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

[Iceweasel]

I don't hate anyone, I just like freedom, you on the other hand have no problem threatening someone's livelihood to force association and involuntary servitude. That child ain't freedom, in fact I think we have an amendment outlawing forced servitude, don't we?

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

How fascist of ya. Why do you hate freedom?

this isn't about freedom it's about bigotry and hypocrisy

These so called christians have no problem doing business with any other sinner so we know it's not the sin they are afraid of

If they really thought printing words on paper for a gay wedding makes them a participant to the sin of homosexuality then they wouldn't do business with any sinner lest they become a participant in those sins too

so it's not the sin

Bigotry and hypocrisy are part of freedom. The First Amendment gives you the right to be a bigot. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a private business from discriminating against whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants.

yes they are you just can't violate the law while being a bigot

it really is that simple

if you don't like it then get the laws repealed and amend the constitution

The Constitution doesn't need amending, that's why local areas have added accommodation laws and then sexual preferences on top of that. That was explained to you before, you are as dense as a bowling ball.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws should only apply to actual PA's. So no, you can't make black people or gay people sit in a separate section of your movie theater, No, you cannot deny a hotel room to a travelling jewish couple, No, your deli can't deny service of a sandwich to a muslim

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

 

[martybegan]

Well then according to your interpretation, these women are screwed.

Because they have gone to court to challenge the law. Which is very clear and was passed by the 'legislative body' of Phoenix.

Wrong, I'm saying your constitutional right to be you does not negate my right to be free from you. Basically what public accommodation laws do is force association and involuntary servitude. Here's a thought, allow a businesses to serve anyone they want and let the market, not government, decide if that model is sustainable, that's called freedom.

or at least keep PA laws to actual public accommodations, hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, point of sale stores of commodity items.

I disagree, any business should have the freedom to decide their own model, let the market decide if it's a sustainable model or not. If they piss off too many they won't be in business long.

You don't want a patchwork of bodgeas, each catering to a different group, with rules on who goes in, who sits where, who gets served, etc. THAT is economic harm, and not something worth fighting for.

There are actual Public Accommodations, and those should be regulated in the interest of preventing confrontations that are a detriment to commerce.

I would prefer the competition. Like I said, a business that cuts it's own throat won't stay in business and the next guy will pick up the slack.

In an ideal world, yes. But public order would be an issue in actual PA's that try to stop certain people at the door, over something as non-committal, and non-endorsing has a ham sandwich, or who gets to sit where in a movie theater.

 

[martybegan]

When you create a business that relies on public traffic, and you willfully allow that public traffic, then the rules change. If anyone can walk into your store, they should be able to purchase non-custom point of sale items. They should be able to sit anywhere in your restaurant if you let people sit where they want, and they should be able to get a hotel room if you offer hotel rooms to the public.

And the hotel example is interesting to me, because most hotels rent out their spaces for events. To me the hotel should be allowed to determine what hosted events it wants to handle, so if it doesn't want to book SSM's, it shouldn't have to. But it should NOT deny a hotel room for someone staying over based on any discriminatory reasons.

So you don't have to host that SSM wedding, but you do have to rent a room to that gay couple attending a OSM wedding.

Cool, now answer the question: "Clearly you can tell someone to get off your yard. Where in the Constitution does it say that property right is forfeited when you are conducting commerce on your property?"

You're throwing out standards without any basis for them. Your business is your property. Your business's property is your property. Where does the Constitution say that due process AND commerce can restrict your property rights? I only see the due process part

When you open a store that is on your property, and are selling items, you are inviting them onto said property to conduct the transaction. If you are asking people to come in to buy stuff, and then yell at some of them to leave because or "reason X", it creates an impediment to commerce. The issue is how does "reason X" impact your proposed transaction, and is your right to your property greater than the right of a person to get the same deal as the person next to them, and thus the right of the State to govern commerce.

Bull shit. So if I have a backyard BBQ, does that mean anyone can come against my will because I invited people to a BBQ? When I open a business, I'm inviting customers. That determination is up to me. Why can't a hobo sleep on my floor and say he's a customer?

And again ... where ... is ... that ... in ... the ... Constitution? You keep saying engaging in commerce forfeits my Constitutional rights. Where does it say that?

No, because you INVITED them. When you own a shop that says "Open for business" and allow the public in, you allow the public in. If you want your grocery store to be a private club, you have to set it up that way.

A Hobo sleeping on your floor, if you do not let anyone else sleep on your floor, can be removed as a trespasser. Different concept.

