Here it comes again: Arizona Christian Artists May Face Jail Time for Refusing to Service Gay Wedding

[geronl]

Consumers have rights,  business owners have rights.  Here they appear to conflict and you insist on a legal resolution.  Well, I've proposed one,  that accommodates both.

No, you didn't. Not a realistic one. The legal resolution is to recognize that the free exchange of goods in the marketplace is something the government should not be a party to. The government is not the CEO of all businesses (so-called "public accommodation" a term made up to justify government control of private enterprise and should be sent to the ash heap of history) which your fascist notions would amount to.

[geronl]

Can you explain to us what it is about the above term you object to?

I reject the term because it allows government to assume the role of controlling all private businesses, something that goes against the whole notion of a free economy.

[SirLinksALot]

I reject the term because it allows government to assume the role of controlling all private businesses, something that goes against the whole notion of a free economy.

But surely there are such things as public accomodations.... What would qualify as such then?

[Jazzhead]

No, you didn't. Not a realistic one. The legal resolution is to recognize that the free exchange of goods in the marketplace is something the government should not be a party to. The government is not the CEO of all businesses (so-called "public accommodation" a term made up to justify government control of private enterprise and should be sent to the ash heap of history) which your fascist notions would amount to.

Not a "realistic" one?  You want to hold out until a half-century's precedent starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is abolished?   That must be some good shit you are smoking.     

What I propose is pragmatic, reasonable and attainable.  You want to deny services to members of the public on the basis of your religion?  Why not accept a limited exception that would allow you to cater only to celebrations of religious weddings?   

your fascist notions

 

 

[The_Reader_David]

Yeah, but that's not what they advertise.  They advertise wedding cakes.    The point as far as I am concerned is not to mislead the customer and then humiliate him/her when the advertised service is requested.   These shopowners are hardly noble in their profession of religious principle.   They want to make money from weddings.  Let 'em post a sign, in full view of the general public,  that homosexuals are sinners and aren't welcome.   And let their customers - gay and straight -  decide whether to patronize the business of someone with such attitudes.   

Now that is a reasonable position.  Alas, the Solons of Phoenix, AZ are still likely to apply the weight of their newly promulgated ordinance against businesses that seek to only provide services for Christian weddings by taking measures you now suggest as meeting your objections.

[txradioguy]

If someone really wanted to expose the hypocrisy of these kind of kerfuffles and expose them for the paucity stunt they are...a hetero couple should go to a bakery in a gay area and request a wedding cake complete with bible versus about marriage between a man and woman...and when the baker refuses..sue them on the basis of discrimination.

You'll see a completely different attitude and tone from the media and gay advocates.

[geronl]

But surely there are such things as public accomodations.... What would qualify as such then?

The sweat of my brow is not a public accommodation.

Public accommodation: Sidewalks, public parks, public schools, city hall, courthouse. Applying the term to private business was bad law. It's like using the "commerce clause" to regulate a childs' lemonade stand. You can enter a lawyers office but you can't force them to take your case, the artisan baker should be treated the same way.

Government discrimination, like Jim Crow laws and enforced segregation was the problem. Private sector discrimination had an easy answer: Competition in a free market. In many places the reason you can find Hispanic and Asian retailers and restaurants was because of discrimination, once government laws against minorities starting businesses was relaxed they had other choices.

Just like there are Muslim and Gay-owned bakeries that would refuse to make a Christ-themed or straight-pride themed cake and not be sued by the government, everyone should have that kind of freedom.

Today we have a government that discriminates on racial and religious grounds all the time while hypocritically trying to enforce their ridiculous edicts on the private sector. Meanwhile laws that raise the cost of entering the market with a new business or service keep being erected to stymie the very competition that solves any private sector discrimination.

https://mises.org/blog/trouble-public-accommodation

[geronl]

If someone really wanted to expose the hypocrisy of these kind of kerfuffles and expose them for the paucity stunt they are...a hetero couple should go to a bakery in a gay area and request a wedding cake complete with bible versus about marriage between a man and woman...and when the baker refuses..sue them on the basis of discrimination.

The same government attorney that sued the Colorado baker (which started this crap) admitted he would not file the same case against a Muslim or gay baker.

[geronl]

Now that is a reasonable position.  Alas, the Solons of Phoenix, AZ are still likely to apply the weight of their newly promulgated ordinance against businesses that seek to only provide services for Christian weddings by taking measures you now suggest as meeting your objections.

Many states hold private clubs to the same standard though.

[geronl]

Now that is a reasonable position.  Alas, the Solons of Phoenix, AZ are still likely to apply the weight of their newly promulgated ordinance against businesses that seek to only provide services for Christian weddings by taking measures you now suggest as meeting your objections.

