Religious freedom wins again.

[BS Filter]

This is not only a win for religious freedom, but also a win for artistic expression. The idea that government could force an artist to create something against the conscience of the artist is reprehensible. The left truly are Nazis.
Christian artists celebrate religious freedom win in Arizona Supreme Court

 

[Penelope]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

 

[BS Filter]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

 

[Penelope]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Their words do not really reflect them as honest people. Then again its what some Christians do, they don't follow what they preach, they are hypocrites and I do not know what faith they are, except the church of bigots.

 

[BS Filter]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Their words do not really reflect them as honest people. Then again its what some Christians do, they don't follow what they preach, they are hypocrites and I do not know what faith they are, except the church of bigots.

It doesn't matter what church they attend. YOU can't force them to do what you want. Suck on that.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes. The religious can tell queers to go pound sand and the atheists and agnostics cant.

 

[james bond]

Yes. The religious can tell queers to go pound sand and the atheists and agnostics cant.

They can tell Christians, we don't do "Merry Christmas" cards, or Judaists, "Happy Hanukkah" symbols.

What's funny is one queer said, "Science will find the gay sequence of genes and issues like this will become a thing of the past." It won't change a thing, and real science won't.

 

[dblack]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Their words do not really reflect them as honest people. Then again its what some Christians do, they don't follow what they preach, they are hypocrites and I do not know what faith they are, except the church of bigots.

It doesn't matter what church they attend. YOU can't force them to do what you want. Suck on that.

Only if it's a church that is recognized by government. Which is funny, because it turns the First Amendment inside out and has government telling us which religions are "real" and which aren't.

 

[dblack]

Yes. The religious can tell queers to go pound sand and the atheists and agnostics cant.

Yep. Special rights for special people. That's how corporatists roll.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

She added: "We do serve everybody and love everybody but it's just certain messages that we cannot promote in our business because of our faith."

No,you don't.

"For Breanna and I that includes certain messages about marriage that violate our faith, that includes messages that promote racism or incite violence, exploit women, or demean any member of any community, including the LGBT community," Duka added. "So that's why we're extremely excited the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled in favor of artistic freedom and the right of artists, not the government, to decide what messages we can and can't promote."

how do they know if one is a pedophile, serial female assaulter or serial female adulterer (like tramp), and wanting a marriage invitation.
and they do demean members of their community.

If you were an artist and someone came in and said:"I want you to bake me a cake that says:"President Obama sucks cock and swallows", would you do it?

Irrelevant. That falls under obscenity laws.

 

[dblack]

The legislative and judicial conceit of "accommodation" regarding religious freedom gets it exactly backwards. The First Amendment doesn't mean that religious people don't have to follow laws they don't like. It means that laws that violate religious freedom aren't allowed. If the law in question is found to violate religious freedom (and I happen to agree that PA laws do), the entire law should be struck down. Carving out an exemption for people with state-approved religious beliefs is wrong. It's actually a direct violation of the First Amendment to do so.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Most people see the world in black and white and lack the facility to make subtle distinctions.

If a same sex couple were to enter a bakery and ask politely to purchase a cake on display, refusing them service should be in violation of laws regarding public accommodation.

If the same couple were to demand a baker create a new cake expressing attitudes with which the baker felt uncomfortable, then the same baker has every right to refuse.

This works both ways, you know. A gay baker should not be forced to create a cake that says " God hates fags".

 

[BreezeWood]

This is not only a win for religious freedom, but also a win for artistic expression. The idea that government could force an artist to create something against the conscience of the artist is reprehensible. The left truly are Nazis.
Christian artists celebrate religious freedom win in Arizona Supreme Court

.

This is not only a win for religious freedom, but also a win for artistic expression.

those two historically have been diametrically opposed to one another as in fact subtly included in the ruling as an exclusion and not a right - rock and role anyone ...

 

[badger2]

#6: Atheists and agnostics may not have the cringing desire to do that, which is a different thing than not being able to do that. They are always able to. This is why the xian mental geometry especially won't claim enough rights for itself, namely the right to contradict itself.

