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

[roamer_1]

Yes it is an unmitigated falsehood, but today when you have enough people who ascribe to the religion of 'you didn't build that' - it is inevitable that these same people will soon tell us that your private property is a privilege and not a right, and shortly following - your beliefs are a privilege, and not a right.

And then we become North Korea - thanks to people like Jazzhead.

This is outright truth.
If any of our unalienable rights are removed, then they ALL are.

[geronl]

The customer's an individual too, and he's the one being victimized by a storeowner who degrades him by refusing to provide an advertised service.

 

Many of these persecuted people were perfectly willing to sell a  blank wedding cake to these perverted fascists. Forcing them to make a custom, individualized cake that glorifies obscenity should never be right.

[HonestJohn]

Are you advocating that rights are not natural?  From the Declaration, "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,"

In other words, we are all entitled to the rights that are given to us, first naturally, and secondly by God.  Those rights make us unique (separate) individuals and equally entitled to these natural rights.

I bolded some of the text.

Note that these rights are inherent to people, first by nature, then by G-d.  In essence, the writers understood that people's fundamental nature require these rights.

And never once do they ever speak of whose G-d that is. 

Most of the language used is of 'the Creator', which all faiths have.

[roamer_1]

I bolded some of the text.

Note that these rights are inherent to people, first by nature, then by G-d. 

And never once do they ever speak of whose G-d that is. 

Most of the language used is of 'the Creator', which all faiths have.

Read Blackstone's Law, which embodies the English Common Law derivative of ancient Celtic Law to better understand the terms.

And I might add, simple perusal of the Federalist letters leave no question whatsoever to which God the founders referred.

[HonestJohn]

Read Blackstone's Law, which embodies the English Common Law derivative of ancient Celtic Law to better understand the terms.

Which has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I bolded some of the text.

Note that these rights are inherent to people, first by nature, then by G-d. 

And never once do they ever speak of whose G-d that is. 

Most of the language used is of 'the Creator', which all faiths have.

I disagree, that's a modern reading of an old text. Historic context makes it abundantly clear that which God they were referring to, just as when Whitfield or Jonathan Edwards used the term.

Nevertheless, that doesn't change the God given rights enumerated in the bill of rights.

Nor am I aware of any major religions that accepts sodomy as grounds for marriage. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are against it. My very limited research tells me Hindus are in a 'it depends' situation, but I don't know the history of it.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Which has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?

It has to do with the nature of free markets, economies, and the foundation of civilization. Those would be important for establishing whether the government has the right to force people into slavery for someone else.

[roamer_1]

Which has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?

That Masons (and deists) were present does not mitigate the bare fact that our founders and their documentation provide for a Christian moral ethic, and that by far and away, our founders were Christians.

[HonestJohn]

It has to do with the nature of free markets, economies, and the foundation of civilization. Those would be important for establishing whether the government has the right to force people into slavery for someone else.

And this has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?

Where is the tie-in to our Founding Fathers?  They based their rights heavily on Masonic views and the Enlightenment.

Not the Celtic origins of English law.

Your post is a non sequitur.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

And this has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?

Where is the tie-in to our Founding Fathers?  They based their rights heavily on Masonic views and the Enlightenment.

Not the Celtic origins of English law.

Your post is a non sequitur.

No, the question has to do with the rights you have over your property and labor hours. Masons have nothing to do with it and the first amendment hits it, I think, only tangentially. Why are you trying to change the discussion away from rights and selling to Masons. A bit fishy if you ask me. This old dog says it's smells like red herring.

And if you are denying the influence of Blackstone on the law of the US you need to study your history. It's one of the seminal law books of America.

[HonestJohn]

That Masons (and deists) were present does not mitigate the bare fact that our founders and their documentation provide for a Christian moral ethic, and that by far and away, our founders were Christians.

And that's where you make your fundamental mistake.  Our Founding Fathers were very much influenced (or were actually) Masons.  Deists, Christian in name only.