I did not invite "the public" in, I invited customers. You keep pulling these standards out of your ass. I invited anyone in, but not the hobo, but I did invite in people I don't want to do anything with.

The Constitution says clearly my life, liberty and property cannot be restricted without due process of law. Yet you're advocating limiting both my right to liberty and property without my having been convicted of a crime. Nowhere does the Constitution say that opening a business suspends my Constitutional rights. You're just making up that I invited "the public" in when I didn't and creating that as a standard to limit my right to liberty and property when that is not listed in the fifth amendment, only due process is listed

Unless you vet each person entering your business and give them explicit permission, you are inviting the public in.

I am not making things up, you are being an absolutist, and ignoring decades of precedent when it comes to public spaces and their extensions onto private property in the interest of commerce. Your arguments are just as wrong as those who seek to regulate every business transaction as a PA.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

it doesn't forfeit them, but a person's right to commerce has to be weighed against the other rights of other people, even sellers of goods.

Sorry, but you lose me with the absolutist nature of your concept of property rights. It's never going to win.

So to you, due process is government weighing my right to commerce against the rights of other people. And the rights of other people includes forcing me to do commerce against my will.

And I never said I have an "absolutist" right to property. You just have to provide me due process. You're just flapping your jaws now

Running to "due process", meaning every time something comes up a judge has to get involved, is basically ignoring the concept that government can regulate commerce, even though at the State level States have authority to do so if granted by the constitution, (or not explicitly banned by it).

I'm sorry, but if you own a deli, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose your customers wanting to buy a ham sandwich.

 

[martybegan]

View attachment 100957 View attachment 100957 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.

where in the bible does it say you cannot enter a business transaction with a gay person? And how does entering a business transaction with a gay person prohibit you from freely practicing your religion?

Hint
The answers are
nowhere and it doesn't

Homosexual acts are sinful, as per the torah/bible/quaran and plenty of other religious texts. a gay wedding is a celebration of said act, and in fact an endorsement of them.

Again, its not up to government to decide how a person practices their religion unless there is a compelling government interest to do so, and even then it must be handled in the least burdensome way possible.

 

[Skull Pilot]

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

Open to the public doesn't mean publicly owned. You are free to take your business elsewhere.

yet the business owner is not free to violate public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws

If you don't want to obey those laws then you should not have opened a business

You are free to skull **** an aids encrusted cock, no law against it. Hammer your tonsils on that bad boy and show it who's boss. Pretend it's someone that doesn't want to bake your cake.

I like freedom, you don't. So go stuff your Nazi bullshit up your ass. You tyrannical assholes impose sexual accomodation laws onto the masses because it isn't a Constitutional right to force people to accept what you want. People are getting fed up, your greedy bastards went too far.

Yeah god forbid I call a ******* bigot a bigot

Are you really stupid enough to think that doing business with a gay person makes you guilty of the gay sin?

And wtf is a sexual accommodation law? No one is forcing this printer to have sex with anyone.

IDGAF if people are gay I don't care if it's a choice or not. You have no right to tell people what they an and can't do in their private lives. If you open a business that serves the public you are subject to the law of the land. You don't ******* like it then don't open a ******* business

I'm a bigot because I don't like little Nazi ***** ordering me around? I'm not religious so don't believe in sin, you don't know what you are babbling about. No one said anything about forcing someone into sex, I responded to your comment that making someone print something wasn't forcing them to participate. To you sex is the same as the printed word? No wonder you believe what you do, you're a functional retard.

OK so WTF is a "sexual accommodatiom " law in your tiny mind?

And the argument these religious nuts are using is that they are participating in the gay sin by doing business with gay people

That's why I mention it

try to keep up

 

[Skull Pilot]

where in the bible does it say you cannot enter a business transaction with a gay person? And how does entering a business transaction with a gay person prohibit you from freely practicing your religion?

Hint
The answers are
nowhere and it doesn't

Nowhere, but specially supporting a gay marriage is different.

printing words on paper for a fee is not supporting anything.

They aren't being asked to simply print what someone else created. They are being asked to generate the words themselves. That is nothing short of newspeak and Stalinism .

no the customer tells them what to print. They just set the type.

have you ever been to a print shop?

Set the type? LOL, you don't even know what century you're in.

