Freedom of Religion? Christian Artists Face Jail Time For Not Making Same-Sex Wedding Invitations

[Syriusly]

Where in the constitution does the federal government derive the authority to do so? The first amendment prohibits the federal government from passing laws that restrict an individuals religious practices but it does not grant the federal government any authority over the States (looking at the text from a strict constructionist standpoint).

The UNITED STATES Constitution is not the Texas, Arizona, New Mexico Constitution - it is the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. .)

Exactly- which is why I am sure you agree with Obergefell and that a gay couple has a constitutional right to marry in Arizona.

Meanwhile- business's have an obligation to follow the law- which means in Phoenix, that regardless of the business owners religious beliefs that they cannot refuse to sell to blacks, Jews, women, Mexicans or gays.

 

[Syriusly]

You don't get to decide what is or isn't moral and the government be damned. That's reality.

And government doesn't get to decide to punish people over no actual harm, only hurt feelings. If you were actually a fan of the constitution, you would know that.

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the first refuge of the dumbass.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race religion or sexual orientation
If they don't want to comply with public accommodation laws then they can close shop

So bake or die?

Really?

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

What 'tiny' minority?

This was an ordinance passed through the legislative process in Phoenix- i.e. by the Phoenix city council- representing all of the citizens of Phoenix.

 

[Syriusly]

The FEDERAL courts have already stepped in on cases involving Constitutional religious liberties.

Which cases said that the federal government has the authority you claim it has with respect to state and local ordnances of the nature under discussion?

Since you haven't been able to point out anything in the U.S. Constitution that grants the federal government the authority you claim that is has nor are you arguing from a strict constructionist point of view, let me make this simple.

If the federal government were to be granted the authority you say it has; i.e. to explicitly step in and strike down a local ordinance like the one in Phoenix on the grounds that it violates the religious liberty of these shop owners, what's to stop a left wing activist point of view federal government from stepping in and creating a federal law that says in effect that NO private entity, anywhere in the United States can deny service based on sexual orientation (or any other criteria the feds deem appropriate) on the grounds that it violates the civil liberties of the patrons?

When you start coloring outside of the lines with respect to the EXPLICIT authority granted by the U.S. Constitution you start running into all these sorts of double edged swords, which is why we need more strict constructionism (Antonin Scalia) and less judicial activism (Ruth Ginsberg) rewriting the Constitution on the fly, along with much more push back from the States regarding asserting their rights.

The people of Arizona can address this egregious violation of religious liberty (by voting to Amend the State Constitution), it's exactly the sort of thing the 50 "laboratories of democracy" and the design of bifurcated separation of powers was put in place to do.

Actually Federal Courts could do so- and have declined to.

Remember these kinds of laws have been in place since 1964- when it became illegal for a business to refuse to serve blacks or Jews or women- even if their own religious beliefs said otherwise.

 

[martybegan]

And government doesn't get to decide to punish people over no actual harm, only hurt feelings. If you were actually a fan of the constitution, you would know that.

Argumentum ad abusrdum, the first refuge of the dumbass.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race religion or sexual orientation
If they don't want to comply with public accommodation laws then they can close shop

So bake or die?

Really?

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

What 'tiny' minority?

This was an ordinance passed through the legislative process in Phoenix- i.e. by the Phoenix city council- representing all of the citizens of Phoenix.

The tiny minority of a small minority that has decided to punish people who disagree with them.

The people of NYC think that I need to wait 3-6 months and pay $600 in fees for a handgun. They are wrong as well. a law cannot be just if it violates constitutional protections.

 

[Syriusly]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race religion or sexual orientation
If they don't want to comply with public accommodation laws then they can close shop

So bake or die?

Really?

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Is the guy the only printer in the city or artist? This is a free s country. Even liberals thinks it as long as it fits their agenda.

LOL

You are clueless about the actual case and just jumped into the argument clueless.

'the guy' is two women.

No one is demanding that they do anything.

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

 

[martybegan]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957

So bake or die?

Really?

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Is the guy the only printer in the city or artist? This is a free s country. Even liberals thinks it as long as it fits their agenda.

LOL

You are clueless about the actual case and just jumped into the argument clueless.

