Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[Spare_change]

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

Is that a threat?

 

[Spare_change]

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?

the right wing loves being illegal to federal laws and blaming less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

If that made even a modicum of sense, I'd respond --- it didn't, so I won't.

 

[Spare_change]

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

You know what, you're just plucking one tiny little pixel out of the big picture and raging about it. So next time why don't you throw in some honesty along with that one pixel of yours so we can see how we arrived at this point. You know, that cause & effect thing. Maybe then we can better debate the/ your issue.

If you can't keep up, we do have a CliffNotes version available ... just send $19.95 and a self address, stamped enevelope.

 

[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?

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

Is that a threat?

The left believes that some have more rights than others.

 

[12icer]

I still haven't found anything in the Constitution that says anything about a SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE!
The idea of forcing someone to do something they find offensive IS exactly the same as forcing a person to design an outfit for a woman they do not like. If your thought process follows a linear constant outcome the people who refused to perform at the inauguration should have been made to perform. Their supposed talent is sold as a business, IE they are in the business of performing and get paid to do so. Therefore THEY must perform at ANY event that requests their performance and has the fee that is charged for the service. They cannot refuse for ANY reason of faith, booo hooo, or political affiliation. How about that liberals. PROVES your complete monomania.

 

[Spare_change]

I still haven't found anything in the Constitution that says anything about a SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE!
The idea of forcing someone to do something they find offensive IS exactly the same as forcing a person to design an outfit for a woman they do not like. If your thought process follows a linear constant outcome the people who refused to perform at the inauguration should have been made to perform. Their supposed talent is sold as a business, IE they are in the business of performing and get paid to do so. Therefore THEY must perform at ANY event that requests their performance and has the fee that is charged for the service. They cannot refuse for ANY reason of faith, booo hooo, or political affiliation. How about that liberals. PROVES your complete monomania.

Nahhh ---- that rule only applies to Republicans .... the Dems can do whatever they want because they have truth, justice, and the American way on their side

 

[Clementine]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Yes. The owner of the company has that right. Employees are hired to do a job and if they refuse, they should get fired. If the owner of the company chooses not to sell alcohol, that would be his right since it's his business. Otherwise, employees enter into a contact where they will perform certain duties for their pay.

Of course, libs tend to complain when employers fire Muslim for not serving alcohol or touching pork products. Some companies allowed them to refuse providing they could get other employees to do it for them. Thing is, employers have a right to fire employees who refuse to do the job they agree upon when hired. If concessions were made from the start, it would be different.

Muslim bakeries refuse to bake gay wedding cakes and the left refuses to even talk about that. The view is that it's their business, their call. They would probably fire an employee who agreed to do a gay wedding. Of course, it's a moot point since Muslims generally don't hire non-Muslims.

Obama seems to think that Muslims should have the right to refuse to do things based on their religion. Most libs don't extend that courtesy to Christians.

"So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.

This is what has happened in the Land Of Lincoln with the US Government vs the Star Transport trucking company. A couple of Muslims signed a contract to work for a trucking company, a contract that says that drivers will take any load that a company administrator assigns and will deliver that payload. Period. The terms of employment are known ahead of time among all employees.

But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.

The Obama administration is suing the trucking company for violating these Muslims’ freedom of religion because after they refused to take the load as per the contract they signed, they were properly and logically fired."

Obama Sues to Allow Illinois Muslims to Skip Work W/O Being Fired

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Yes. The owner of the company has that right. Employees are hired to do a job and if they refuse, they should get fired. If the owner of the company chooses not to sell alcohol, that would be his right since it's his business. Otherwise, employees enter into a contact where they will perform certain duties for their pay.
d

So a business owner has the right to trump religious freedom but a business customer does not? Weird

Or are you saying that religious freedom shouldn't apply to Muslims, only Christians?

 

[danielpalos]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Only if he was hired to sell and not preach.

 

[danielpalos]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

can a church fire a preacher who only sells alcohol but doesn't preach?

 

[danielpalos]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Not close enough. Should a convenience store be compelled, by law, to sell alcohol in violation of their religious belief.

Baronelle Stutzman doesn't want to go to a same sex wedding. She is being compelled to act when she would rather do nothing.

why should they be granted a license to practice business in public accommodations on a for-profit basis, if they want to practice social morals for free?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

the right wing loves being illegal to federal laws and blaming less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

If that made even a modicum of sense, I'd respond --- it didn't, so I won't.