 

[badger2]

But the customer is just as much meaning as the baker of the cake, which opens the possibility for boycott, which is one alternative to dogmatism.

'We (are [italics]) meaning.'
(Nancy, The Gravity of Thought)

dogma: 1. a system of tenets or principles of a church. 2. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church. 3. prescribed doctrine. 4. a settled opinion; a belief; a principle.

dogmatics: the science which treats of the arrangement and statement of religious doctrines especially of the doctrines received in and taught by the Christian church; doctrinal theology.
(American College Dictionary)

dogma: 1. something held as an established opinion; a point of view or alleged authoritative tenet put forth as dogma; an arrogant or vehement expression of opinion; a doctrine or body of doctrines of theology and religion formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed.

dogmatic: asserting a matter of opinion as if it were fact; directly affirmed rather than qualified, debated, or discovered by induction.

dogmatic theology: doctrinal theology that seeks to present the intellectual content of a religious faith and to explicate its meaning from the base of authoritative doctrines generally regarded as derived from revelation.

dogmatism: a doctrine that insists upon the existence of certain truths and is opposed to skepticism.
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary)

 

[badger2]

#13 attempts to fool the reader-scapegoat into thinking there is some kind of precedence being set. Arizona SCOTUS is full of it.

Islamochristian Hebdo Revisited

'The Secrets of Theism.
In Nietzsche and Philosophy, Deleuze wrote that the atheism secreted by Christianity is that of a bad conscience and (ressentiment [italics]). In his later works, however, he came to see this secretion as potentially more positive. In his book on the painter Francis Bacon, for example, he suggested that "Christianity contains a germ of (tranquil atheism [it.]) that will (nurture [it.]) painting. We will explore this relation between atheism and artistic expression in more detail at the end of Chapter 5, but Deleuze's comments on painting and philosophy can help us introduce his broader point. In his 1980 lectures on Spinoza, he insisted that "atheism has never been external to religion: atheism is the artistic power at work on religion." Deleuze argued that when Renaissance painters began to take seriously the claim that God could not be represented, they felt freed to portray figures, even and especially the Figure of Christ, in a plurality of strange and creative ways. He suggests that, in a similar way, the struggle with the idea of "God" in philosophy provided it with an irreplaceable opportunity to free concepts from the constraints of "representation." This suggests that it is precisely here, in the process of revealing the failure of theistic attempts to represent the infinite that the aesthetic power and philosophical productivity of atheism can begin to flow.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, pp. 19-20)

 

[mamooth]

It doesn't matter what church they attend. YOU can't force them to do what you want. Suck on that.

And if they don't want to serve blacks? You would appear to be fine with that.

That's why most people are disgusted by your attitude.

 

[dblack]

It doesn't matter what church they attend. YOU can't force them to do what you want. Suck on that.

And if they don't want to serve blacks? You would appear to be fine with that.

That's why most people are disgusted by your attitude.

It is a disgusting attitude. But disgusting attitudes shouldn't be illegal. Putting government in charge of policing irrational biases is taking the law too far. It's prying into our heads and telling us what to think, who to like/dislike, who to associate with, who to work for, etc...

 

[BS Filter]

It doesn't matter what church they attend. YOU can't force them to do what you want. Suck on that.

And if they don't want to serve blacks? You would appear to be fine with that.

That's why most people are disgusted by your attitude.

You're confused. Being black isn't a sin according to Christianity. Sexual perversion is, and American citizens have the Constitutional right to refuse to accommodate sinful behavior, and the right to refuse a demand to create something that violates their conscience. Suck on that.

 

[diver52]

It doesn't matter what church they attend. YOU can't force them to do what you want. Suck on that.

And if they don't want to serve blacks? You would appear to be fine with that.

That's why most people are disgusted by your attitude.

If a business doesn't want to serve someone they should not have to do so. The idea that the government can change attitudes simply does not work. It just pushes the problem underground and creates resentment. A far better solution would be for a business to post on their window who they won't serve. Then let the market modify attitudes.