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

[roamer_1]

If I were to grant that they were equally valid, which they are not, why give the preference to the customer via government coercion?

A good example of this is in liability. Until POS, the liability is on the owner of the goods, after the exchange, the liability passes to the new owner. How would the buyer have a right without assuming some liability before the fact as well?

example:
If you grab an apple from a vendor's stand, and throw it at someone, who is liable? You to a great degree, no doubt, but the vendor could be sued as well - it is his apple, and his display arrangement... he left the apple where it could be an attractive nuisance. Don't laugh, as this actually happened to my friend...

But if you buy the apple from the vendor and throw it at someone, the liability has transferred to you exclusively. The vendor is held harmless, as the property ownership has transferred.

[geronl]

So if a baker advertises that they sell wedding cakes, then they must sell wedding cakes to customers.

Anything else is false advertising.

ad "We don't sell cakes with two little men or two little women on them"

[SirLinksALot]

Why is the expectation equally valid? Because I say so doesn't work on this kid, and it never did.

If I were to grant that they were equally valid, which they are not, why give the preference to the customer via government coercion?

If you view them as equally valid how do you propose to reconcile this? A coin toss?

Here is where the INTENT of the First Amendment applies.

If for anything, this is the FIRST of all amendments because it was intended to protect free speech, free association and free exercise of religion ( that includes one's conscience ) in all spheres of life. It is not intended to limit this only to a church setting.

Unless the First Amendment protects even unpopular speech, its “protection” is a sham. After all, popular speech’s popularity is protection enough. Likewise, however, it’s also true that if the right to refuse to participate in speech doesn’t include the right to refuse to participate in popular speech, it is no right at all.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Here is where the INTENT of the First Amendment applies.

If for anything, this is the FIRST of all amendments because it was intended to protect free speech, free association and free exercise of religion ( that includes one's conscience ) in all spheres of life. It is not intended to limit this only to a church setting.

Unless the First Amendment protects even unpopular speech, its “protection” is a sham. After all, popular speech’s popularity is protection enough. Likewise, however, it’s also true that if the right to refuse to participate in speech doesn’t include the right to refuse to participate in popular speech, it is no right at all.

Very true. This issue really gets down to the fundamentals.

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, since we don't do religion straight up on this forum. But I always chuckle when people rag on Christians for being hypocrites and say we are one thing on Sunday and another the rest of the week. Then when a Christians stands up for their rights, or for morality; we are told to keep it in Church. I guess we've all got a beam in our eye.

[INVAR]

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.

Exactly so.  You are pushing a perverted behavior to be accepted and celebrated, even by those who are religiously and principally opposed to the perversion.  When you tell us that my business is not my property but a 'privilege' granted by the state that MUST acquiesce to CREATING material that CELEBRATES an evil because society deems it a good - is no less than imposing servitude, and at the point of a gun that you will applaud be used when we refuse to comply with your diktat.  We become North Korea.

It is PRECISELY the end of an inalienable right to the free exercise of our religion - which instructs us to ESCHEW evil rather than celebrate and accommodate it.

You advertise wedding cakes, then bake wedding cakes.

And the moment some Christian bakery advertises that it is a Christian bakery  - the Gay Mafiosos show up to demand their cake be made in the hopes they will refuse to do so for the purpose of suing them out of business.

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

Who the hell are you to tell them what kind of cakes they MUST decorate and make????  Like I said - you are the very tyrant you feign offense at being called.

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

It is NOT reasonable.  You are demanding they commit sin, or quit their livelihood and business.  You espouse what some of us understand to be the Mark.  Whereareas we cannot buy or sell unless we think and act in accordance to the demands your society dictates - even if it goes totally against the plain words of scripture and the Law of God.

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

Why are you such a lightweight snowflake or taking up for such lightweight snowflakes?  There are plenty of other businesses that will gladly take the money and do whatever someone wants them to do.  You advocate for an agenda LOOKING to punish Christians and biblically principled to force them into committing sin, or they cannot buy or sell.

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

We are about to suffer it, greatly.  As foretold - and it will be people just like you applauding and spearheading it.

[bigheadfred]

The darkness that surrounds us.

You were created in the image and likeness of God.

Then you came to a physical existence where life isn't fair. People aren't equal. Shit happens. Deal with it.

This forum has a feature that lets people put other people on their ignore list. The owners can't do that. People have no right to ignore me. THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO EVERYTHING I SAY. IF THEY DON'T THEY LEAVE ME NO CHOICE.

I'm calling the cops. /s

[JustPassinThru]

I took a peek at their website.  They do beautiful work.   The site says they specialize in creating invitations for weddings.  That's what hold they themselves out to the general public as doing. 

So what gives them the right to discriminate?     

Free right of exchange.