It ain't none of the governments  business who I choose to do business with or for.

[txradioguy]

The same government attorney that sued the Colorado baker (which started this crap) admitted he would not file the same case against a Muslim or gay baker.

And that right there tells you everything you need to know about why these cases are filed.

[skeeter]

And that right there tells you everything you need to know about why these cases are filed.

No one honestly believes these cases are brought without a specific agenda in mind and with intent to be applied fairly.

Thats what makes all the happy talk about discrimination and fairness so aggravating.

[HonestJohn]

What part of working for Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a would be a problem for a liberal leftist employee?  The paycheck?  The not working on Sunday?  What?

For a leftist, Chik-Fil-A's support of anti-gay organizations and Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide the contraception in their health care package as mandated by Obamacare.

We say, "Tough cookies.  Don't like it?  Get another job!"

---

By doing so, we allow that to be levied against us.

[TomSea]

The US was found on Judeo-Christian principles, we can't let the Secular Humanists force their beliefs on us, they are anti-Christian and sympathize with other religious systems, this is the way of the left-wing.

[txradioguy]

The US was found on Judeo-Christian principles, we can't let the Secular Humanists force their beliefs on us, they are anti-Christian and sympathize with other religious systems, this is the way of the left-wing.

I think we might be too late in pushing back.  They've already won.  Look at your kids or grand kids school calendar.  Little to no mention of Thanksgiving...Christmas or Easter.

Can't say a prayer before a football game.  Kids are being admonished for praying over their lunch in the cafeteria.

 


It's one of my motivating factors for replying to anyone who says "Happy Holidays" with a big smile and a response of "Merry Christmas".

[Sanguine]

For a leftist, Chik-Fil-A's support of anti-gay organizations and Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide the contraception in their health care package as mandated by Obamacare.

We say, "Tough cookies.  Don't like it?  Get another job!"

---

By doing so, we allow that to be levied against us.

Not sure I understand your comment.  No one has a job where they agree 100% with the boss.  Unless they are the boss. 

[CSM]

Consumers have rights, 

Yes, they do have the right to start a competing business by risking their own wealth to purchase property and then expend their time and labor to make that business successful, as they define success!  Beyond that, they have no more rights to those things from another, than my neighbor has rights to my house.

[/quote]
business owners have rights. 
[/quote]

Yes, they own the property, have risked their time and capital, so their rights trump mine.  If I find it to be an objectionable business, then I am free to enter the market by making the same risks.  Hopefully, it would result in me taking their customer base and achieving my own success.

[/quote]
Here they appear to conflict and you insist on a legal resolution.  Well, I've proposed one,  that accommodates both.   
[/quote]

You may see a conflict, however there is no conflict.  Private property rights are sacrosanct and as a result the owner's preferences trump mine and yours.  You may think that all preferences can be accomodated, but that is not a remote possibility.

[/quote]
I laugh at your statement that I don't understand the meaning of liberty -  your notion is your way or the highway,  and if the consumer is tossed from your store because of your arbitrary (and secret) demand that he conform to your moral values,  then tough toenails.  I think you're a perfect candidate for progressivism.
[/quote]

This statement is proof that you don't understand liberty or private property, both go hand in hand.  Private property rights have been abrogated to the collective in every progressive society.  You are espousing for the use of government guns to over ride the preferences of a private property owner, ask yourself why.  I highly doubt that you are able to answer.  You may not "feel" like you are a progressive, but quite frankly you are siding with the progressive OWS types in this discussion.'

[/quote]
As for abortion,  that's off-topic for this thread.   But I bet you're a male who'll never have to endure nine months of pregnancy with no support from family or partner.
[/quote]

First, Yes abortion is off the topic of the title, but it is very much related to liberty.  I didn't bring it into the discussion and honestly I can't remember if you did.  However, you did reply to another poster's bringing it into the discussion, so I decided to use your reply as proof of my postings.  Secondly, what does it matter what sex I am?  That argument is a text book leftist argument. 

[/quote]
The woman's liberty and self-determination no doubt means nothing to you - and again, such callousness is more akin, IMO, to progressivism than conservatism. 
[/quote]

I see that you have conveniently left out the liberty of the most helpless.  Yes a woman has, and very well should have, all the liberties of the rest of society.  So does the unique human being that is created at conception.  You claim that liberty is defined as the ability to MURDER that unique human being.  Let me re-state your position regarding individual liberty.  You are claiming that a consumer's liberty is based on some fictitious right to make demands from other free individuals, and a woman's liberty is based on her ability to murder an unborn child. 

