatment.

It will be very interesting - and, quite possibly, highly amusing - to watch these Freaks of Nature squirming and whining, as their hubris and arrogance is brought low.

 

[Kondor3]

The law was clear

The florist broke it

Which is why the law is soon to be changed.

Given the present state of affairs at both the Federal and State levels, perhaps it will even be re-visited within a Constitutional framework.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If religion has the rights that people are claiming it does, then any law against polygamy is unconstitutional.

Good luck peddling that one...

I'm not 'peddling' it. I'm pointing out that if you're entitled to discriminate if you claim it's a religious practice, then you're entitled to plural marriage if you claim that is a religous practice.

Oh, not to mention the fact that what a person considers his religion is HIS decision, his choice of beliefs,

so once you open the door to one set of laws being able to be ignored by using using your religion to trump them,

then you can pretty much concoct a religious basis for getting away with violating any law you choose.

 

[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.

Um...Scalia was alive when they refused the case.

But conservatives lacked the complete and unstoppable political apparatus required to overturn recent social engineering, once a decision had been rendered.

That is no longer true.

What goes around, comes around...

Even with the stolen SCOTUS seat, nothing has changed. Scalia conservative, dead. Replacement, conservative. No change.

Why would the same exact ideological makeup of the court decide to hear this case when they did not hear Elaine Photography?

A fresh Conservative at SCOTUS, Mike Pence (see record as governor of Indiana) as President of the Senate, and Conservatives holding all the power.

But DO feel free to continue to delude yourself that sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals) have nothing to worry about on the legal front.

Sometimes, the Liberal tendency to hide one's head in the sand and their penchant for self-delusion can come in quite handy, in a political context.

Self-delusion, arrogance, hubris, perversion... sheesh... what a winning combination.

 

[bodecea]

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

I was informed by some RWrs yesterday on this board that there is no such thing as a separation between church and state....so, what's the problem?

 

[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.

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?

Done by a liberal court, which has now turned back to conservative.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

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

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.

And of course you're calling your representative regularly and demanding they end benefits for civil marriage, right?

Never been married or did you only marry in a church or under a tree?

Yeah, right. Like that would ever happen. Maybe when the tax code changes.

So you're not really all that convicted on this about marriage in general...oh, but GAYS getting the benefits too.

So never married or did you marry in a church or by some sort of altar only?

I am all for equal rights. ACTUAL equal rights for everyone. I just don't party with fools...
Govt shouldn't be in marriage. Period. IDK why you are having such a hard time grasping my simple opinion.

Okay, great. We've established you don't think government should be in marriage. We've established you've done nothing about it.

Are you civilly married?

 

[Seawytch]