What gives sodomites the RIGHT to DEMAND that someone who does not want their business, must GIVE it?

These people don't cater African weddings; they don't cater to weddings in prisons; they don't cater to Moslem weddings to five-year-old girls.

LIKE EVERY free craftsman, they have the right to chose which business they must accept.

What's next?  Demanding that bakers provide MUSIC for fag weddings?  Demanding that musicians PROVIDE JANITORIAL SERVICES for fag parties?

These people don't want that business.  And an artist's service is not "Public Accommodations."

[txradioguy]

No, but you have the legal obligation to not arbitrarily discriminate.  Ignore the law at your peril.  God won't help you; you'll need to lawyer up.

By that logic...any store that displays "No shirt no shoes no service" should be sued for discrimination.

[TomSea]

By that logic...any store that displays "No shirt no shoes no service" should be sued for discrimination.

[TomSea]

How about this scenario, if "they", a same-sex couple want to buy gas at your gas station, you allow that, but as a baker may not care to bake them that cake. All of this can go either way.

[txradioguy]

How about this scenario, if "they", a same-sex couple want to buy gas at your gas station, you allow that, but as a baker may not care to bake them that cake. All of this can go either way.

The thing is...these gay couples purposely seek out establishments that do not cater to their community...knwing they will get refused service...in order to bring lawsuits just like this.

Instead of going to a caterer that serves their community...they decide to run a baker out of business.

[Jazzhead]

The government on the plea that its regulation of marriage constituted marriage, changed the definition of marriage to include things which Christians regard not only as not blessed, but as sinful.  Now, the rules of the game having been changed in mid-game, all the pious Christians who ran businesses in support of weddings when they were the formation and celebration of marriage as understood by Christian civilization for centuries prior to that decision are to be put out of business because you and your ilk want to equate wishing to provide services for weddings as traditionally understood, but not for celebrations of the newly-government-redefined notion of "marriage" when what is being celebrated is in traditional Christian understanding immoral, with Jim Crow.

I think that's very well put.   That's an effective argument.   Perhaps the compromise is rather simple - just let the storeowner post a sign indicating he provides services for religious weddings only.   

Your position makes the wall of separation between Church and State into a bulldozer-blade with the State driving it to scrape the Church out of society:  just redefine terms so that the Church has no space and the State is supreme.  One court decision, and hey presto! What had thirty years prior been a generally held moral precept becomes "bigotry" and "discrimination".

I think that's overdrawn.  I'm confident that the courts will respect the rights of churches.  The controversies will come with respect to actions by private citizens to deny service in public accommodations on the basis of religion.   That's where the clash of rights noted by Honest John takes place. Why should the rights of the shop owner trump the rights of the customer?   You may argue that they do,  but the shop owner's injection of religion comes at the cost of the customer's dignity.   

[txradioguy]

Why should the rights of the shop owner trump the rights of the customer?

Business owner has the right to choose who they do business with.  That's called free enterprise.

[bigheadfred]

I think that's very well put.   That's an effective argument.   Perhaps the compromise is rather simple - just let the storeowner post a sign indicating he provides services for religious weddings only.   

I think that's overdrawn.  I'm confident that the courts will respect the rights of churches.  The controversies will come with respect to actions by private citizens to deny service in public accommodations on the basis of religion.   That's where the clash of rights noted by Honest John takes place. Why should the rights of the shop owner trump the rights of the customer?   You may argue that they do,  but the shop owner's injection of religion comes at the cost of the customer's dignity.   

You may argue that they do,  but the shop owner's injection of religion comes at the cost of the customer's dignity.

So they turn around and march out and vow never to return to that place of business. Don't like what they are serving? Go somewhere else. Forcing the business owner to accede to your demands is so ludicrous it isn't even an argument for discussion.

[Jazzhead]

Business owner has the right to choose who they do business with.  That's called free enterprise.

The community still sets the rules for the ordered conduct of commerce.   Do you feel child labor laws are illegitimate?   Laws that require a business to obtain variances and permits, and to not spill its crap into the river? 

It is hardly unreasonable for the community to require that those who choose to trade with the public not arbitrarily discriminate.     

[bigheadfred]

The community still sets the rules for the ordered conduct of commerce.   Do you feel child labor laws are illegitimate?   Laws that require a business to obtain variances and permits, and to not spill its crap into the river? 

It is hardly unreasonable for the community to require that those who choose to trade with the public not arbitrarily discriminate.   

It is completely unreasonable. You are trying to redefine discrimination to fit your views.

[txradioguy]

It is completely unreasonable. You are trying to redefine discrimination to fit your views.

Not the first time this has happened either.  JH is letting a personal bias towards the gay community interfere with and redefine discrimination.

[bigheadfred]

Using the logic I see being presented I should be able to walk into any business and demand that since I only have two dollars in my pocket, ANYTHING that store has for sale should only cost me $2.

