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

[Papageorgio]

You want an all white church, you can probably have it. What you can't have is an all white place of business.

'All White' is a racist belief, not a religious belief...but thanks for playing.

Not true. Alabama Church Holds “Whites-Only” Christian Conference

Yep, the guy is an idiot and is definitely not a Christian.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The f

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)

If I believed this was actually about religion and the free exercise thereof I would be more amenable. But I just don't believe it is.

The simple fact is if you open a business that serves the public then you are subject to the law. If you don't want to comply then don't open a business.

But no matter what happens I think we have seen that the overwhelming opinion in the country is not in support of bigotry so they will most likely still pay a price for their bigotry and that's just fine with me.

Sooner or later we have to evolve and realize that all human behavior exists on a continuum and the magic sky man can't do shit about it

 

[Papageorgio]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

 

[martybegan]

The f

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)

If I believed this was actually about religion and the free exercise thereof I would be more amenable. But I just don't believe it is.

The simple fact is if you open a business that serves the public then you are subject to the law. If you don't want to comply then don't open a business.

But no matter what happens I think we have seen that the overwhelming opinion in the country is not in support of bigotry so they will most likely still pay a price for their bigotry and that's just fine with me.

Sooner or later we have to evolve and realize that all human behavior exists on a continuum and the magic sky man can't do shit about it

And you think evolution is ruining a baker for not wanting to bake a cake for one specific celebration?

Again, PA laws are fine if they apply to actual Public accommodations. What progressives are trying to do with these laws is basically eliminate thoughtcrime via economic coercion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want an all white church, you can probably have it. What you can't have is an all white place of business.

'All White' is a racist belief, not a religious belief...but thanks for playing.

Not true. Alabama Church Holds “Whites-Only” Christian Conference

Yep, the guy is an idiot and is definitely not a Christian.

And you are the authority to define who is or isn't a Christian? What is that definition?

What if, let's say, his church is simply a separatist Christian church that for religious belief differences on the subject of race simply doesn't adhere to the 'rules' of the Christian establishment?

 

[martybegan]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

So a Catholic Priest can be forced to marry a gay couple?

Churches take fees for marriages all the time.

Again, a public accommodation is not "every time money changes hands"

 

[kaz]

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.

You're just repeating your canards. I already pointed out my position is not "absolutist." You can limit our right to life, liberty and property with due process. It is not absolute

 

[Skull Pilot]

The f

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)

If I believed this was actually about religion and the free exercise thereof I would be more amenable. But I just don't believe it is.

The simple fact is if you open a business that serves the public then you are subject to the law. If you don't want to comply then don't open a business.

But no matter what happens I think we have seen that the overwhelming opinion in the country is not in support of bigotry so they will most likely still pay a price for their bigotry and that's just fine with me.

Sooner or later we have to evolve and realize that all human behavior exists on a continuum and the magic sky man can't do shit about it

And you think evolution is ruining a baker for not wanting to bake a cake for one specific celebration?

Again, PA laws are fine if they apply to actual Public accommodations. What progressives are trying to do with these laws is basically eliminate thoughtcrime via economic coercion.

Like I said if you open a business in the marketplace you are subject to all the forces both positive and negative of that marketplace including public opinion

If the public refuses to do business with openly bigoted business owners then so be it

 

[martybegan]

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.

You're just repeating your canards. I already pointed out my position is not "absolutist." You can limit our right to life, liberty and property with due process. It is not absolute

Due process is just a fig leaf you use to hide your absolutist view of commerce regulation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

So a Catholic Priest can be forced to marry a gay couple?

Churches take fees for marriages all the time.

Again, a public accommodation is not "every time money changes hands"

they can probably get around that by calling the fee a rental for the church space as long as the priest does not get paid by the people getting married

 

[martybegan]

The f

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)

If I believed this was actually about religion and the free exercise thereof I would be more amenable. But I just don't believe it is.

The simple fact is if you open a business that serves the public then you are subject to the law. If you don't want to comply then don't open a business.

But no matter what happens I think we have seen that the overwhelming opinion in the country is not in support of bigotry so they will most likely still pay a price for their bigotry and that's just fine with me.

