CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[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?

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.

The goal is to guarantee those rights and not pander to bigotry.

 

[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?

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.

oh you mean like you just did

 

[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.

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

I have posted that business can have a policy for refusal of service as it is fairly obvious. They can refuse service but not based on discrimination.

 

[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

I have posted that business can have a policy for refusal of service as it is fairly obvious. They can refuse service but not based on discrimination.

Post a statute

 

[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.

The goal is to guarantee those rights...

I'll ask again, what rights?

...and not pander to bigotry.

I get that part. I don't agree it's the job of government, but suppressing certain kinds of unpopular bigotry is clearly the goal. I just don't see how it has anything to do with rights.

 

[jc456]

I get that part. I don't agree it's the job of government, but suppressing certain kinds of unpopular bigotry is the goal. I just don't see how it has anything to do with rights.

especially the forfeiture of one's own rights to appease another. religious rights are equal here.

 

[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

I have posted that business can have a policy for refusal of service as it is fairly obvious. They can refuse service but not based on discrimination.

just curious, were you ok with someone losing a job because they voted for Trump?

 

[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.

oh you mean like you just did

Are you really defending danielpalos or did you think I was quoting you?

 

[Ringtone]

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.

But, emilynghiem, you're making ideologically truthful and logical observations regarding the universal imperatives of natural and constitutional law to which lefty is immune as he fails to grasp or pretends not to understand his statist impositions on those with whom he disagrees! Don't you see? Truth. Logic. Universal. Imperatives. These things never apply to lefty's agenda. They're irrelevant. Lefty wants. Lefty demands. Lefty gets or else.

The only thing lefty will ever understand about the inalienable rights of others is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at his stupid head.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Poster Children For Left Wing Vacuous Terms "

* Dodge Is Your Failure To Answer Whether A Contractor Can Decline A Nazi Themed Wedding *

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

Perhaps the term prejudice shakes you to the core , but it does not affect my perception that the term prejudice is mostly bull shit that does not determine whether non violence principles are being violated .

 

[Ringtone]

The goal is to guarantee those rights and not pander to bigotry.

Couldn't have said it better myself. So you agree the state has no business violating the fundamental rights of the photographer, right?

 

[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?

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.

oh you mean like you just did

Are you really defending danielpalos or did you think I was quoting you?

Sometimes it is difficult to follow these threads as to exactly what is being responded to.

it was in response to whomever said (All you do is quote something and not back it up with any explanation.)

my response was (oh you mean like you just did) was directed at that one. I think USB should do away with listing all responses in a chain ( it can get long) and just list the one specifically being responded to.

 

[dblack]

I think USB should do away with listing all responses in a chain ( it can get long) and just list the one specifically being responded to.

Yeah, it gets to be a real mess on long discussions.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is not Your job and you have no Religious authority. The laity is simply that.

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

 

[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.

Operating in public accommodation is a privilege not a right. The seller agreed to operate on a for-profit basis not on a moral basis in public accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

it's her business. and unless her business license says otherwise, her rights extend to her business. I'm sure her license has a right to refuse service.

A crook is a crook who took something from someone. he/ she violated someone else's rights already. That forfeits the crooks rights immediately when caught.

Not if the seller is going to violate the buyer's First Amendment right to not believe in the seller's religion.

 

[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.

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.

The buyer has a First Amendment right as well.

 

[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.

There is no right to expect certain morals from buyers, either. Our First Amendment applies.

 

[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.

The buyer has a First Amendment right as well.

You're insane. I mean that sincerely.

 

[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.

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?

both the seller and the buyer.