Just clueless and Causeless; it is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about 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?

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

Is that a threat?

The left believes that some have more rights than others.

Only the national socialist right wing, does that. Want to ban anyone, lately?

 

[danielpalos]

I still haven't found anything in the Constitution that says anything about a SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE!
The idea of forcing someone to do something they find offensive IS exactly the same as forcing a person to design an outfit for a woman they do not like. If your thought process follows a linear constant outcome the people who refused to perform at the inauguration should have been made to perform. Their supposed talent is sold as a business, IE they are in the business of performing and get paid to do so. Therefore THEY must perform at ANY event that requests their performance and has the fee that is charged for the service. They cannot refuse for ANY reason of faith, booo hooo, or political affiliation. How about that liberals. PROVES your complete monomania.

No one is being forced to do anything, but make a profit in public accommodations.

 

[danielpalos]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Yes. The owner of the company has that right. Employees are hired to do a job and if they refuse, they should get fired. If the owner of the company chooses not to sell alcohol, that would be his right since it's his business. Otherwise, employees enter into a contact where they will perform certain duties for their pay.

Of course, libs tend to complain when employers fire Muslim for not serving alcohol or touching pork products. Some companies allowed them to refuse providing they could get other employees to do it for them. Thing is, employers have a right to fire employees who refuse to do the job they agree upon when hired. If concessions were made from the start, it would be different.

Muslim bakeries refuse to bake gay wedding cakes and the left refuses to even talk about that. The view is that it's their business, their call. They would probably fire an employee who agreed to do a gay wedding. Of course, it's a moot point since Muslims generally don't hire non-Muslims.

Obama seems to think that Muslims should have the right to refuse to do things based on their religion. Most libs don't extend that courtesy to Christians.

"So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.

This is what has happened in the Land Of Lincoln with the US Government vs the Star Transport trucking company. A couple of Muslims signed a contract to work for a trucking company, a contract that says that drivers will take any load that a company administrator assigns and will deliver that payload. Period. The terms of employment are known ahead of time among all employees.

But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.

The Obama administration is suing the trucking company for violating these Muslims’ freedom of religion because after they refused to take the load as per the contract they signed, they were properly and logically fired."

Obama Sues to Allow Illinois Muslims to Skip Work W/O Being Fired

seems, unreasonable, to ask a transport firm to not transport legal commercial goods.

 

[danielpalos]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Yes. The owner of the company has that right. Employees are hired to do a job and if they refuse, they should get fired. If the owner of the company chooses not to sell alcohol, that would be his right since it's his business. Otherwise, employees enter into a contact where they will perform certain duties for their pay.
d

So a business owner has the right to trump religious freedom but a business customer does not? Weird

Or are you saying that religious freedom shouldn't apply to Muslims, only Christians?

Nope. Persons of true religious morals should be in a monastery or convent, not in public accommodations for the profit of lucre.

 

[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

Is that a threat?

No. You see protected people are identified by the anti-discrimination laws. Thin skinned Republican so-called presidents are not on any federal or state list of protected persons, at least none that I can find. Perhaps you know of a state that offers discrimination protection for thin skinned so-called presidents, but I don't think there are any.

 

[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

Is that a threat?

The left believes that some have more rights than others.

Thin skinned so-called presidents hardly need protection from discrimination.

The poor little cupcake's ego of course is a different matter.........it obviously need protection and coddling, and a twitter account so his alter-ego can lash out at a moments notice.......

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I still haven't found anything in the Constitution that says anything about a SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE!
The idea of forcing someone to do something they find offensive IS exactly the same as forcing a person to design an outfit for a woman they do not like. If your thought process follows a linear constant outcome the people who refused to perform at the inauguration should have been made to perform. Their supposed talent is sold as a business, IE they are in the business of performing and get paid to do so. Therefore THEY must perform at ANY event that requests their performance and has the fee that is charged for the service. They cannot refuse for ANY reason of faith, booo hooo, or political affiliation. How about that liberals. PROVES your complete monomania.

No one is being forced to do anything, but make a profit in public accommodations.

Then you agree that if a man hits a woman over the head and rapes her in a dark alley he has only to leave a twenty dollar bill on her body. You've been paid, you made a profit.

 

[2aguy]

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

Hopefully Gorsuch will be on the Court by the time her case makes it there....this needs to be fixed right away.......you do not give up your 1st Amendment Right to freedom of religion simply because you open a business.........