'Christian' morality was not used in their documents.  A Universal morality, common to *ALL*, was at their core.

[Jazzhead]

I love the hysteria on this thread.  For my suggestion that a shop owner follow the law and not discriminate regarding services he's advertised to provide,  I've been called a pervert, a communist,  and accused of being akin to Kim Jung-Il of North Korea.  Meanwhile that suggestion has been compared to "servitude",  and "celebration of tyranny" at the point of "government guns", and the slippery slope that will lead to the end of our inalienable rights.

C'mon, folks,  all I saying is stay true to your word.   You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes.   If you don't want to sell wedding cakes,  then that's fine too.   Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized?   Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed?   Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?       

[roamer_1]

And this has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?

Where is the tie-in to our Founding Fathers?  They based their rights heavily on Masonic views and the Enlightenment.

Not the Celtic origins of English law.

Your post is a non sequitur.

It was I that mentioned Blackstone - And it is necessary to read  if one is to understand the context of Creator and Nature's God.

And I wholly deny the Enlightenment - Two standards were raised, nearly simultaneously, before the nations - One relied upon the Enlightenment and ordered the rights of men as overseen by men. That was the French Rights of Man.

The other declared the rights of men to be endowed by our Creator, and beyond the limits of the courts of men. That governments are raised up only to protect those rights, and for no other purpose. That was the United States Declaration of Independence.

One brought forth Communism. The other brought forth Liberty.

While I will not disagree about Masonic influences, in America, they were tempered by the Judeo-Christian Ethic. One need only read Voltaire for a comparison - and Voltaire, no friend of Liberty... Even so, he could see the difference.

And, as I said, there is no question that by far and away, the American experiment is a Christian one.

[roamer_1]

And that's where you make your fundamental mistake.  Our Founding Fathers were very much influenced (or were actually) Masons.  Deists, Christian in name only.

'Christian' morality was not used in their documents.  A Universal morality, common to *ALL*, was at their core.

Then you have not read the Federalist papers.

[Free Vulcan]

And this has what to do with the Masonic views held by our Founders?

Where is the tie-in to our Founding Fathers?  They based their rights heavily on Masonic views and the Enlightenment.

Not the Celtic origins of English law.

Your post is a non sequitur.

No such thing in history existed. There were few if any deists among the Founders, and saying their view of rights came from the Masons is a big tenuous logical leap.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

And that's where you make your fundamental mistake.  Our Founding Fathers were very much influenced (or were actually) Masons.  Deists, Christian in name only.

'Christian' morality was not used in their documents.  A Universal morality, common to *ALL*, was at their core.

Pass the bread because the baloney just went buy. I've read a lot of stuff written by Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, George Washington (also a mason), and even Thomas Jefferson that are more Bible thumping Christianity than what is preached in a a lot of Churches today.

However, unless Mason's approve of sodomy I don't see how this is at all relevant to the issue at hand. Maybe you could clarify?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Then you have not read the Federalist papers.

Or the Anti-Federalist papers they are even stronger in terms of personal arguing personal liberty.

[HonestJohn]

Pass the bread because the baloney just went buy. I've read a lot of stuff written by Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush, George Washington (also a mason), and even Thomas Jefferson that are more Bible thumping Christianity than what is preached in a a lot of Churches today.

However, unless Mason's approve of sodomy I don't see how this is at all relevant to the issue at hand. Maybe you could clarify?

This all stemmed from the post here:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,237004.msg1167069.html#msg1167069

[Idaho_Cowboy]

This all stemmed from the post here:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,237004.msg1167069.html#msg1167069

Maybe I'm dense here. How would does the Mason issue change what the rights of man are as recorded in the Constitution? Your going to have to spell it out. 

That different sects and denominations is the whole reason we have a first amendment...

[roamer_1]

Meanwhile that suggestion has been compared to "servitude",  and "celebration of tyranny" at the point of "government guns", and the slippery slope that will lead to the end of our inalienable rights.

