CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.

But it's not religious discrimination. For it to be religious discrimination, one religion would have to be treated differently than another religion.

No religion is being treated differently than any other in this instance. The same expectations are being applied to all.

It's discriminating against business owners based on their religious beliefs. You are talking about system discrimination vs. discrimination against individuals of a certain religious viewpoint.

Not at all. The seller is not a Religious person but a laity and secular person.

 

[martybegan]

Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.

lol. It is about moral credibility.

Job 34:30 applies specifically to the (alleged) religious.

The Bible isn't the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.

But it's not religious discrimination. For it to be religious discrimination, one religion would have to be treated differently than another religion.

No religion is being treated differently than any other in this instance. The same expectations are being applied to all.

It's discriminating against business owners based on their religious beliefs. You are talking about system discrimination vs. discrimination against individuals of a certain religious viewpoint.

Not at all. The seller is not a Religious person but a laity and secular person.

Free exercise is not limited to the Clergy. We have been over this before.

 

[danielpalos]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

Dear colfax_m
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."

To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.

So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.

These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".

As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.

ALL customers are refused that service.

So what? The buyer also has a First Amendment in public accommodation and the seller's morals are private not public.

The first amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT actions, not the actions of private citizens.

The only thing people are banned from doing by the Constitution are owning slaves and transporting booze into jurisdictions that ban it.

Upholding the subjective value of morals of the seller would be upholding that person's beliefs over the beliefs of another person. Government is limited by our First Amendment.

Is that an actual response?

Nope.

Yes, it is. You need a valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion. Any questions?

 

[danielpalos]

Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.

lol. It is about moral credibility.

Job 34:30 applies specifically to the (alleged) religious.

The Bible isn't the Constitution.

Neither is the seller's, moral opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.

Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:

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.

All about government, nothing about what people can do as individuals, including as individual business owners.

 

[martybegan]

meat is meat, just like marriage is marriage, right?

That doesn’t make sense and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. A service offered needs to be offered to all. If a service is not offered, you can’t compel them to offer it, as was the suggestion.

Dear colfax_m
The problem is that to SOME people's BELIEFS, there is no difference between a marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so this is why you and others view the refusal of same sex wedding services as "discriminating against the customer instead of the service."

To SOME people, and a lot of Christians, these are not the same at all. One type of wedding or relationship is AGAINST their beliefs, and the other is consecrated to God.

So to THOSE people, since these two types of services are different, those businesses can offer one type of services but not the other type.

These businesses are declining to provide services for EVENTS/ACTIVITIES involving "same sex weddings".

As for accommodating all Customers,
all Customers are treated the same where NOBODY can hire the services for a same-sex marriage/wedding event.

ALL customers are refused that service.

So what? The buyer also has a First Amendment in public accommodation and the seller's morals are private not public.

The first amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT actions, not the actions of private citizens.

The only thing people are banned from doing by the Constitution are owning slaves and transporting booze into jurisdictions that ban it.

Upholding the subjective value of morals of the seller would be upholding that person's beliefs over the beliefs of another person. Government is limited by our First Amendment.

Is that an actual response?

Nope.

Yes, it is. You need a valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion. Any questions?

All you do is string big words together and pretend its a valid position. you prove nothing, you substantiate nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.

But it's not religious discrimination. For it to be religious discrimination, one religion would have to be treated differently than another religion.

No religion is being treated differently than any other in this instance. The same expectations are being applied to all.

It's discriminating against business owners based on their religious beliefs. You are talking about system discrimination vs. discrimination against individuals of a certain religious viewpoint.

Not at all. The seller is not a Religious person but a laity and secular person.

Free exercise is not limited to the Clergy. We have been over this before.

The laity have no moral Authority just moral Opinions.

 

[martybegan]

Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.

lol. It is about moral credibility.

Job 34:30 applies specifically to the (alleged) religious.

The Bible isn't the Constitution.

Neither is the seller's, moral opinion.

Their moral position is covered by free exercise absent a compelling government interest, and even then the interest must be met using the least intrusive methods possible.

 

[danielpalos]

Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.

Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:

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.

All about government, nothing about what people can do as individuals, including as individual business owners.

Then, don't go to Government to "fix your moral problems".

 

[martybegan]

You just prefer Religious discrimination over sexuality discrimination.

