Christian Artists Could Be Fined, Jailed for Refusing to Make Same-Sex Wedding Invita

MAYBE in the case of a time when a black person couldn't get a meal or lodging. Certainly not in the case of gay whose choice in local wedding cake providers is reduced from 24 to 23

 

This is not a simple matter selling someone a box of Hallmark cards. This is a matter of forcing someone to use their creative talents to produce a work of art celebrating something they morally opposed. No one should be forced to do that. What if I am putting on a play celebrating the slaveholders of the South and I want to hire some black actors to be in and act like the LOVE being slaves should I be able to force local black actors to take on such rolls and if they do not give me a good performance up to their talents be able to sue them or if they refuse to perform sue them?

How about a black sign maker that the KKK wants to come up with so signs and posters for their next rally with derogatory anti-black slogans on them?

 

Nonsense. If a homosexual is discriminated against, it will be presumed that sexual orientation is the basis of that discrimination. If a heterosexual is discriminated against, it is presumed to be something other than their sexuality. Same with a woman and a man, a black and a white. If a Christian baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for two heterosexuals of the same sex, no one is going to allege they are discriminating against heterosexuals.

 

That's how a lot of people think and frankly what the media tells (sells) you but it isn't how the law works. To bring a case of discrimination, you have to establish the basis of the discrimination and prove (with reasonable doubt) that was the basis on which you were discriminated. Socially it is unbalanced because of the unbalance directions discrimination commonly occurs but on a pure legal basis it remains balanced and neutral.

Because while we know some Christians will openly discriminate against same-sex couples that isn’t the case for mixed-sex couples in general terms. The law can obviously only respond to things that actually happens.

 

ecco

.

You post bogus crap. I ask you to show sources for your bogus crap. You tell me to look it up.



Sorry, that's not the way it works. If you cannot show your sources, then it is obvious to everyone that:

1. You made it up and hoped no one would question your integrity.
2. You posted out of context and hoped no one would check the facts.

This entire thread is an example of number 2. Your posts have no credibility than the exposed OP.

 

We're equating the KKK with religious belief now? Wow. talk about making the most massive strawman in history.

In other news, if the Christian artist is a licensed business, they cannot, and are legally liable if they do, refuse service based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation of a customer, which is in accordance with practically every state law in the US.

Let's not deflect this into strawmen.

The onus is on the business owner, as they are licensed, held accountable to state law, and the right wing has been deflecting this to religious freedom for political gain. It needs to stop. This has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with business licensure laws, as well as state law, which dictates how businesses must operate in accordance with the state and it's licensure laws. Businesses that operate outside those confines are acting illegally.

These laws exist specifically to stop discrimination because businesses are in a position of power contrary to the public at large.

 

Eric Holder told us.

Thanks for the beautiful demonstration of my point.

 

that is the core issue and those of us who honor the Constitution would also be figthing on behalf or a vegan who was forced to serve meat at their restaurant, or an atheist forced to draw a picture of Jesus or a person who so deeply believes in "born homosexual" being made to wait tables at a traditional marriage event

 

We understand that the topic is personal with you but it goes beyond your sexual preference; it's about over-reach of govt and the liberty and freedom of each American, not just those who have gay-sex.

You really need to remove yourself from your narrow focused agenda of treating the gay-lifestyle as more than it is and see govt over-reach for what it is.

Just because the current administration went too far and thus emboldened far-leftists, does not mean that it's Constitutional. Those of us whom you personally attack within this forum and levy false accusations against will be by your side should anyone ever try to deny you the right to have any type of sex you want.

Whether or not we condone gay-sex is not the issue, you have the right to have as much or as little as you choose and no govt can tell you otherwise much like a govt cannot force the celebration of gay-sex upon those who disagree with it.

 

You have a poor attitude.

But fine, when it back at my desk I'm going to do 15 seconds worth of Googling to show you national news headlines that, obviously, you're incapable of finding yourself.

I shouldn't have to do this work for you.

You should have already been up to speed on this since you seem so interested in the issue at a whole.

In the least you should be able to figure out how Internet search engines work.

But fine, I will hold your hand on this one but then you're either going to apologize for playing the ridiculous old "you said the sun was hot, where's your source?" game ...or you're going to move the goalposts on me.

 

I don’t care what he told you or what you think he told you. The way the law works is a matter of fact.

Not at all. It’s a simple fact that some Christians (and some other people) have objections to homosexuality and same sex marriage. There is no equivalent objections to mixed-sex marriage so obviously there aren’t going to be many, if any, accusations of discrimination on grounds of heterosexuality, especially in this context.

None of that changes the flaw in your initial assertion that the cause of discrimination is assumed. It has to be specifically established and proven in each individual case.

 

*Update from post #160, read that first*

Ok back at desk here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpCkVedZNY
Muslim businesses refusing to make cakes or floral arrangements for gay weddings. Actually listen to the prologue here because he utterly nails this issue on the head. Its not about discriminating against homosexuals, its about artists not being forced to create things they don't agree with.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake
Here's the one where the Colorado Civil Rights Board agreed that a baker was allowed to refuse to create a cake with a message they didn't agree with.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/25/walmart-workers-refuse-to-make-cops-retirement-cake.html
And here's the one where there Georgia Walmart workers refused to create a cake for a cop.

I turned my stopwatch on, it took me 1 minute 47 seconds to search for, link to, and write a quick blurb about each of those things.

In the future please recognize when you need to do your own Google-ing.