'the guy' is two women.

No one is demanding that they do anything.

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

it's called a pre-emtive strike.

And they are claiming religious exercise as an exception in this one instance to the PA law, which isn't really a PA law, but a "any time money changes hands law"

 

[Syriusly]

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race religion or sexual orientation
If they don't want to comply with public accommodation laws then they can close shop

So bake or die?

Really?

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

What 'tiny' minority?

This was an ordinance passed through the legislative process in Phoenix- i.e. by the Phoenix city council- representing all of the citizens of Phoenix.

The tiny minority of a small minority that has decided to punish people who disagree with them.
.

Again- what minority?

The city council is the legal representative legislative body for Phoenix- and the ordinance was passed by the legally elected representatives of the citizens of Phoenix.

If you don't like that then you need to do away with representative government and go for pure democracy.

 

[Syriusly]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Is the guy the only printer in the city or artist? This is a free s country. Even liberals thinks it as long as it fits their agenda.

LOL

You are clueless about the actual case and just jumped into the argument clueless.

'the guy' is two women.

No one is demanding that they do anything.

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

it's called a pre-emtive strike.

And they are claiming religious exercise as an exception in this one instance to the PA law, which isn't really a PA law, but a "any time money changes hands law"

So we are in agreement

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

 

[Syriusly]

Holey moley batman. I'm not the one claiming my belief in some supernatural creature entitles me to discriminate against gay people in my business.

So how is this different from a Muslim restaurateur who refuses to serve me ham and eggs because of his religion?

I doubt if ham was on his menu.

Eggs? I admit I know squat about Muslims. Do they have a thing against eggs too?

So yeah it's different.

Show were any of the artists or bakers said they served fags and dykes. Go ahead

The restaurateur cannot discriminate against a gay couple either. If you own and run a business open to the public in a jurisdiction where the PA law include protection for LGBT it is implied that you must follow the law.

Thanks for pointing out the butt obvious. I know what the law says. The law is an abomination to liberty. Government forcing citizens to do business with each other is sick and it's wrong. Government is just being a tool of oppression for totalitarians

Excuse kaz- he just found out that for the last 50 years business's have been obligated to do business with customers even if they don't want to sell to blacks or jews- he thinks that is sick and wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

You don't get to decide what is or isn't moral and the government be damned. That's reality.

No I don't, but I san point out that the United States Constitution protects 'freedom of religion and the exercise thereof' from liberals who seek to control and enforce their will on Christians.

Religion seeks to impose it's will on others, why is that okay?

Because, it seems okay for someone to force their same sex way of life on the religious, whether through direct or indirect means.

Turnabout is fair play.

Christians are supposed to follow the law and obey authorities.

Romans
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

So why do Christians keep ignoring what the Bible says?

How is suing a city in court "rebelling?"

Where did I say rebelling? I was quoting the bible.

How is suing a city in court submitting to governing authorities?

 

[Syriusly]

Thanks for your gracious admission that you were completely wrong about all of the anti-discrimination laws were based upon genetics. I had thought you might try to dance around and try to obscure your 'error' by bringing up tons of other crap.

Sex, race, color and religion are not constitutionally protected. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a business cannot discriminate as much as it wants.

I think you should go to Phoenix and raise your concerns about how unfair they are in not allowing blind drivers to drive.

Yes you could go on and on- buty why?

LOL

They are protected in the Constitution, just not related to business. The feds have no authority over intrastate business constitutionally.

Well in this case, the Christofascists want to be able to exempt from local law that every other business is obligated to follow.

No they aren't, name one muslim business charged for not catering to fags.

Well in this case- the Christofascist business hasn't been charged for anything- not for catering to n*ggers, k*kes, or f*gs.

All that time to come up with a deflection, you're just not too smart, are ya?

Now you want to actually answer the question?

No- I am not going to dance with your strawman- feel free to dance with him yourself.

Meanwhile in this case- the Christofascist business hasn't been charged for anything- not for catering to n*ggers, k*kes, or f*gs

 

[martybegan]

So bake or die?

Really?

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

What 'tiny' minority?