But it's not religious discrimination. For it to be religious discrimination, one religion would have to be treated differently than another religion.

No religion is being treated differently than any other in this instance. The same expectations are being applied to all.

It's discriminating against business owners based on their religious beliefs. You are talking about system discrimination vs. discrimination against individuals of a certain religious viewpoint.

Not at all. The seller is not a Religious person but a laity and secular person.

Free exercise is not limited to the Clergy. We have been over this before.

The laity have no moral Authority just moral Opinions.

The government has no right to determine that. A Religion can have no clergy, or make everyone clergy, the point of the 1st amendment is government doesn't get to decide that.

 

[colfax_m]

It's discriminating against business owners based on their religious beliefs. You are talking about system discrimination vs. discrimination against individuals of a certain religious viewpoint.

No, it's not. Expecting the same thing from everyone cannot in any way be considered discrimination.

I don't think you're using the term system discrimination correctly, this is not the relevant issue.

The individual here is not being discriminated against, she's just not being given special treatment. Special treatment would be allowing her to ignore the law that applies to everyone else.

 

[danielpalos]

All you do is string big words together and pretend its a valid position. you prove nothing, you substantiate nothing.

Did you run out of logic and reason and now resort to only fallacy? Only the immoral do that. See how easy that is.

 

[martybegan]

Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.

Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:

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.

All about government, nothing about what people can do as individuals, including as individual business owners.

Then, don't go to Government to "fix your moral problems".

The issue is government is trying to fix moral problems by forcing these people to bake/photograph/host SSM ceremonies when they don't want to.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.

lol. It is about moral credibility.

Job 34:30 applies specifically to the (alleged) religious.

The Bible isn't the Constitution.

Neither is the seller's, moral opinion.

Their moral position is covered by free exercise absent a compelling government interest, and even then the interest must be met using the least intrusive methods possible.

So is the buyer's.

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

 

[martybegan]

It's discriminating against business owners based on their religious beliefs. You are talking about system discrimination vs. discrimination against individuals of a certain religious viewpoint.

No, it's not. Expecting the same thing from everyone cannot in any way be considered discrimination.

I don't think you're using the term system discrimination correctly, this is not the relevant issue.

The individual here is not being discriminated against, she's just not being given special treatment. Special treatment would be allowing her to ignore the law that applies to everyone else.

Sorry, saying "Perform this against your morals or else" is discrimination, it's just discrimination you like.

The law shouldn't be applied to their situation in the first place.

 

[colfax_m]

How is it not selfish to use government fiat to force someone to do something they don't want to do, when you can easily get someone to do it who is 100% willing?

It's selfish to view a thing which we all agree is good, marriage, as something which can only be possessed by some people. This has nothing to do with who pays, since marriage is not an item which can be purchased.

Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.

So please don't claim everyone agrees with all current concepts of marriage as being good.

Do you see polygamous marriage as practiced by Fundamentalist Mormons as "good"?

Marriage is good. There's not a religion that sees marriage as something that isn't good. Some religions just don't want everyone to be able to have the good thing because, I guess, their god told them that someone shouldn't have it for some reason.

 

[danielpalos]

The government has no right to determine that. A Religion can have no clergy, or make everyone clergy, the point of the 1st amendment is government doesn't get to decide that.

Neither does the seller regarding the morals of others.

 

[martybegan]

Again, please show me where profit making changes one's constitutional rights.

lol. It is about moral credibility.

Job 34:30 applies specifically to the (alleged) religious.

The Bible isn't the Constitution.

Neither is the seller's, moral opinion.

Their moral position is covered by free exercise absent a compelling government interest, and even then the interest must be met using the least intrusive methods possible.

So is the buyer's.

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

No, it isn't. You don't have a right to buy what you want. If that was the case you could offer $1.50 for a Cadillac and the government would make the seller give it to you.

 

[danielpalos]

Most Religions don't see SSM as "good," they see it as sinful or forbidden.

Who cares. This is what our supreme law of the land expresses:

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.

All about government, nothing about what people can do as individuals, including as individual business owners.

Then, don't go to Government to "fix your moral problems".

The issue is government is trying to fix moral problems by forcing these people to bake/photograph/host SSM ceremonies when they don't want to.

The seller has remedies that don't involve exclusion in public accommodation.