Sooner or later we have to evolve and realize that all human behavior exists on a continuum and the magic sky man can't do shit about it

And you think evolution is ruining a baker for not wanting to bake a cake for one specific celebration?

Again, PA laws are fine if they apply to actual Public accommodations. What progressives are trying to do with these laws is basically eliminate thoughtcrime via economic coercion.

Like I said if you open a business in the marketplace you are subject to all the forces both positive and negative of that marketplace including public opinion

If the public refuses to do business with openly bigoted business owners then so be it

And I have said I don't have an issue with public opinion being a factor. A Government agency issuing fines is not public opinion, its government coercion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

Then he should be an employee of the state or pay licensing fees to be able to do so

 

[martybegan]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

100% wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The f
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)

If I believed this was actually about religion and the free exercise thereof I would be more amenable. But I just don't believe it is.

The simple fact is if you open a business that serves the public then you are subject to the law. If you don't want to comply then don't open a business.

But no matter what happens I think we have seen that the overwhelming opinion in the country is not in support of bigotry so they will most likely still pay a price for their bigotry and that's just fine with me.

Sooner or later we have to evolve and realize that all human behavior exists on a continuum and the magic sky man can't do shit about it

And you think evolution is ruining a baker for not wanting to bake a cake for one specific celebration?

Again, PA laws are fine if they apply to actual Public accommodations. What progressives are trying to do with these laws is basically eliminate thoughtcrime via economic coercion.

Like I said if you open a business in the marketplace you are subject to all the forces both positive and negative of that marketplace including public opinion

If the public refuses to do business with openly bigoted business owners then so be it

And I have said I don't have an issue with public opinion being a factor. A Government agency issuing fines is not public opinion, its government coercion.

The laws are part of the marketplace

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're just repeating your canards. I already pointed out my position is not "absolutist." You can limit our right to life, liberty and property with due process. It is not absolute

Due process is just a fig leaf you use to hide your absolutist view of commerce regulation.

So you would end the regulation of commerce. Fascinating. Idiotic, but fascinating.

 

[martybegan]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

So a Catholic Priest can be forced to marry a gay couple?

Churches take fees for marriages all the time.

Again, a public accommodation is not "every time money changes hands"

they can probably get around that by calling the fee a rental for the church space as long as the priest does not get paid by the people getting married

Why the need to "get around it" How about we just let them do the marriages without this overwhelming need to enforce our moral code on them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ordained Ministers that do not charge for their wedding services can refuse to perform weddings to any couple they choose. If they start charging for their services then they fall under public accommodation laws because money is being exchanged.

The same holds true with services or products being supplied to the public.

exactly right

I for one don't know why the state recognizes a marriage performed in a church as legal anyway.
Why are we vesting powers of the state in clergymen at all?

There's no reason a clergyman can't be licensed to perform marriages. However, he then becomes a civil servant and should be subject to all laws pertaining to the exercise of that position.

100% wrong.

Prove it.

 

[martybegan]

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)

If I believed this was actually about religion and the free exercise thereof I would be more amenable. But I just don't believe it is.

The simple fact is if you open a business that serves the public then you are subject to the law. If you don't want to comply then don't open a business.

But no matter what happens I think we have seen that the overwhelming opinion in the country is not in support of bigotry so they will most likely still pay a price for their bigotry and that's just fine with me.

Sooner or later we have to evolve and realize that all human behavior exists on a continuum and the magic sky man can't do shit about it

And you think evolution is ruining a baker for not wanting to bake a cake for one specific celebration?

Again, PA laws are fine if they apply to actual Public accommodations. What progressives are trying to do with these laws is basically eliminate thoughtcrime via economic coercion.

Like I said if you open a business in the marketplace you are subject to all the forces both positive and negative of that marketplace including public opinion

If the public refuses to do business with openly bigoted business owners then so be it

And I have said I don't have an issue with public opinion being a factor. A Government agency issuing fines is not public opinion, its government coercion.

The laws are part of the marketplace

No, they are not. The laws are above the marketplace.