You got the drift the customer tell the printer what to print. And I could argue that choosing a font is analogous to setting type

 

[Skull Pilot]

if you do not want to abide by public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws then you are free not to open a business that serves the public

How fascist of ya. Why do you hate freedom?

this isn't about freedom it's about bigotry and hypocrisy

These so called christians have no problem doing business with any other sinner so we know it's not the sin they are afraid of

If they really thought printing words on paper for a gay wedding makes them a participant to the sin of homosexuality then they wouldn't do business with any sinner lest they become a participant in those sins too

so it's not the sin

Bigotry and hypocrisy are part of freedom. The First Amendment gives you the right to be a bigot. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a private business from discriminating against whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants.

yes they are you just can't violate the law while being a bigot

it really is that simple

if you don't like it then get the laws repealed and amend the constitution

The Constitution doesn't need amending, that's why local areas have added accommodation laws and then sexual preferences on top of that. That was explained to you before, you are as dense as a bowling ball.

You want people to be able to deny anyone service for any reason including race or religion to do that you would have to amend the constitution

 

[kaz]

It's so rare that any business wants to do that anyway. Jim Crow laws were a demonstration of that. The businesses didn't want to turn away customers, including black ones. The Montgomery bus system was even quasi government and they didn't want to force their best customers to stand or to the back. So the racists ran to government to force them, it was the only way. We're total racists in business, we only want to serve green.

Government is on the other hand overwhelmingly power hungry and corrupt. They can and do abuse any power given to them.

So you're solving a virtual non-problem with the greatest threat to our liberty, government.

Doesn't that bother you at all?

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

 

[martybegan]

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

And I agree on those three situations, however I do think government has an interest in saying "if you sell ham sandwiches, you sell them to all comers if you let the public into your place of business"

 

[kaz]

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

it doesn't forfeit them, but a person's right to commerce has to be weighed against the other rights of other people, even sellers of goods.

Sorry, but you lose me with the absolutist nature of your concept of property rights. It's never going to win.

So to you, due process is government weighing my right to commerce against the rights of other people. And the rights of other people includes forcing me to do commerce against my will.

And I never said I have an "absolutist" right to property. You just have to provide me due process. You're just flapping your jaws now

Running to "due process", meaning every time something comes up a judge has to get involved, is basically ignoring the concept that government can regulate commerce, even though at the State level States have authority to do so if granted by the constitution, (or not explicitly banned by it).

I'm sorry, but if you own a deli, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose your customers wanting to buy a ham sandwich.

Yes, every time you want to violate a citizen's right to life, liberty and property you have to get a judge involved. That's really onerous to you to remove someone's freedom?

And again, the Federal government has no power to regulate any commerce except trade between the States. States can regulate commerce, but cannot compel us into servitude with our liberty or property. Discover freedom

 

[Iceweasel]

In an ideal world, yes. But public order would be an issue in actual PA's that try to stop certain people at the door, over something as non-committal, and non-endorsing has a ham sandwich, or who gets to sit where in a movie theater.

That's quite a leap from not baking gay wedding cake. Why do you suppose the founders didn't include PA laws?

 

[kaz]

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

And I agree on those three situations, however I do think government has an interest in saying "if you sell ham sandwiches, you sell them to all comers if you let the public into your place of business"

Sure it is, government loves to use force to compel us to do it's bidding, it's totally in their interested to force us to do that. Government is all about power.

It is not however in the people's interest for government to use force to compel citizens to do government's interest. It's called liberty, it is what our country is founded on

 

[Iceweasel]

How fascist of ya. Why do you hate freedom?

this isn't about freedom it's about bigotry and hypocrisy

These so called christians have no problem doing business with any other sinner so we know it's not the sin they are afraid of

If they really thought printing words on paper for a gay wedding makes them a participant to the sin of homosexuality then they wouldn't do business with any sinner lest they become a participant in those sins too

so it's not the sin

Bigotry and hypocrisy are part of freedom. The First Amendment gives you the right to be a bigot. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a private business from discriminating against whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants.

yes they are you just can't violate the law while being a bigot

it really is that simple

if you don't like it then get the laws repealed and amend the constitution

The Constitution doesn't need amending, that's why local areas have added accommodation laws and then sexual preferences on top of that. That was explained to you before, you are as dense as a bowling ball.

You want people to be able to deny anyone service for any reason including race or religion to do that you would have to amend the constitution

That's not what I said Skull *****. You said forcing someone to produce something against their character was not imposing on them, clearly it is. You got increasingly ridiculous to defend it, bring up sin to a non believer, now you want to drag race and religion into it.

The side that constantly moves the goal posts is the side that's full of shit.

 

[martybegan]

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

it doesn't forfeit them, but a person's right to commerce has to be weighed against the other rights of other people, even sellers of goods.

Sorry, but you lose me with the absolutist nature of your concept of property rights. It's never going to win.

So to you, due process is government weighing my right to commerce against the rights of other people. And the rights of other people includes forcing me to do commerce against my will.

