CDZ Christian wedding photographer sues-NY over nondiscrimination law

[danielpalos]

Free exercise. Not wanting to photograph a same sex wedding when most religions consider same sex relationships sinful is free exercise.

How do we know it is not merely some political agenda made possible under the common law?

Any practitioner of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) can say anything they want.

Job 34:30 applies.

I make a motion to petition a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists who may Inquire into the moral rectitude of the seller before that person can be considered credible regarding morals.

You don't get to decide how a person practices their religion, and government doesn't either unless there is a compelling interest.

Neither does a laity and secular seller in public accommodation.

Actually their choice if it comes from Religious belief should be paramount, then reviewed for a compelling government interest in infringing, and if so any remedy has to be as unobtrusive of their rights as possible.

The buyer can say the same thing.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, didn't acknowledge anything. The seller still retains the right to religious free exercise even when involved in commerce.

No, there is no Religious exemption for appealing to ignorance of the (public accommodation) law.

Jesus the Christ already made that clear regarding this issue.

Mark 12:17: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

The Bible is pretty clear about same sex relations being sinful.

It says the same thing about false witness bearing and the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy. Right wingers don't seem to care about that.

 

[martybegan]

Free exercise. Not wanting to photograph a same sex wedding when most religions consider same sex relationships sinful is free exercise.

How do we know it is not merely some political agenda made possible under the common law?

Any practitioner of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) can say anything they want.

Job 34:30 applies.

I make a motion to petition a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists who may Inquire into the moral rectitude of the seller before that person can be considered credible regarding morals.

You don't get to decide how a person practices their religion, and government doesn't either unless there is a compelling interest.

Neither does a laity and secular seller in public accommodation.

Actually their choice if it comes from Religious belief should be paramount, then reviewed for a compelling government interest in infringing, and if so any remedy has to be as unobtrusive of their rights as possible.

The buyer can say the same thing.

No, they can't. What Religion states "I get to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me for moral reasons"?

 

[martybegan]

Again, didn't acknowledge anything. The seller still retains the right to religious free exercise even when involved in commerce.

No, there is no Religious exemption for appealing to ignorance of the (public accommodation) law.

Jesus the Christ already made that clear regarding this issue.

Mark 12:17: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

The Bible is pretty clear about same sex relations being sinful.

It says the same thing about false witness bearing and the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy. Right wingers don't seem to care about that.

Generalization and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[danielpalos]

The buyer can say the same thing.

No, they can't. What Religion states "I get to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me for moral reasons"?

Religion is not the law. Our civil, secular, and temporal laws are enacted by representatives to Government, elected by the People and delegated that authority.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, didn't acknowledge anything. The seller still retains the right to religious free exercise even when involved in commerce.

No, there is no Religious exemption for appealing to ignorance of the (public accommodation) law.

Jesus the Christ already made that clear regarding this issue.

Mark 12:17: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

The Bible is pretty clear about same sex relations being sinful.

It says the same thing about false witness bearing and the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy. Right wingers don't seem to care about that.

Generalization and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It is about morals. How is it not relevant? If false witness bearing and the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy don't matter to Right-Wingers, why should anyone take y'alll seriously about any other morals?

 

[martybegan]

The buyer can say the same thing.

No, they can't. What Religion states "I get to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me for moral reasons"?

Religion is not the law. Our civil, secular, and temporal laws are enacted by representatives to Government, elected by the People and delegated that authority.

The Constitution grants the right to free exercise, limiting government's ability to interfere in a person's religious practice.

 

[martybegan]

Again, didn't acknowledge anything. The seller still retains the right to religious free exercise even when involved in commerce.

No, there is no Religious exemption for appealing to ignorance of the (public accommodation) law.

Jesus the Christ already made that clear regarding this issue.

Mark 12:17: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

More of you thinking you can dictate to a person how they express their Religion.

Only false Christians are wont to deny or disparage the moral teaching of Jesus the Christ.

The Bible is pretty clear about same sex relations being sinful.

It says the same thing about false witness bearing and the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy. Right wingers don't seem to care about that.

Generalization and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It is about morals. How is it not relevant? If false witness bearing and the practice of the abomination of hypocrisy don't matter to Right-Wingers, why should anyone take y'alll seriously about any other morals?

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

 

[danielpalos]

The buyer can say the same thing.

No, they can't. What Religion states "I get to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me for moral reasons"?

Religion is not the law. Our civil, secular, and temporal laws are enacted by representatives to Government, elected by the People and delegated that authority.

The Constitution grants the right to free exercise, limiting government's ability to interfere in a person's religious practice.

Selling in public accommodation is not a religious practice.

 

[martybegan]

The buyer can say the same thing.

No, they can't. What Religion states "I get to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me for moral reasons"?

Religion is not the law. Our civil, secular, and temporal laws are enacted by representatives to Government, elected by the People and delegated that authority.

The Constitution grants the right to free exercise, limiting government's ability to interfere in a person's religious practice.

Selling in public accommodation is not a religious practice.

Doesn't matter. Again you don't lose your right to free exercise just because you sell something.

 

[danielpalos]

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

Did you forget this already: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17

The seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts that operations would be on a for-profit basis not any form of for-moral basis. True witness bearing matters because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[martybegan]

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

Did you forget this already: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17

The seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts that operations would be on a for-profit basis not any form of for-moral basis. True witness bearing matters because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Render unto Ceasar doesn't mean give up your rights automatically.

