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

[bodecea]

So....when is it a right to not have to follow the business laws you agreed to abide by when getting your business license?

The issue is if government can impose such conditions in the first place, specifically in these situations.

The government has already proven it can.

The government proved it could force separate but equal accommodations via plessey, so I guess no one should have fought that either, right?

Sure people could fight it....legally...just like people can fight Public Accommodation laws legally. Organizations like the NAACP worked tirelessly for decades to gather the data to PROVE that "Separate but Equal" wasn't really equal. If they'd not been able to prove it, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be in place.

Now.....what are anti-PA law people doing to WORK to get those PA laws either struck down or repealed? Just whining on the internet doesn't really accomplish anything.

Who wants them repealed? What most people want is for them to apply to actual public accommodations, not "any time money changes hands"

And the people in question here are doing exactly what you want them to do, they are suing prior to any law being violated.

"Actual Public Accomodations".....aka licensed businesses.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I just love it when the Christians all put on their vestments, pick up the cross, and start marching around singing "Onward Christian Soldiers"! It reminds me of when I was 5 years old at Vacation Bible School. I knew that every day I would get a vanilla wafer and a small glass of pineapple juice!

 

[Mac1958]

What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint. The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished. They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters..

yep, it's not about the cake, its about ******* over the people they don't like.

This is why they keep talking about the law, when the law isn't the issue.
.

I't amazing I am getting beaten up by both sides of this argument.

You must be doing something right, then.

Notice also how, after passionately promoting the Rule of Law in this case, they'll also passionately scream RACIST at you if you dare to look sideways at sanctuary cities.


.

 

[martybegan]

The issue is if government can impose such conditions in the first place, specifically in these situations.

The government has already proven it can.

The government proved it could force separate but equal accommodations via plessey, so I guess no one should have fought that either, right?

Sure people could fight it....legally...just like people can fight Public Accommodation laws legally. Organizations like the NAACP worked tirelessly for decades to gather the data to PROVE that "Separate but Equal" wasn't really equal. If they'd not been able to prove it, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be in place.

Now.....what are anti-PA law people doing to WORK to get those PA laws either struck down or repealed? Just whining on the internet doesn't really accomplish anything.

Who wants them repealed? What most people want is for them to apply to actual public accommodations, not "any time money changes hands"

And the people in question here are doing exactly what you want them to do, they are suing prior to any law being violated.

"Actual Public Accomodations".....aka licensed businesses.

Wrong. Not all business are public accommodations.

 

[Silhouette]

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

Jim Crow was about race, not behaviors, right? See Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) for details...LGBT behaviors are not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act...nor the 14th Amendment. Obergefell has to be reheard/overturned.

1st Amendment protections don't come with a map or a time clock. You cannot force people of faith to condone, much less promote your behaviors. Anytime or anywhere they are.

 

[martybegan]

What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint. The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished. They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters..

yep, it's not about the cake, its about ******* over the people they don't like.

This is why they keep talking about the law, when the law isn't the issue.
.

I't amazing I am getting beaten up by both sides of this argument.

You must be doing something right, then.

Notice also how, after passionately promoting the Rule of Law in this case, they'll also passionately scream RACIST at you if you dare to look sideways at sanctuary cities.


.

butbutbutbut that's DIFFERENT!!!

 

[bodecea]

The government has already proven it can.

The government proved it could force separate but equal accommodations via plessey, so I guess no one should have fought that either, right?

Sure people could fight it....legally...just like people can fight Public Accommodation laws legally. Organizations like the NAACP worked tirelessly for decades to gather the data to PROVE that "Separate but Equal" wasn't really equal. If they'd not been able to prove it, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be in place.

Now.....what are anti-PA law people doing to WORK to get those PA laws either struck down or repealed? Just whining on the internet doesn't really accomplish anything.

Who wants them repealed? What most people want is for them to apply to actual public accommodations, not "any time money changes hands"

And the people in question here are doing exactly what you want them to do, they are suing prior to any law being violated.

"Actual Public Accomodations".....aka licensed businesses.

Wrong. Not all business are public accommodations.

If they have business licenses, they are considered such.

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong. Not all business are public accommodations.

If they have business licenses, they are considered such.

Yes but specified Constitutional protections trump local ordinances always. 100% of the time. The 1st Amendment protections of faith don't come with a time clock or a map. Ah...the "wisdom" of Obergefell's 5 Champions forgot to take that into account. It's the little details like behavior vs race that always snag up the works..

 

[g5000]

Selling a commercial product for money is not a religious rite.

/thread

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What the PC zealots refuse to acknowledge is that a law such as this matters only if there is a complaint. The offended parties can just go somewhere else, or they can choose to see to it that the person who "offended" them is punished. They'd rather see that person punished, and that is the very core of the very weaponized PC that energized so many Trump supporters..

yep, it's not about the cake, its about ******* over the people they don't like.

This is why they keep talking about the law, when the law isn't the issue.
.