This was an ordinance passed through the legislative process in Phoenix- i.e. by the Phoenix city council- representing all of the citizens of Phoenix.

The tiny minority of a small minority that has decided to punish people who disagree with them.
.

Again- what minority?

The city council is the legal representative legislative body for Phoenix- and the ordinance was passed by the legally elected representatives of the citizens of Phoenix.

If you don't like that then you need to do away with representative government and go for pure democracy.

You are dodging the actual argument with process and procedure.

 

[martybegan]

No I don't, but I san point out that the United States Constitution protects 'freedom of religion and the exercise thereof' from liberals who seek to control and enforce their will on Christians.

Religion seeks to impose it's will on others, why is that okay?

Because, it seems okay for someone to force their same sex way of life on the religious, whether through direct or indirect means.

Turnabout is fair play.

Christians are supposed to follow the law and obey authorities.

Romans
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

So why do Christians keep ignoring what the Bible says?

How is suing a city in court "rebelling?"

Where did I say rebelling? I was quoting the bible.

How is suing a city in court submitting to governing authorities?

The quote says "rebelling", read your own posts, dippy.

You are submitting to the process using courts, not rebelling.

Reading is fundemental.

 

[easyt65]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constitutional_law

"While the topic also covers the interpretation and implementation of state constitutions, without qualification it is usually understood as referring to the Federal Constitution.


Article VI of The United States Constitution states (art. VI, § 2.) – “ Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it.”


YES, the Federal Government has the authority to step in an invalidate / strike down state laws that violate the US Constitution, to include constitutionally protected rights."

The US Constitution established the government recognized and protected freedom of religion and the exercising thereof.

It protects persons of all religions from anyone seeking to define their religion, define what it is they can believe, and / or seeking to set limits on their religion.

No one has the right to impose THEIR own biases, prejudices, or beliefs on those of religious faith - those people are FREE as are their right to exercise their faith.

This does not mean the government / USSC will find in their favor all the time, and it has not. It seems, however, that as the 'change' Barry called for spreads the more intolerance there is and the more eagerness to seek to impose their will on groups anyway no matter what the Constitution states.

President Obama and Democrats sought to do this when they declared medial institutions run by faith organizations had to perform abortions. This was quickly identified as a violation of the Constitution, specifically regarding religious freedom, and it was quickly amended (by EO). This, of course, was at the federal level, but the authority for the federal government to step in at the state and municipal level has already been proven.

The exact location in the Constitution where it states the Federal Government does have the authority to do so has now been provided:

Article VI / art. VI, § 2:
"This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it.”


(Since Barry is such an acclaimed Constitutional Scholar you would think HE would know this.)

 

[Syriusly]

die? Where did I say Die?

If you refuse to follow the laws then you should not open a business.
Maybe the church will hire them to clean the pews

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Again, you or the government doesn't get to decide how a person follows their faith, unless their is a compelling government interest, and even then the government has to use the least intrusive means of mitigating the issue.

And the only bigotry I am seeing is coming from you. You don't like religious people, we get it.

I have no problem with religious people just people who use their religion to justify their bigotry

There is absolutely no cogent argument that printing words on paper for a sinner makes the printer a participant in that sin

There is even less of an argument for ruining someone over them not wanting to bake a cake, or take a photograph, or make an invitation for an event, especially if the service is easily obtainable elsewhere, is non-essential, and non-time sensitive.

Then your argument is that the law should be changed.

Because right now the Phoenix law protects these women from being discriminated against for their religion- as much as it protects anyone else.

Remember- no one has done anything to these women- they just don't think that they should have to follow the city ordinance.

 

[martybegan]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Is the guy the only printer in the city or artist? This is a free s country. Even liberals thinks it as long as it fits their agenda.

LOL

You are clueless about the actual case and just jumped into the argument clueless.

'the guy' is two women.

No one is demanding that they do anything.

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

it's called a pre-emtive strike.

And they are claiming religious exercise as an exception in this one instance to the PA law, which isn't really a PA law, but a "any time money changes hands law"

So we are in agreement

They have sued the City of Phoenix demanding that as Christians they shouldn't have to follow a Phoenix ordinance.

