AZ Supreme Court, Gay wedding invitation decision

[roguenuke]

From their website:

Not all Christians (or even most) would refuse service.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

A wedding cake with a man and a woman on top

Cakes don't need wedding toppers. And in fact you can refuse to put on any wedding topper on a cake for a couple, including one with an interracial couple, so long as you don't refuse to sell them a cake.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[BrotherFease]

Here's my belief/take:

You open up a business for the public, you have to serve everybody. I don't care if they are black, Jewish, Italian, trans, gay, transvestite, butch lesbian, neo-Nazi, or whatever. You have to serve them. Period. End of story. Business owners have rights, but so do customers. Black people, before the 1964 civil rights act was passed, had to carry around a Green Book with them, if they traveled/lived in the south. This book told black people where they could safely lodge, eat, get gas, and shop. I would hate to see people carrying around "The Rainbow Book" in order for them to go to stores or eat food.

If the customer asks for a custom-made product and the artist/owner objects to that design, they do not have to create that design. That falls under freedom of speech. But if the owner/artist approves of the design, then he/she has to sell it to everybody, regardless of what you think about the customer's skin color or so-called lifestyle choices.

So there's where both sides will have issues with me: Religious Right will reject the concept that we have to serve everybody and treat LGBTQ Americans as human beings, Americans. The far-left will hate the fact that Jewish bakers have to serve Neo-Nazis and products can be rejected on the basis of objection to design.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I read the opinion he won.
2.) why because you can't discriminate against religious people no matter how much you want the government to do so.
3.) The fact is artistic license and the fact he doesn't have to participates in events has already been ruled on multiple times.
4.) a custom wedding cake is very much an artistic license. it takes days and many hours to make one.
5.) He found it a message that he could not support. you don't get to determine what someone finds offensive or a message
that they don't want to support.
6.) There is nothing artistic in BBQ. i can see why they lost.

1.) nope you just proved you factually didnt read it, lol awesome
2.) BWHAHAHAHAHA the ruling made no such claim the ruling was about state conduct and following procedure and their lack of it. He is still not allowed to break the law based on his religions and discrimination against sexual orientation is still 100% illegal there. Again why do you post so many lies when they are so easily proved wrong
3.) and another thing that has nothign to do with that case nor was decided on and another lie
4.) see #3
5.) see #3
6.) never happened :shrug

that was fun

ANYBODY disagree prove otherwise

 

[AGENT J]

he won.

except for the fact discrimination based on sexual orientation is still illegal there opcorn2:

 

[AGENT J]

No one refused to serve anyone based on their sexual preference.

actually many people have tried, and thats what the bigots in the OP want to do. that fact wont change no matter how much you want ti to

 

[Glitch]

Before the southern democrats became republicans?

There was only one Dixiecrat who ever became a Republican, Strom Thurmond. All of your other Dixiecrat bigots, like Senators Fulbright and Byrd, remained devote Democrat bigots for the rest of their pathetic lives. Your deliberate lies have been debunked. The Democratic Party remains as the party of bigots, as it always has been, even today.

 

[AGENT J]

Here's my belief/take:

1.) You open up a business for the public, you have to serve everybody. I don't care if they are black, Jewish, Italian, trans, gay, transvestite, butch lesbian, neo-Nazi, or whatever. You have to serve them. Period. End of story. Business owners have rights, but so do customers.

2.) Black people, before the 1964 civil rights act was passed, had to carry around a Green Book with them, if they traveled/lived in the south. This book told black people where they could safely lodge, eat, get gas, and shop. I would hate to see people carrying around "The Rainbow Book" in order for them to go to stores or eat food.

3.) If the customer asks for a custom-made product and the artist/owner objects to that design, they do not have to create that design. That falls under freedom of speech. But if the owner/artist approves of the design, then he/she has to sell it to everybody, regardless of what you think about the customer's skin color or so-called lifestyle choices.

4.) So there's where both sides will have issues with me: Religious Right will reject the concept that we have to serve everybody and treat LGBTQ Americans as human beings, Americans.
5.) The far-left will hate the fact that Jewish bakers have to serve Neo-Nazis and products can be rejected on the basis of objection to design.

1.) I know you are saying its just your belief but im just pointing out the reality that a business can refuse service for any reason it wants . . as long . . .as it doesn't break the law or violate rights
as far as your list goes lets look at it

"black, Jewish, Italian" . . races and ethnicity is already protected nationally and nobody can deny them service based on that and violate their rights

"trans, gay, transvestite, lesbian" . . sexual orientation and gender identity is protected in many states, most large cities and the majority of fortune 500 companies. Soon it will be nationally protected and bigots will just have to figure out a new way to be vile

"Nazi or whatever." is not protected in the US, nor should it ever be. Now with that said there are some places that protect political party affiliation

2.) agreed and that is the same as bakers not serving gays wedding cakes, claiming otherwise is completely retarded and factually wrong. its discrimination and denying service (not saying YOU said otherwise just pointing that out)


3.) This i am fine with BUT custom needs defined, people throw it around to loosely. For example adding names to a cake or invitation that you have made already for others or is in your sells book etc is not custom. And also its still not a licenses to discriminate against race, gender, sex, religion etc . . my point is its a largely grey area that needs addressed when it happens and no blanket legislation will get it right.