These weren't obscure instances, and I provided enough substance for you to have been able to pick out the keywords that would lead you to the story.

 

Interesting that you jump to the conclusion that I am gay because I have spoken about the rights of homosexuals. I'm not.

If you are so convinced about your views, why do you post obviously bogus stories, as in your OP, to support them?

 

As I said...

 

Prissy "artists" who try to play a "religion card" (Muslim, Xtian, or whatever flavour) as their pretext for discriminating against Americans are free to indulge their bigotry, whatever it might be, unless they choose to be businesses that serve the public.

Americans have constitutional protections concerning their being discriminated against, and there is no religion that proscribes making invitations for anyone.

When a Christian, same-sex couple celebrates a legal marriage, no jihadist business can deny them the customary services they provide based upon the owner's fanatical prejudices.

 

Whether or not religion is protected within the Constitution is relevant as it destroys the whole lifestyle choice argument. Some conservatives try to argue that Civil Rights had only been designed for genetic characteristics beyond an individuals control and that Religion was simply added to it because it already was protected from discrimination. That's completely twisted logic because what it actually does is set a precedence that lifestyle choices can be considered protected from discrimination.

By sec's logic, even though I personally take no sides on this matter, I would have no choice but not to support his stance. If gays can change their lifestyle choice, than so can the religious. Therefore, if you have a problem baking a cake for a homosexual wedding--too bad. You don't have to be a Christian.

I've noticed less and less conservatives are relying on the "lifestyle choice" argument these days. Sec needs to get with the program.

 

You want to use a youtube video posted by people with your mindset to prove your point? Seriously?
Your credibility just went down another notch.

Did you bother the read the article? (emphasis mine)

Your credibility just went down another notch.

I went to http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...ment-cake.html. This took me to a "Fox News Opinion Page". Nevertheless, I did a search on "cake" and "walmart" and came up empty.
Your credibility just went down another notch.

In the future you should really try harder.

 

Yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!! Well said!

 

No we are testing the principle that if you do bubusiness with the public you cannot refuse anyone.

Seems to be some cracks developing in that principle.

How about a Muslim baker refusing to make a cake with a Star of David on it or refusing to write poem celebrating homosexuality to go on invitations?

And again in this matter this isn't merely selling some off the shelf piece of merchandise this is asking someone to use their crative and artistic talents to create something in celebration ofnsomething they morally oppose, you're saying they have no right to that and protection from having to violate their own moral beliefs. Correct?

 

No. You're constructing a straw man, and I'm not going to debate a strawman. The KKK and racism is not a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing religion. Religious people have a right to practice their faith unto themselves only. They do not have any right to extend that faith, via business transactions, or legislative action, over those who are not of the same faith.

A Muslim Baker who refuses to make a cake with the star of david is just as at fault as the Christian who refuses to bake a cake. They are discriminating, either way you slice it. You can't equate homosexuality and the KKK with religion.

Religion and racism are CHOICES people make. Being homosexual is not a choice.

As for their personal, moral beliefs, they give up that right for the privilege of being a licensed business owner. This is the exact same thing, legally, as a driver's license. Business ownership is not a right it's a privilege. The owner has to apply to the state for the privilege of owning and operating a business. With that comes anti-discrimination laws.

A drunk who drives gives up his driving privilege.

A business owner who breaks the licensure laws may have to give up the privilege of operating a business if they egregiously overstep the laws that promote a non-discriminatory environment for consumers.

Religious folks have the protection they need to practice their faith, and that is all. That right does not extend from their faith to the rest of the planet. End of story.

 

You'd think it be applied universally, but don't these types of laws need a plaintiff first? I believe the police can't do anything until a customer starts a lawsuit. No?

Well, I'd imagine there's significantly less Muslim bakers in this nation. And I'd imagine most homosexuals would probably avoid going to a Muslim bakery for such service. Furthermore, it's probably, to some extent, easier to identify a Muslim baker in this country than a Christian baker.

 

Besides which, NO religious denomination proscribes its adherents' providing to anyone services that are within their businesses' normal purview.

Folks who wish to discriminate can't play a religion card and pretend some religion says they should discriminate.

 

So there are no limits on the free exercise of religion?
Yes or no

 

Its actual visual evidence of a guy going to Muslim bakeries asking for gay cakes and being denied.

Thats specifically what I said happened, specifically what you demanded I show you, and specifically what I linked.

Whats the problem here?

Did you even watch it? ...I'm guessing no.

Your troll factor just went up another notch.

Yes, the State ruled that a person cannot be forced to produce things they don't agree with.

That's exactly how it should be, and exactly what my point has been THIS ENTIRE TIME!

We're you aware of that when you decided to harangue me over this? ...I'm guessing no.

Your troll factor just went up another notch.

Its an opinion piece ...about an actual occurrence!

Are being intentionally belligerent because that's just how you choose to act on discussion forums? ...or did you just not read the article at all ...after demanding I show it to you haha.

Learn how to use use search engines please, type this into Google "georgia walmart cop cake" and you will find page after page of articles.

Its not that hard...

And, also, please tell me you didn't Google "cake" and expected to find this story.

Seriously, I hope that isn't what you're telling me is it because that would be double facepalm worthy ...or you're trolling me.

Your troll factor, possibly, just went up another notch.

In the future I think I'll just ignore what you say because you're responses thus far have been wrought by some serious flaws.

My ignore count just went up a notch.

 

Sure there are. I just don't believe city ordinances should trump constitutional rights.