It is exactly servitude. Free exchange requires 'free'.

C'mon, folks,  all I saying is stay true to your word.   

There is no word until the deal is struck.

You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes.   If you don't want to sell wedding cakes,  then that's fine too.   

what is for sale is beside the point. The point is in the force of government will, under the color of law, against the moral constraints of individual rights and private property.

Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized?   

It is not 'community', and it is not reasonable.
Jewish delis do not sell pork sandwiches.
In a Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, etc) business, 'Gay marriage' is a pork sandwich.

Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed?   

It's my stuff, not your stuff. I'll do with it as I see fit. PERIOD.
And refusing to endorse sin is hardly arbitrary. It is borne of deep moral conviction.

Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?     

I have already described the discrimination against me.

[Free Vulcan]

And that's where you make your fundamental mistake.  Our Founding Fathers were very much influenced (or were actually) Masons.  Deists, Christian in name only.

'Christian' morality was not used in their documents.  A Universal morality, common to *ALL*, was at their core.

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers   # of Founding Fathers      % of Founding Fathers

Episcopalian/Anglican      88      54.7%
Presbyterian              30      18.6%
Congregationalist      27      16.8%
Quaker                      7      4.3%
Dutch/German Reformed   6      3.7%
Lutheran                      5      3.1%
Catholic      3      1.9%
Huguenot      3      1.9%
Unitarian      3      1.9%
Methodist      2      1.2%
Calvinist      1      0.6%
TOTAL      204

[Free Vulcan]

I love the hysteria on this thread.  For my suggestion that a shop owner follow the law and not discriminate regarding services he's advertised to provide,  I've been called a pervert, a communist,  and accused of being akin to Kim Jung-Il of North Korea.  Meanwhile that suggestion has been compared to "servitude",  and "celebration of tyranny" at the point of "government guns", and the slippery slope that will lead to the end of our inalienable rights.

C'mon, folks,  all I saying is stay true to your word.   You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes.   If you don't want to sell wedding cakes,  then that's fine too.   Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized?   Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed?   Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?     

Are you referring to the arbitrary and changing definitions and applications of those definitions by the govt?

There was no legal gay marriage till quite recently. Bakers have been baking wedding cakes for over a century.

Sex till the last couple of years was male and female. Now the govt has changed that definition.

The govt moves the goalposts, constantly, to fit their leftist cult zealot agenda, and you call business owners bigoted and disciminatory?

ADD: and the last time I checked, Irish, Italians, and eastern Europeans got plenty of discriminatory heaped upon them.

[roamer_1]

No such thing in history existed. There were few if any deists among the Founders, and saying their view of rights came from the Masons is a big tenuous logical leap.

@HonestJohn  is right - but the Masonic influence is largely sublimated (more or less secret). Their intent is more blatant if one understands occult and masonic symbolism - Study the Apotheosis of Washington if you need your hair curled.

[thackney]

C'mon, folks,  all I saying is stay true to your word.   You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes.

Just because you call a perversion a marriage and a wedding, doesn't mean I accept your false teaching.

Why is the right to ignore the community's quite reasonable rules so highly prized?

Reasonable rules?  By your standards, not mine.  Why is obedience to God highly prized?  Just be because I often fail at it, doesn't mean I want to stop striving for it.  My soul is as stake.

Why is the harm caused by arbitrary discrimination so blithely dismissed?  Could it be because the white, straight, male Christians among us have never suffered such discrimination in their lives?

Could it be you refuse to recognize the abuse being delivered to the faithful in this?

[HonestJohn]

@HonestJohn  is right - but the Masonic influence is largely sublimated (more or less secret). Their intent is more blatant if one understands occult and masonic symbolism - Study the Apotheosis of Washington if you need your hair curled.

My grandparents were Masons.  I could be a Mason if I chose.  If I'd have lived in the 1700-1800s, I'd have joined.