CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

what rights do they have over hers?

That's what I'm trying to sort out. There's no such thing as a right to be served by others, equally or otherwise. The concept is insane.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[jc456]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[jc456]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

how does someone else's rights supersede another's? you didn't answer that.

 

[dblack]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

Rights can come into conflict, and government resolves them when they do. The issue here, in my view, isn't conflicting rights. It's the notion that there's a right to be served in the first place. That seems nutty to me.

 

[jc456]

Rights can come into conflict, and government resolves them when they do. The issue here, in my view, isn't conflicting rights. It's the notion that there's a right to be served in the first place. That seems nutty to me.

I completely agree with you. The poster is stating the gay's have more rights, and that is literally wrong. their right's do not supersede hers simply because they think so. Just like no one can tell me what to eat or drink.

 

[martybegan]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

how does someone else's rights supersede another's? you didn't answer that.

He won't. All he will do is quote something and not actually explain why it applies.

 

[dblack]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

how does someone else's rights supersede another's? you didn't answer that.

He won't. All he will do is quote something and not actually explain why it applies.

Yes. Steer around the pothole. Don't drive into it.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

how does someone else's rights supersede another's? you didn't answer that.

Because of your fallacy of false cause. Both the buyer and the seller have a First Amendment. The seller declared with the full faith and credit of public Acts, that she was operating her photography business on a for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis. It matters because it declares an intent for the bottom line over social morals for free in public accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

how does someone else's rights supersede another's? you didn't answer that.

He won't. All he will do is quote something and not actually explain why it applies.

It only seems that way when I can't dumb it down enough for the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

how does someone else's rights supersede another's? you didn't answer that.

He won't. All he will do is quote something and not actually explain why it applies.

Yes. Steer around the pothole. Don't drive into it.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[martybegan]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with our rights, other than the fact that they violate them. These laws are social engineering projects. The goal is to suppress certain kinds of bias. But only certain kinds of bias (protected classes), those that are currently unpopular with the state. Everything else is fair game.

I'm still waiting on how someone else's rights supersedes another's.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

how does someone else's rights supersede another's? you didn't answer that.

He won't. All he will do is quote something and not actually explain why it applies.

It only seems that way when I can't dumb it down enough for the right wing.

All you do is quote something and not back it up with any explanation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Compelling speech seems like a violation of the First Amendment not a religious issue.

The irony of it all is that they are partially making a religious statement to discriminate.

Leave it to lefty to not understand the imperatives of liberty. It's the state that is unlawfully discriminating!

The state is required to protect all citizens. Using liberty to discriminate is akin to using religion to discriminate.

isn't she a citizen?

As a citizen she has rights but there are also laws that are required to be followed

even people who commit crimes will have there freedom taken away and yeah they have some rights and are citizens.

Correct, Kilroy2
There must be DUE PROCESS to convict someone of a crime befoe enforcing loss of rights.

Where we still disagree is
1. You believe refusing to provide "same sex" weservices to same-sex

Because to people with those religious or spiritual beliefs IT IS DIFFERENT.
And not only DIFFERENT, but same sex relations are AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS.

We are a nation of Laws not Beliefs.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Exactly danielpalos
1. So the faith based beliefs about LGBT either being "natural and not a choice"
Or "unnatural and a choice that can be changed", are both equally INDIVIDUAL beliefs. And Govt can NEITHER "establish or prohibit" such beliefs.

2. Do you agree that religious freedom should apply equally to "political beliefs and religion?

Sure; both the buyer and the seller have First Amendment protection. The difference is, the seller is operating on a for-the-profit-of-Lucre basis not a for-the-profit-of-the-greater-glory-of-our-immortal-souls basis.

Nor should the business be micromanaged by people abusing govt to enforce faith based LGBT rituals or practices that are not universal or neutral.
The LGBT culture is biased based on faith based preferences and beliefs.

The common standard we agree on is not to deny Customers that enter a business storefront open to the public.