They are saying their right to free exercise outweighs the local governments authority to regulate commerce in this specific case.

 

[Syriusly]

[
The answer is to allow peopIe the freedom to decide for themselves who they want as associates.

Then you need to change the law- and laws so business's can refuse to sell to customers because of their skin color, or religion, or gender, or marital status, or sexual orientation or national origin.

 

[martybegan]

An exaggeration, of course. Why should a tiny minority decide what a person can, or cannot do for a living? Especially in a non-essential, non-time sensitive, contract work industry?

And don't give me the "law is the law is the law" line, that's a cop out.

the gay guy isn't deciding the bigot is deciding that he cannot do business with sinners lest he become a participant in the sin.
So by Christian "logic" if printing words on paper for a gay wedding is the same as participating in the wedding then printing words on paper for an adulterer is participation in adultery

So if these people really care about their religion they would not do business with any sinner. The fact that they only care about the gay sin is proof that they are bigots and hypocrites

Again, you or the government doesn't get to decide how a person follows their faith, unless their is a compelling government interest, and even then the government has to use the least intrusive means of mitigating the issue.

And the only bigotry I am seeing is coming from you. You don't like religious people, we get it.

I have no problem with religious people just people who use their religion to justify their bigotry

There is absolutely no cogent argument that printing words on paper for a sinner makes the printer a participant in that sin

There is even less of an argument for ruining someone over them not wanting to bake a cake, or take a photograph, or make an invitation for an event, especially if the service is easily obtainable elsewhere, is non-essential, and non-time sensitive.

Then your argument is that the law should be changed.

Because right now the Phoenix law protects these women from being discriminated against for their religion- as much as it protects anyone else.

Remember- no one has done anything to these women- they just don't think that they should have to follow the city ordinance.

Not changed, but a public accommodation is not every single instance where money changes hands.

In the case of a non-essential, non time sensitive, contracted service that has multiple other options, The right of these women to free exercise outweighs some gay couple's "right" to said women's product.

 

[Syriusly]

Religion seeks to impose it's will on others, why is that okay?

Because, it seems okay for someone to force their same sex way of life on the religious, whether through direct or indirect means.

Turnabout is fair play.

Christians are supposed to follow the law and obey authorities.

Romans
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

So why do Christians keep ignoring what the Bible says?

How is suing a city in court "rebelling?"

Where did I say rebelling? I was quoting the bible.

How is suing a city in court submitting to governing authorities?

The quote says "rebelling", read your own posts, dippy.

You are submitting to the process using courts, not rebelling.

Reading is fundemental.

As I said- Where did I say rebelling? I was quoting the bible- the bible mentions 'rebelling'- but not only rebelling- once again:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.


How is suing a city in court submitting to governing authorities?

 

[OldLady]

Yep- no different than if they only offered white invitations.

Or said they wouldn't sell to Jews.

Wrong fagism isn't a race or a religion. It's personal preferences and conduct.

Christism is a personal preference and conduct.

Why do Christofascists think that they should be excluded from obeying the law?

Can a law be a law if it contradicts the supreme law of the land? Where does the Constitutions say if you want to provide for your family you have to give up the freedom to exercise your religion as you see fit, or the right to chose who you associate with?

Well that is an interesting question isn't it?

Over 50 years ago, when the first such laws were passed, good Christian business owners felt it was their right not to serve blacks or Jews.

They lost that fight.

Because here is the thing- a business still has to follow the law. A business can't for example ignore city sanitation rules by claiming that his religion doesn't allow him to sanitize his business.

What you're missing is all discrimination laws, except for faghadist, are based on genetics and not personal preferences or conduct. There is nothing in the Constitution as amended that protects personal preferences or conduct form discrimination. Just because a bunch of fags and feel good regressives think it's a good idea to invent some kind of protection doesn't make it constitutional or right. BTW there are protections in the Constitution about involuntary servitude.

Homosexuality is no more of a choice than heterosexuality. What turns you on is pretty much born in you. So yes, you can insist people not have sex, but really, do you think that has or ever would work, anywhere? It may as well be genetic. I've never understood why it is such skin off anyone's nose. You take it to a whole nother level with your hatred.