4.) in business they do and it will be even more protected nationally soon. Bigot will have to get over it. Also a very important note. millions of religious people on the right support equal rights and would never participate is such vile bigotry and violate peoples rights.
5.) most people would hate that and thankfully thats not the way it is

interesting views though, i wouldnt support them because i value rights to much but interesting none the less

 

[Glitch]

A dress code is not discrimination, since people of any race, creed, or sexual orientation can choose to a dress code and patronize any business. And forcing businesses to adhere to equal rights under the law or be shut down is the opposite of creating special groups of people for special treatment under the law. This is, in fact, what you are proposing. You want Christian business owners to be considered a special group of people that receive special treatment under the law due to their religious beliefs. It you who are the fascist, my friend.

A dress code is most definitely discrimination. Since they are discriminating on whether or not you will get service based upon your attire. A business can also discriminate, legally, against communists. Refusing to hire them, firing them on the spot, or refusing them service. There are a multitude of different forms of discrimination businesses can take.

Businesses don't have to adhere to "equal rights under the law" since that ONLY applies to government. Businesses can create any group of people they desire and single them out for special treatment, and they often do just that.

You are clearly confusing businesses with government. They are not the same. Businesses don't have to adhere to the US Constitution, government does.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) A dress code is most definitely discrimination. Since they are discriminating on whether or not you will get service based upon your attire. A business can also discriminate, legally, against communists. Refusing to hire them, firing them on the spot, or refusing them service.
2.)There are a multitude of different forms of discrimination businesses can take.
3.) Businesses don't have to adhere to "equal rights under the law" since that ONLY applies to government. Businesses can create any group of people they desire and single them out for special treatment, and they often do just that.
4.)You are clearly confusing businesses with government. They are not the same. Businesses don't have to adhere to the US Constitution, government does.

1.) a dress code in general is FACTUALLY not illegal discrimination . . next
2.) yes as long as they dont break the law or violate rights
3.) again only if it doesnt break the law and violate rights
4.) so do businesses, not "equal protection"per say but they do in fact have to adhere to parts of the constitution. on this topic the civil rights act and how PA laws tie into that

maybe i missed something in the conversation you are having but parts of your post are still factually wrong

 

[apdst]

Prove that they knew the people were Christian and against gay marriage to that point to refuse service.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I already posted their bio's from their website that proves they're practicing Christians. You even responded to that post.

 

[ludin]

Trust me I know bigotry when I see it. And, yes the mission statement of Evangelicals is pretty clear that what they want is a theocracy. Other conservative religious organizations have expressed a desire for a theocracy.

Yet you ignore the bigotry you are spouting in your post. why is that?

“Government is a gift from God for the common good. Good governance creates the conditions in which human beings fulfill their responsibilities as God’s image bearers and as stewards of God’s creation.” (Mission statement of the National Association of Evangelicals)

"God has ordained all social institutions, including the government, for the benefit of mankind and as a reflection of His divine nature. The Supreme Court's imposition of the doctrine of separation of church and state distorts the Founding Father's recognition of our unequivocally Christian nation and the protection of religious freedom for all faiths. (“Focus on the Family”position statement on Church and State)

"Human government was instituted by God to protect our unalienable rights from our own selfish tendencies. ……. Government has its role, and it should allow other God-ordained institutions the freedom to perform their roles as well. (Statement on the role of government from:All About GOD Ministries, Inc)

What is described above is not a representative democracy.

How is it not? Even the founders of this country recognized where rights come from.
they were bestowed by our creator, and government gains it's power from the governed.

There is nothing there that describes that a government should be a theocracy. as you suggested.
it does state the government should govern to the highest moral standard possible.

Businesses do not discriminate all the time. They don't discriminate most of the time. They don't discriminate some of the time. In fact most businesses are not so psychotic that they feel they have to know all about their customers sexual lives. If they did they would run afoul of state and local nondiscriminatory laws. If a baker is in business in a public store selling his artistic expression to the public he cannot then say oops sorry I only sell my artistic expression to people that don't commit sodomy. Saying it is artistic expression doesn't permit him to discriminate.

Sorry but businesses decline to do events all the time.

He no longer sells wedding cakes in his store and you did not read the text of the SC decision

Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP
yes i did. you evidently did and yes he still sales wedding cakes.

When did a wedding cake become an event?

Weddings are an event and now you are just being obtuse.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)yes i did.
2.) yes he still sales wedding cakes.
3.) weddings are an event and now you are just being obtuse.

1.) no you didnt or you would know the fact that claiming he won is wrong
2.) and if the bigot declines to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple hell be right back in court because thats still illegal
3.) holy irony batman

a wedding cake is not an event and a wedding cake is not the same as a wedding LMAO

these facts will not change

 

[roguenuke]

I already posted their bio's from their website that proves they're practicing Christians. You even responded to that post.