And I never said I have an "absolutist" right to property. You just have to provide me due process. You're just flapping your jaws now

Running to "due process", meaning every time something comes up a judge has to get involved, is basically ignoring the concept that government can regulate commerce, even though at the State level States have authority to do so if granted by the constitution, (or not explicitly banned by it).

I'm sorry, but if you own a deli, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose your customers wanting to buy a ham sandwich.

Yes, every time you want to violate a citizen's right to life, liberty and property you have to get a judge involved. That's really onerous to you to remove someone's freedom?

And again, the Federal government has no power to regulate any commerce except trade between the States. States can regulate commerce, but cannot compel us into servitude with our liberty or property. Discover freedom

Again, while I can appreciate an absolutist position, it doesn't do anything to figure out the issue.

 

[martybegan]

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

And I agree on those three situations, however I do think government has an interest in saying "if you sell ham sandwiches, you sell them to all comers if you let the public into your place of business"

Sure it is, government loves to use force to compel us to do it's bidding, it's totally in their interested to force us to do that. Government is all about power.

It is not however in the people's interest for government to use force to compel citizens to do government's interest. It's called liberty, it is what our country is founded on

Yes, government is about force and power, and if not present, then that force and power would come from the biggest and strongest (or best armed) person in the vicinity.

All government regulation and law is some kind of force.

 

[Skull Pilot]

this isn't about freedom it's about bigotry and hypocrisy

These so called christians have no problem doing business with any other sinner so we know it's not the sin they are afraid of

If they really thought printing words on paper for a gay wedding makes them a participant to the sin of homosexuality then they wouldn't do business with any sinner lest they become a participant in those sins too

so it's not the sin

Bigotry and hypocrisy are part of freedom. The First Amendment gives you the right to be a bigot. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a private business from discriminating against whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants.

yes they are you just can't violate the law while being a bigot

it really is that simple

if you don't like it then get the laws repealed and amend the constitution

The Constitution doesn't need amending, that's why local areas have added accommodation laws and then sexual preferences on top of that. That was explained to you before, you are as dense as a bowling ball.

You want people to be able to deny anyone service for any reason including race or religion to do that you would have to amend the constitution

That's not what I said Skull *****. You said forcing someone to produce something against their character was not imposing on them, clearly it is. You got increasingly ridiculous to defend it, bring up sin to a non believer, now you want to drag race and religion into it.

The side that constantly moves the goal posts is the side that's full of shit.

So now it's not impinging on the freedom you say you love so much to force a racist to serve Blacks but it is an impingement to force religious people to serve gays

Seems like you like to cherry pick your freedoms

 

[Skull Pilot]

The f

PA laws, when properly limited are justified use of government regulation of commerce. Asking to be able to deny a black guy or a lesbian a sandwich is such a dick move, and such a detriment to commerce, that I can see the validity of regulating it.

It's the extension of PA laws to non-essential, non-timely, non-point of sale, non-public, easily replaced goods and services that is the issue.

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

Fifth?

And no one is forcing anyone to serve anyone. If those people don't want to comply with public accommodation laws they are not forced to open a business that serves the public

 

[martybegan]

The f

Government does not have the power to regulate "commerce." Now you're arguing like a liberal. It has the right to regulate trade between the States. And nowhere does it say that power includes violating other Constitutional rights.

And again you didn't address my question. My question was doesn't such a virtually non existent problem by giving our abusive power hungry government more power bother you? You didn't address that at all.

State governments can regulate commerce in the States, based on their laws and constitution, and most of these laws/cases are State issues.

And I am not looking to give them more power, I am looking to reign in existing power to a certain, acceptable (to me) level.

Yes, but they can't violate the Bill of Rights when they do it. Seriously, where do you get this thing that commerce forfeits Constitutional rights?

States cannot restrict my right to life, liberty or property without due process. PA laws clearly violate both my liberty and property, State regulation of commerce can't do that

Progressives think PA laws override 1st amendment protections without question. My view is that they have to abide by the rules that judge any right, that a compelling government interest is present, and that the government has to adjudicate the situation using the least intrusive means possible.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. Government forcing someone to bake a cake, design a card or photograph a wedding is a clear violation of the fifth amendment. Government has no legitimate power to force one citizen to serve another. That is what despots do

Fifth?

And no one is forcing anyone to serve anyone. If those people don't want to comply with public accommodation laws they are not forced to open a business that serves the public

That is not a real choice in these situations, hence my "bake or die" reference.

It wasn't life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as long as you don't make your fellow citizens butt hurt)