If they don't sell to me at my price they are discriminating against me for being poor.

My dignity and all, ya know?

[txradioguy]

Using the logic I see being presented I should be able to walk into any business and demand that since I only have two dollars in my pocket, ANYTHING that store has for sale should only cost me $2.

If they don't sell to me at my price they are discriminating against me for being poor.

My dignity and all, ya know?

It's only fair right?

Like I said earlier...if the logic being employed on this bakery were applied more broadly...you and I should be able to walk into a McDonald's barefoot and shirtless and get served...and if we are refused...su MCDonald's Corp for discrimination.

[bigheadfred]

It's only fair right?

Like I said earlier...if the logic being employed on this bakery were applied more broadly...you and I should be able to walk into a McDonald's barefoot and shirtless and get served...and if we are refused...su MCDonald's Corp for discrimination.

Exactly. FWIW, I would be shirtless walking into a McDonald's cause I would rather eat my shirt than eat there.

[INVAR]

The community still sets the rules for the ordered conduct of commerce.   Do you feel child labor laws are illegitimate?   Laws that require a business to obtain variances and permits, and to not spill its crap into the river? 

You cannot possibly be that daft, but given the stretches of logic to push this agenda - it is not surprising.  You are attempting to equivocate ABUSE and public health threats with personal behavior BEHAVIOR as one and the same???

What happens if someone wants a Stationer to print invitations to an orgy at their house and they refuse?  Can they be sued for "discrimination" too?  We have every right to refuse service to promote and celebrate lewd acts, behaviors and those things which are anathema to our religious sensibilities.

I imagine there are a ton of businesses in Sodom By The Sea (San-Fran) that cater to  the homosexual appetite, and given the numbers of such persons in the art community - finding such a service is as easy as opening the phone directory.  This is a witch hunt, for the purpose of running out of business getting free money in bogus 'damages' for feeling "slighted" that their request for service was refused.

It is hardly unreasonable for the community to require that those who choose to trade with the public not arbitrarily discriminate.   

This is such a bullshit meme.   We have every right under Heaven to discriminate against behaviors that are sinful, perverted, dangerous and lewd.  BEHAVIOR is the key word there.  This is not about skin color or gender whereby the use of the term 'discrimination' in the negative context would apply to denying a public service.

But even then, if I was a stationer that only catered to white male only country clubs, I still have every right under heaven to discriminate and choose not to do business with those individuals that do not fit the criteria I am willing to serve.

Force me to do so, by using courts and the government to put a gun to my head to do so - is tyranny - plain and simple.

And the kind of tyranny Americans were willing to die and kill in order to resist.

[Free Vulcan]

Using the logic I see being presented I should be able to walk into any business and demand that since I only have two dollars in my pocket, ANYTHING that store has for sale should only cost me $2.

If they don't sell to me at my price they are discriminating against me for being poor.

My dignity and all, ya know?

Ah yes, and that's the dirty shorts in the laundry. The govt wants to dictate which groups are protected and which are not.

They want to selectively apply the 14th amendment and call it equality, and enforce that cherry picked morality on businesses. Suddenly, the State becomes the Church.

[thackney]

Why should the rights of the shop owner trump the rights of the customer?   You may argue that they do,  but the shop owner's injection of religion comes at the cost of the customer's dignity.

You keep claim it is a right of the customer to demand an individual perform a service they find destructive to themselves.  If someone makes custom cakes, can anyone force them to make a Nazi cake celebrating the birthday of Hitler?  What you suggest is equal to indentured servitude.  It is not a right.  It is targeting a business owner to make them give up their beliefs.

[thackney]

It is completely unreasonable. You are trying to redefine discrimination to fit your views.

Absolutely.  Business can set their own standards for their operations.  No shoes, no shirt, no service.  It is not discriminating.  Requiring a dress code or standard of conduct is no different.  The customer does not get to demand how the business is run or the what services must be provided.

[Jazzhead]

Absolutely.  Business can set their own standards for their operations.  No shoes, no shirt, no service.  It is not discriminating.  Requiring a dress code or standard of conduct is no different.  The customer does not get to demand how the business is run or the what services must be provided.

None of that is unlawful discrimination,  because it is not arbitrary discrimination.    Unlawful discrimination occurs when an advertised service is withheld because of who the customer is, not because of the behavior the customer exhibits or the demands the customer makes.

As I said above,  the solution may well be quite simple -  just have a wedding-related business state that it caters to religious marriages only.    Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing, and no church should be compelled to convey any spiritual significance to a civil marriage, or to solemnize same.    Taking that concept into the realm of commerce,  I think that all a baker or calligrapher or photographer needs to do is properly advise the public that its services are limited to the celebration of religious marriage.