Federal judge orders Christian film-makers to make LGBT film

[gallantwarrior]

And meanwhile, the real story.

A video recording company made money working weddings. They decided they didn't want to video any gay weddings, so they're pretending to be "film makers" instead of "paid wedding video recorders".

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

But they already discriminate, legally. Some film makers only do Jewish weddings. They won't do other types of weddings. Some will only do Catholic weddings. What is wrong with limiting what you yourself are willing to do for money?

First, they call that "specialization", not discrimination. Second: the LGBTetc community isn't seeking those types of businesses out in order to use the full force of government to force them to comply with their social agenda.

 

[Peach]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

Those "private" businesses use PUBLIC services.

 

[Peach]

1st Amendment. You can't force people to do things against their religion.
It's like forcing a Muslim merchant to sell booze or a Jewish merchant to sell pork.
The Left Wing Bigot Judge will be over-ruled.

Steven Crowder proved in one of his YouTube videos that Muslim bakers can refuse to bake a cake for gay weddings with impunity.

Loud Crowd did not litigate the issue, did he?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can disagree all you like, but you're going to have to turn back the clock quite a few decades to enter the argument. Like, 50+years. The arguments were all made...we decided there is no place for this in America.

Decided what.? That you can't refuse a customer for racial or political or religious reasons.? So why are web-hosters allowed to refuse stormfront?

Hmm, guess you'll actually have to go educate yourself...

 

[eflatminor]

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

"Free markets are tyrannous? Example please. "


Monopolies, of course. softball question. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Lemme guess, you don't like those, either.

 

[eflatminor]

No one should be compelled to provide a service they do not owe to anyone in the first place.

Tyrants compel, capitalism does not.

Nobody compelled them to make wedding videos or enter the marketplace. They simply have to follow the laws and cannot put up a sign saying "whites only" or "straight people only", or they can exit the marketplace. See? their choice.

False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws.

I do not believe the force of government should be brought to bear on consensual transactions between adults. It assumes that I owe you a service. I do not.

Further, the truth is capitalism fixes the problem of an asshole shopkeeper. We'll both choose another shop and he'll soon be out of business or relegated to insignificance. Problem solved.

"False equivalency. There is no market free from protected-status laws. "

I'm not saying there is. If they want to have bbqs at home for whites only, go for it. If they want to open a business, they can't prop up a sign saying, "whites only". They enter into that social contract when then open a business. That is law, has been for years. And you can bet your bottom dollar that many of thise wanting to keep those signs claimed religious exemption, ESPECIALLY Mormons. But it was their religion, right?

And to them we said: tough shit. And it's happening again, this time for gay people. We can do this the hard way or the easy way, but it's going to happen, regardless of what you or I believe.

I respectively disagree. A private business is just that, private. It is not employed by government for public use, where I'm perfectly fine with imposing guidelines on service. But private property is different. It's private, not owned by government. There is no "social contract". It's a made up concept with no parallel in actual law.

Look, I would find the 'whites only' sign as disgusting as you. I would stand by you in protest. I would make sure that guy's competition got my business. I would be happy when he was put out of business.

All these tactics are voluntary in nature. What you prescribe absolutely requires involuntary compliance, enforced by armed government agents.

That's fascist. Don't be a fascist.

Those "private" businesses use PUBLIC services.

For which they pay local taxes. You've moved the goalpost. Driving on a public road has nothing to do with government forcing a citizen to use his private property in a particular manner.

Again, no need for government to meddle in private business.

 

[eflatminor]

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

"Free markets are tyrannous? Example please. "


Monopolies, of course. softball question. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Lemme guess, you don't like those, either.

Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. You'll have to show where that citizen used his monopoly to infringe on the rights of another, then perhaps you might have a case.

Now, with government meddlers, we have thousands of years of history chalk full of tyrants.

You on the side of freedom?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

"Free markets are tyrannous? Example please. "


Monopolies, of course. softball question. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Lemme guess, you don't like those, either.

Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. You'll have to show where that citizen used his monopoly to infringe on the rights of another, then perhaps you might have a case.

Now, with government meddlers, we have thousands of years of history chalk full of tyrants.

You on the side of freedom?

"Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. "

Of course it does, due to gouging. every single time. The constriction of these laws to "protection of basic rights" is your invention, and does not exist in the real world. And thank goodness for that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And meanwhile, the real story.

A video recording company made money working weddings. They decided they didn't want to video any gay weddings, so they're pretending to be "film makers" instead of "paid wedding video recorders".

The courts rightfully smacked them down. If you advertise a service to the public, then you have to serve all the public. You can't say "no black weddings" or "no Jewish weddings" or "no gay weddings". It has nothing to do with the first amendment.

mamooth

Once again, I thank you for posting the truth on this.

So far, I haven't seen ShootSpeeders admitting he lied.



.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And yet you support web-hosters who refuse service to white nationalists.