I can't think of any position that is more opposed to liberty.

[/quote]
I don't defend the horrible practice of abortion.  But I defend a woman's liberty just as I do my own,  and seek to deter and reduce abortions by other, more effective means than calling upon the police power of the state.     
[/quote]

Yet you are willing to call upon the police power of the state to abrogate the rights of a property owner.

[CSM]

I apologize to all for the formatting issue.  I tried, yet clearly am not an expert poster yet...I hope that the quote's are clear vs. my responses to the quoted items.

[geronl]

I apologize to all for the formatting issue.  I tried, yet clearly am not an expert poster yet...I hope that the quote's are clear vs. my responses to the quoted items.

I figured it out

[CSM]

I figured it out

@geronl Whew, thanks.  I still don't understand how to do what I was trying to do.  I'm probably too lazy to research it right now....

Have a very nice weekend. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

@geronl Whew, thanks.  I still don't understand how to do what I was trying to do.  I'm probably too lazy to research it right now....

Have a very nice weekend.

You put a slash in front of the word quote at both the beginning and end.  There's no slash at the beginning of a quote (or anything I can think of, the / indicates that the end of a quote, member name, url, etc).

[INVAR]

I want nothing to do with statist progressivism.

That is exactly what your demands for a business owner to abandon their faith and principles to create a product or provide a service for something they find abhorrent and a violation of their First Amendment Rights is.

What I argue for is individual liberty.

No you do not.  Not at all.

You are arguing for the mark of the beast.  You are arguing for moral anarchy.  You are arguing that businesses comply with an edict to celebrate a perverted behavior, or be fined or run out of business.

Personal liberty means I retain my right to discriminate against your perverted behavior and not create an item that will be used to celebrate said perversion, which means I condone and celebrate said behavior by my efforts that I am willing to sell to those practicing it.

Why not allow a wedding business to state to the public that it provides services to celebrate religious marriages only?   

Because as I have stated before - and you IGNORED IT - the moment a business advertises they only do Christian weddings, they will be deliberately targeted by the Gay Mafia and their Enforcers in government to punish that business and make a public spectacle for the purposes of creating a hostile environment to any Christian business that dares to resist the agenda of pushing perversion.

the issue is whether abortions should be discouraged and reduced by effective means that don't require the police power of the state.   A woman has the right to decide whether to bear a child - I can think of nothing more fundamental to a woman's liberty.   Freedom has consequences - people make bad or even immoral choices.   But that does not justify the government's abridgment of liberty,  especially in such a fundamental matter as this.

Except you are applauding the use of government and the courts to abridge the liberties of business owners like myself in order to force us to comply with evil.  The fact you cite abortion to somehow deflect your pro-tyranny stance for the homo agenda is beyond stupid and silly.

[geronl]

and in many states even private clubs are held to these idiotic leftist standards

[Sanguine]

What Two Lesbian Printers Teach Us About Conscience Rights

Jim Campbell
Posted: Dec 17, 2016

People all too often assume the worse in others whose views and beliefs are different from their own. We regularly see this when discussing whether a business professional may decline to create speech that conflicts with his deeply held convictions. “That person refused to do what?” many are quick to exclaim. “He can’t discriminate like that!”

But let’s not be so quick to jump to conclusions. It’s better to consider the facts, and think about what we would do if the situation were reversed, before labeling our neighbors as “bigots” or “discriminators.”

Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo, two lesbians who own a print shop in New Jersey, provide a great example of this. They have publicly voiced their support for Hands On Originals and its managing owner, Blaine Adamson, after Hands On Originals found itself in the crosshairs for declining to print shirts promoting a gay pride festival in Lexington, Kentucky. Kathy and Diane considered the facts, imagined how they would feel if the tables were turned, and concluded that Blaine deserves their support rather than their scorn. We can all learn a thing or two from Kathy and Diane.

Yes it’s true—Blaine declined to print messages on a shirt promoting the Lexington Pride Festival. But that doesn’t mean he engaged in unlawful discrimination. I recently had the privilege of explaining this to three judges on the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

The law forbids Blaine from turning away customers because they are members of a protected class, but it doesn’t prohibit him from declining to print a message because he disagrees with the content of what it says....

http://townhall.com/columnists/jimcampbell/2016/12/17/what-two-lesbian-printers-teach-us-about-conscience-rights-n2260757

Fascinating article.  Clears up a lot of things we were arguing about here.

[Free Vulcan]

Fascinating article.  Clears up a lot of things we were arguing about here.

And I believe it's the 5th circuit that recently upheld that service could be denied based on messaging.