But where beliefs start disagreeing is
1. On same sex relations being different from heterosexual (and transgender internal identity different from genetically defined physical gender)
2. The expression and content of services is separate from the customer.
3. And thus whether a person operating as a business can limit the expression or content of a service or "be forced or fined by govt" to engage in LGBT messages or events.

danielpalos
Regardless if I agree with LGBT beliefs or claim it violates beliefs, I certainly don't want that mandated by govt!

I would not want govt mandating Christianity or Muslim beliefs and biases against anyone. I believe in treating LGBT with the same respect as Christians.

 

[Kilroy2]

" Literacy Matters "

* Still Dodging The Question *

yet in post 189 the question was
You have not answered the question as to whether a bakery or photographer would be entitled to invoke free association to dissociate themselves from an obligation to perform a service because of a difference in creed .
now you are changing it to
obviously you do not know the law
Whether you post a sign or not, businesses never have the right to refuse or turn away customers because of their race, gender, age, nationality or religion. Yet there are situation where they can refuse service.
it really is that simple and not a philosophical argument.

Nothing changed , the question and the premises have remained consistent and your cowardice to answer directly that you do in fact believe that a baker or photographer are able able to freely dissociate themselves and decline enslavement , for example when a wedding party decides to disclose its creed and wants to use regalia for the national socialist state of germany for germans .

While race , gender and age are not transient qualities , creed is an intransigent quality .

Any creed that violates non violence principles is not entitled to an exception as a religion , and consequently the adherents of fictional ishmaelism should not be extended citizenship , to enter into the voting booth , though they may travel on temporary visa .

I can tell you that seeing two men kiss is disgusting to me , and I am not sexually attracted to men in any way , and no amount of concentration camp porn indoctrination , which the left would love for me to go through to be cured in their mind , is going to help .

nice dodge
this is not about seeing two men kissing and your feelings about it
it is about prejudice against people.

 

[Kilroy2]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

who's rights are we talking about.

 

[jc456]

nice dodge
this is not about seeing two men kissing and your feelings about it
it is about prejudice against people

Right of refusal exists. Asking for Forfeiture of rights by anyone is demented

 

[Kilroy2]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

Rights to what? Are you saying there is a "right to be served equally"? Or even a "right" to be served at all? If that's the case, our "rights" are violated every day, by nearly every business. Such a concept is absurd, and can't be enforced without violating a slew of actual individual rights.

Public accommodation laws. It is that simple.

 

[jc456]

Yet various religions and church have different beliefs on the subject of same sex marriage. They do not agree. So which religion got it right?

The fact is that in the original bible homosexuality or say same sex marriage is not mentioned.

Any mention of it at later dates is just interpretations of what should the flock believe.

why do you want to take other's rights for someone else's?

who's rights are we talking about.

There’s but one, the woman’s right

 

[dblack]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

Rights to what? Are you saying there is a "right to be served equally"? Or even a "right" to be served at all? If that's the case, our "rights" are violated every day, by nearly every business. Such a concept is absurd, and can't be enforced without violating a slew of actual individual rights.

Public accommodation laws. It is that simple.

Dodging doesn't help. What "right" are public accommodation laws supposedly protecting?

 

[jc456]

So is it just an issues of how it handled. The court also suggest tolerance on both sides.

Still the court comment about undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs is vague.

Still the bible does teach tolerance and to respect everyone.

and our constitution states every person has rights. Her rights are at subject here. no one else's.

Well are you saying that same sex marriage couples are not citizens and have no rights? They also have rights.

Rights to what? Are you saying there is a "right to be served equally"? Or even a "right" to be served at all? If that's the case, our "rights" are violated every day, by nearly every business. Such a concept is absurd, and can't be enforced without violating a slew of actual individual rights.

Public accommodation laws. It is that simple.

Right of refusal exists , no shoes, no shirt no service. Precedent is set it’s not discrimination