Correct, because white nationalists do not deserve such protections simply for being white nationalists. Sucks being on the losing side of history, eh? Mwahaha

What about child-molesting faggots?. Why do they deserve protection? THINK

@ShootSpeeeders

Please don't bring Ted Poopy Pants Convicted Poacher Pedo Darling of the RWNJs Nugent into this.

Same with Duck Dynasty old fart, Josh Duggar, Mike The Huckster Huckabee ad nauseum.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

"Free markets are tyrannous? Example please. "


Monopolies, of course. softball question. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Lemme guess, you don't like those, either.

Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. You'll have to show where that citizen used his monopoly to infringe on the rights of another, then perhaps you might have a case.

Now, with government meddlers, we have thousands of years of history chalk full of tyrants.

You on the side of freedom?

eflatminor

You might want to climb down off that very rickety soap box and read up on anti-trust laws.


.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Can't the ugly bits be subcontracted out?

Oh My ******* God ...

Did Tipsycatlover just make a joke?

Yikes.

You GO girl - Maybe there's hope for you yet.




















Or maybe I misunderstood her post?






.

 

[eflatminor]

And your world requires involuntary compliance enforced by armed government agents...all to stop the "harm" of not getting service from a baker, a service that baker owes to no one in the first place.

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

You mention results. So what has been more harmful throughout history, an asshole shopkeeper or government tyranny?

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

Sorry, morality lies with those that do not impose their will on others who have done nothing to infringe on anyone's rights. You're imposing your will and enforcing it with jacked booted thugs.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

"Free markets are tyrannous? Example please. "


Monopolies, of course. softball question. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Lemme guess, you don't like those, either.

Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. You'll have to show where that citizen used his monopoly to infringe on the rights of another, then perhaps you might have a case.

Now, with government meddlers, we have thousands of years of history chalk full of tyrants.

You on the side of freedom?

"Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. "

Of course it does, due to gouging. every single time. The constriction of these laws to "protection of basic rights" is your invention, and does not exist in the real world. And thank goodness for that.

I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Inflated prices arising from a monopoly over a particular resource inevitably results in alternatives and technological advances that renders the monopoly moot. More importantly, no one is forced to buy from the monopoly. You can always go without that resource, You can always walk away.

Exactly the opposite is true with government tyranny. You have no choice. You will literally have a gun put to your head if you do not comply.

I side with voluntary. I side with freedom. You're on board with the tyrants, which is your right. I just find the notion immoral as hell.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's an argument for anarchism, being that in the end, all laws are enforced by armed government agents. And it's cheap emotionalism on your part.

Governments are often the agent of freedom, and unregulated markets are often the agents of tyranny. At least that's how it works outside of libertarian myths.

The paradise of Somalia and it's total lack of government regulation is beckoning you.

I am sometimes the boss of you, and I do not apologize for it, just as you are sometimes the boss of me, and have no need to apologize for it. That's life. We don't always get to do what we want. Grownups understand that, and have little patience with "You're imposing you will on me!" crying.

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

"Free markets are tyrannous? Example please. "


Monopolies, of course. softball question. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Lemme guess, you don't like those, either.

Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. You'll have to show where that citizen used his monopoly to infringe on the rights of another, then perhaps you might have a case.

Now, with government meddlers, we have thousands of years of history chalk full of tyrants.

You on the side of freedom?

"Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. "

Of course it does, due to gouging. every single time. The constriction of these laws to "protection of basic rights" is your invention, and does not exist in the real world. And thank goodness for that.

I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Inflated prices arising from a monopoly over a particular resource inevitably results in alternatives and technological advances that renders the monopoly moot. More importantly, no one is forced to buy from the monopoly. You can always go without that resource, You can always walk away.

Exactly the opposite is true with government tyranny. You have no choice. You will literally have a gun put to your head if you do not comply.

I side with voluntary. I side with freedom. You're on board with the tyrants, which is your right. I just find the notion immoral as hell.

Sorry, you are wrong, and this debate was litigated and settled a long time ago. Your devotion to the invisible hand is not rational and is contrradicted by all of the evidence. The best economies arise in controlled capitalism.

 

[mamooth]

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

So you're fine with "armed government agents" in principle. That was the point, that your line about "armed government agents" is overly emotional hyperbole. All laws, in the end, rely on "armed government agents" to enforce them. Therefore, if you're decrying "armed government agents", you're announcing your opposition to any sort of law.

Inflated prices arising from a monopoly over a particular resource inevitably results in alternatives and technological advances that renders the monopoly moot. More importantly, no one is forced to buy from the monopoly. You can always go without that resource, You can always walk away.

No. Not how the real world works.

Healthcare. We have near-monopolies. Prices are incredibly inflated, compared to nations where government takes a more active role. And essentially everyone has to buy.

Internet. I have a choice of _one_ very expensive broadband provider (satellite internet, being even more expensive, is not an option). No new players are entering the market. Forgoing internet is not an option. Nations where the government takes a more active role have much cheaper and faster internet.