Just because someone is a practicing Christian doesnt mean they will refuse service to same sex couples for their weddings. Many Christian business owners won't.

No one tried to order invitations for a same sex wedding from these owners though (from my understanding). So it would then have to be other businesses that you would have to show each couple who came in knew that the owner was Christisn and would refuse them service.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Glitch]

1.) a dress code in general is FACTUALLY not illegal discrimination . . next
2.) yes as long as they dont break the law or violate rights
3.) again only if it doesnt break the law and violate rights
4.) so do businesses, not "equal protection"per say but they do in fact have to adhere to parts of the constitution. on this topic the civil rights act and how PA laws tie into that

maybe i missed something in the conversation you are having but parts of your post are still factually wrong

If you actually read the posts your above post wouldn't appear so monumentally stupid, but since you don't bother to actually read what was posted your posts can't help but be the most idiotic of the thread. Congratulations. With over 385 posts in this thread that is a real achievement.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I don't think God is pro gay

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.
Leviticus 20:13

Men shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 18:22

God is a reflection of every individuals personal beliefs. You are anti-gay, therefore your god is as well.

 

[Condor060]

God is a reflection of every individuals personal beliefs. You are anti-gay, therefore your god is as well.

Except those are actual bible scriptures so theres that.

 

[Aberration]

God is a reflection of every individuals personal beliefs. You are anti-gay, therefore your god is as well.

First. Those words were written a long time before any of us existed. So you can’t put the cart before the horse here.

Second. There are people. And then there are the actions people do.

Third. Not really replying to you per se. All sin is equal. Some Christians would like to delude themselves that they don’t live in sin.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Except those are actual bible scriptures so theres that.

The bible says lots of things. Killing children that disobey their parents etc. People cling to the passages in religious texts that reflect their personal beliefs.

 

[AGENT J]

If you actually read the posts your above post wouldn't appear so monumentally stupid, but since you don't bother to actually read what was posted your posts can't help but be the most idiotic of the thread. Congratulations. With over 385 posts in this thread that is a real achievement.

LOL holy posted meltdown batman! I think i can hear you punching your keyboard. Thats hilarious. What in that posted meltdown changes the fact that parts of your post are still wrong? Oh thats right nothing. ... personal attacks wont change that fact they just further expose that truth. But by all means, if you are done posting triggered meltdowns and you disagree about the topic at hand please prove otherwise . . thanks!!

 

[HenryChinaski]

First. Those words were written a long time before any of us existed. So you can’t put the cart before the horse here.

Second. There are people. And then there are the actions people do.

Third. Not really replying to you per se. All sin is equal. Some Christians would like to delude themselves that they don’t live in sin.

The bible is an ambiguously written book that is interpreted by every individual in order to reflect their own personal views of society.

 

[Aberration]

The bible is an ambiguously written book that is interpreted by every individual in order to reflect their own personal views of society.

If it’s so ambiguous millions of people would not say it says the exact same thing.

 

[lwf]

If OSHA says someone can’t do business unless they make a gay wedding cake, then yes.

They can say that someone can't do business unless they purchase, at their expense, and make available personal protective equipment. Is this forcing labor?

 

[lwf]

Cakes don't need wedding toppers. And in fact you can refuse to put on any wedding topper on a cake for a couple, including one with an interracial couple, so long as you don't refuse to sell them a cake.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I agree. The wedding cake and the wedding invitations cases are interesting issues. I am a proponent of "You must sell what is on the menu." You can decline to custom make something from scratch that is not on the menu for any reason, including discriminatory ones. You cannot, however, refuse to sell something that is on the menu and therefore being advertised to the public as being available for sale, even if that menu item requires you to do labor to create it. Think of a chef: He doesn't have to create a custom entree that isn't on the menu, even if the only reason he's refusing is he doesn't like gay people. He can be compelled to create an entree that is on the menu (assuming he is physically capable of doing so) regardless of whether or not he approves of the customer who ordered it, under penalty of losing his business license.

Are wedding cakes and wedding invitations "on the menu?" I can see both sides of this argument. If each one is custom made to order for each customer, then I tend to lean the route of "artistic license" and say that the artist or decorator is protected. If they are created from what are essentially templates, and especially if the item ordered is functionally identical to other items that other customers have ordered, then I tend to agree that these are items on the menu and therefore the person selling them in that case is operating as a merchant rather than an artist and cannot refuse to sell them to a paying customer.

I would argue: If a paying couple chose a cake from a portfolio and said "we want to order this" and the baker had the ingredients and tools to do so, then the baker cannot refuse to create it on religious grounds. If the paying couple handed the baker a sketch and said "We want you to create this" then the baker can refuse for any reason or no reason. Same for the invitations.

 

[Glitch]

If it’s so ambiguous millions of people would not say it says the exact same thing.

Millions of people say the bible says different things. Why do you think there are so many splintered Christian sects - all using the same bible?