I't amazing I am getting beaten up by both sides of this argument.

You must be doing something right, then.

Notice also how, after passionately promoting the Rule of Law in this case, they'll also passionately scream RACIST at you if you dare to look sideways at sanctuary cities.


.

Oh, come on man. Everybody KNOWS that is you don't want your city protecting the undocumented criminal who just moved next door to you, you MUST be a racist!

What I can't figure out is what blinds people to the perfectly obvious. If some cities hang out a welcome sign to undocumented criminals and some don't, where do they think the criminals will end up, anyway?

Damn, if I were a mayor, I would stand up and say "I'm here to serve my community here, folks, and not my own zealous political posturing".

 

[martybegan]

The government proved it could force separate but equal accommodations via plessey, so I guess no one should have fought that either, right?

Sure people could fight it....legally...just like people can fight Public Accommodation laws legally. Organizations like the NAACP worked tirelessly for decades to gather the data to PROVE that "Separate but Equal" wasn't really equal. If they'd not been able to prove it, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be in place.

Now.....what are anti-PA law people doing to WORK to get those PA laws either struck down or repealed? Just whining on the internet doesn't really accomplish anything.

Who wants them repealed? What most people want is for them to apply to actual public accommodations, not "any time money changes hands"

And the people in question here are doing exactly what you want them to do, they are suing prior to any law being violated.

"Actual Public Accomodations".....aka licensed businesses.

Wrong. Not all business are public accommodations.

If they have business licenses, they are considered such.

Why?

 

[Silhouette]

Selling a commercial product for money is not a religious rite.

/thread

But the 1st Amendment doesn't come with a time clock or a map. And selling things commercially is yet another right standing alongside the 1st.

You're not going to win this one you know. Specified Constitutional protections trump local ordinances 100% of the time.

Clearly the 5 idiots on the USSC should've first determined whether the new class they were creating out of thin air and adding to the 14th Amendment were based on either behaviors or a race of people. And, they should've realized that the USSC cannot legislate from the bench. Ist verboten.

 

[martybegan]

Selling a commercial product for money is not a religious rite.

/thread

Free exercise is not limited to religious rites.

\thread opened.

 

[g5000]

Selling a commercial product for money is not a religious rite, period.

Therefore, this issue has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. No one's exercising of their religion is being interfered with.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not all Jim Crow was mandated. Much of it was merely allowed.

Jim Crow was about race, not behaviors, right? See Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) for details...LGBT behaviors are not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act...nor the 14th Amendment. Obergefell has to be reheard/overturned.

1st Amendment protections don't come with a map or a time clock. You cannot force people of faith to condone, much less promote your behaviors. Anytime or anywhere they are.

If you don't condone making invitations or selling cakes to gays, then you don't go into that business.

 

[Silhouette]

But the 1st's protections don't come with a time clock or a map...

If you don't condone making invitations or selling cakes to gays, then you don't go into that business.

Sure you do. When "gays" are behaviors, not race, nobody can tell you what to do or not do with your 1st Amendment rights. Sorry. (Hively v Ivy Tech 2016)

Just as nobody would expect that a Christian could legally force under threat of fining or jail time a gay graphic designer to print a giant billboard sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"...no gays (LGBT religion/cult) can force a Christian to do anything to promote a 'gay wedding'....against their faith (Jude 1, New Testament of Jesus Christ)

 

[g5000]

The homophobes can go to their homophobic church and bash gays all they wish. No one is stopping them. They can post all the GOD HATES FAGS signs on their property they wish. No one is stopping them.

But if they enter the marketplace to sell commercial products for cash, they are on Caesar's territory, not God's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Selling a commercial product for money is not a religious rite.

/thread

Free exercise is not limited to religious rites.

\thread opened.

A person whose religion tells them to discriminate against gays comes up against the laws where discrimination against gays is illegal.

That person's religion does not give them license to break that law. Their free exercise right, however,

allows them to steer clear of the situation that would have forced them to choose between violating their religious beliefs or breaking the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But the 1st's protections don't come with a time clock or a map...

If you don't condone making invitations or selling cakes to gays, then you don't go into that business.

Sure you do. When "gays" are behaviors, not race, nobody can tell you what to do or not do with your 1st Amendment rights. Sorry. (Hively v Ivy Tech 2016)

Just as nobody would expect that a Christian could legally force under threat of fining or jail time a gay graphic designer to print a giant billboard sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"...no gays (LGBT religion/cult) can force a Christian to do anything to promote a 'gay wedding'....against their faith (Jude 1, New Testament of Jesus Christ)

Religion is a behaviour.

 

[g5000]

The homophobic printers are hypocrites. They aren't following the Bible. They are using it as a shield over their hateful bigotry. They are fake Christians.

Show me a case where they turned away a divorced person from getting wedding invitations for his biblically non-compliant second marriage.

This is about hate, not religion. Pure and simple.

Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrites. He had nothing to say about gays.