In both of those cases, the free market stinks compared to the government.

 

[eflatminor]

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

Free markets are tyrannous? Example please.

Lastly, I impose my will on no one that hasn't infringed on my rights. You advocate involuntary compliance. That's immoral no matter how many ad hominem attacks you through my way.

"Free markets are tyrannous? Example please. "


Monopolies, of course. softball question. That's why we have anti-trust laws. Lemme guess, you don't like those, either.

Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. You'll have to show where that citizen used his monopoly to infringe on the rights of another, then perhaps you might have a case.

Now, with government meddlers, we have thousands of years of history chalk full of tyrants.

You on the side of freedom?

"Just because someone holds a monopoly over a particular resource (VERY rare), that doesn't make them automatically tyrannous. "

Of course it does, due to gouging. every single time. The constriction of these laws to "protection of basic rights" is your invention, and does not exist in the real world. And thank goodness for that.

I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

Inflated prices arising from a monopoly over a particular resource inevitably results in alternatives and technological advances that renders the monopoly moot. More importantly, no one is forced to buy from the monopoly. You can always go without that resource, You can always walk away.

Exactly the opposite is true with government tyranny. You have no choice. You will literally have a gun put to your head if you do not comply.

I side with voluntary. I side with freedom. You're on board with the tyrants, which is your right. I just find the notion immoral as hell.

Sorry, you are wrong, and this debate was litigated and settled a long time ago. Your devotion to the invisible hand is not rational and is contrradicted by all of the evidence. The best economies arise in controlled capitalism.

Your devotion to involuntary compliance enforced by the iron boot of government is what I consider irrational, but more importantly immoral.

Oh and about that "settled long time ago" argument...that's EXACTLY the same thing you fellow Democrat slave owners said centuries ago.

Sad.

 

[eflatminor]

You are wrong regarding anarchy. I never said we should have no laws, I said we should not have laws that prosecute people that have done nothing to infringe on the rights of another. Big difference.

So you're fine with "armed government agents" in principle. That was the point, that your line about "armed government agents" is overly emotional hyperbole. All laws, in the end, rely on "armed government agents" to enforce them. Therefore, if you're decrying "armed government agents", you're announcing your opposition to any sort of law.

Inflated prices arising from a monopoly over a particular resource inevitably results in alternatives and technological advances that renders the monopoly moot. More importantly, no one is forced to buy from the monopoly. You can always go without that resource, You can always walk away.

No. Not how the real world works.

Healthcare. We have near-monopolies. Prices are incredibly inflated, compared to nations where government takes a more active role. And essentially everyone has to buy.

Internet. I have a choice of _one_ very expensive broadband provider (satellite internet, being even more expensive, is not an option). No new players are entering the market. Forgoing internet is not an option. Nations where the government takes a more active role have much cheaper and faster internet.

In both of those cases, the free market stinks compared to the government.

To your first point, yes, I believe in the rule of law when those laws are used to keep citizens free. I do not support laws that are tyrannous in nature, which is exactly the case when government can kick down my door, confiscate my wealth and incarcerate me when I've done NOTHING to infringe on the rights of another. You support that kind of tyranny, I simply do not.

The "near monopolies" you mention exist because they are enforced by government.

Do you not see the irony?

You're looking to government to solve a problem they caused in the first place!

All I ask is that you consider that the solution to any perceived societal problem need not always come from more laws enforced by armed government agents. More often than not, free people voluntarily transacting in free markets is the answer.

 

[mamooth]

To your first point, yes, I believe in the rule of law when those laws are used to keep citizens free. I do not support laws that are tyrannous in nature, which is exactly the case when government can kick down my door, confiscate my wealth and incarcerate me when I've done NOTHING to infringe on the rights of another. You support that kind of tyranny, I simply do not.

Libertarians are like a sullen teenagers screaming "you're not the boss of me!" and "it's so unfair!". Suck it up, buttercup. You don't always get to do what you want, and you'll get mocked for being a snowflake when you cry about it.

The "near monopolies" you mention exist because they are enforced by government.

Communists tell me that the failures of communism are because it wasn't TrueCommunism. Libertarians tell me that the failures of capitalism are because it's not TrueCapitalism. I see little difference between the two groups of religious fanatics. We get it. A fantasy world where your ideology was implemented in a pure and untainted fashion would work perfectly. Too bad your fantasy system can't exist in the real world.

 

[Syriusly]

Another liberal judge writes a law even though the constitution says only congress can do that.

Activist Dem judge rules LGBT mandate trumps 1st Amendment
]

Nobody 'wrote a law'- a judge told a business that they have to comply with Minnesota law like everyone else.

Why do you think that business's owned by Christians don't have to obey the same law as everyone else?

Nobody 'wrote a law'- a judge told a business that they have to comply with Minnesota law like everyone else.

Why do you think that business's owned by Christians don't have to obey the same law as everyone else?