And your last paragraph is just more word salad with no actual meaning.

 

[danielpalos]

The buyer can say the same thing.

No, they can't. What Religion states "I get to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me for moral reasons"?

Religion is not the law. Our civil, secular, and temporal laws are enacted by representatives to Government, elected by the People and delegated that authority.

The Constitution grants the right to free exercise, limiting government's ability to interfere in a person's religious practice.

Selling in public accommodation is not a religious practice.

Doesn't matter. Again you don't lose your right to free exercise just because you sell something.

Of course it matters. Selling is not a religious activity and neither is photography, certis paribus.

 

[danielpalos]

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

Did you forget this already: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17

The seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts that operations would be on a for-profit basis not any form of for-moral basis. True witness bearing matters because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Render unto Ceasar doesn't mean give up your rights automatically.

And your last paragraph is just more word salad with no actual meaning.

Yes, it does; simply because that was a requirement to sell in "Caesar's market".

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies along with ad hominems. You need valid arguments for rebuttal.

 

[emilynghiem]

Free exercise. Not wanting to photograph a same sex wedding when most religions consider same sex relationships sinful is free exercise.

How do we know it is not merely some political agenda made possible under the common law?

Any practitioner of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) can say anything they want.

Job 34:30 applies.

I make a motion to petition a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists who may Inquire into the moral rectitude of the seller before that person can be considered credible regarding morals.

You don't get to decide how a person practices their religion, and government doesn't either unless there is a compelling interest.

Neither does a laity and secular seller in public accommodation.

Actually their choice if it comes from Religious belief should be paramount, then reviewed for a compelling government interest in infringing, and if so any remedy has to be as unobtrusive of their rights as possible.

The buyer can say the same thing.

The buyer is not being forced by GOVT
to accommodate THAT particular business which has a different type of service and beliefs.

The BUSINESS IS BEING FORCED BY GOVT
to change their services to include rituals they do not believe in and never offered to any customers.

The Buyer can STILL choose OTHER Vendors instead of harassing or targeting a business that doesn't offer same sex wedding type services.

The Business isn't being allowed the option to offer the Customer OTHER services, like Birthday photography etc, and count that as serving the Customer,but is facing penalties for not adding and advertising "same sex" services on their website even though they do not offer or believe in such type services.

The Buyer isn't being FORCED to use THAT Vendor but has freedom to go to any other Vendor. Why isn't that a form of discrimination or harassment to target a business due to their beliefs?

What if the GOVT required LGBT businesses to "add to their websites" advertising for Christian spiritual healing and reparative therapy in order to be inclusive?

Wouldn't the LGBT businesses and community fight that "if they do not BELIEVE" in spiritual healing and people changing their orientation to heterosexual.

The businesses would have the right to argue for rights to express their LGBT beliefs and not be "compelled by GOVT" to post equal "photos or testimonies" of exgay therapy in order to be inclusive.

And not "discriminate against exgay customers."

 

[martybegan]

The buyer can say the same thing.

No, they can't. What Religion states "I get to buy a cake from someone who doesn't want to sell it to me for moral reasons"?

Religion is not the law. Our civil, secular, and temporal laws are enacted by representatives to Government, elected by the People and delegated that authority.

The Constitution grants the right to free exercise, limiting government's ability to interfere in a person's religious practice.

Selling in public accommodation is not a religious practice.

Doesn't matter. Again you don't lose your right to free exercise just because you sell something.

Of course it matters. Selling is not a religious activity and neither is photography, certis paribus.

But the person in question is religious, and has the right to free exercise.

 

[martybegan]

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

Did you forget this already: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17

The seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts that operations would be on a for-profit basis not any form of for-moral basis. True witness bearing matters because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Render unto Ceasar doesn't mean give up your rights automatically.

And your last paragraph is just more word salad with no actual meaning.

Yes, it does; simply because that was a requirement to sell in "Caesar's market".

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies along with ad hominems. You need valid arguments for rebuttal.

No, it doesn't.

And back to the accusations of fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

The buyer is not being forced by GOVT
to accommodate THAT particular business which has a different type of service and beliefs.

The seller proclaimed to be operating on a for-profit basis not a for-moral basis in public accommodation. Was that seller bearing false witness to Government?

 

[danielpalos]

But the person in question is religious, and has the right to free exercise.

In private acommodation not public accommodation; it is why the seller was required to declare whether or not they would be operating on a for-profit basis. The seller could have freely chosen to operate on a non profit basis in order to "be more religious" about her business for the public good.

 

[danielpalos]

Any sin committed by people themselves is between them and their god(s), and handled via the forgiveness mechanism (if any) in the religion. This is about government interference.

Did you forget this already: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17

The seller proclaimed with the full faith and credit of public acts that operations would be on a for-profit basis not any form of for-moral basis. True witness bearing matters because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Render unto Ceasar doesn't mean give up your rights automatically.

And your last paragraph is just more word salad with no actual meaning.

Yes, it does; simply because that was a requirement to sell in "Caesar's market".

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies along with ad hominems. You need valid arguments for rebuttal.

No, it doesn't.

And back to the accusations of fallacies.

Yes, it does. And, you need a valid rebuttal not a diversion.