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

[thackney]

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.

This is a false claim.  They will sell that customer the same products they sell any other customer.  They won't sell a same-sex celebration cake to any customer, regardless of who they are.

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.

You know as well as I do, that the same-sex couple can find a "church" to claim their ceremony is religious.

[Jazzhead]

This is a false claim.  They will sell that customer the same products they sell any other customer.  They won't sell a same-sex celebration cake to any customer, regardless of who they are.

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.     

[JustPassinThru]

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.

So then, YOU set YOURSELF up, or your allies in the Queer Mafia up, as the final determiners in who may discriminate and on what basis.

When YOU want to demand others serve you, against their own volition, you're all set to force compliance.  When your personal preferences are not involved, when it's not YOUR group but someone ELSE...THEN...THOSE people have no right to demand the same services that YOU insist YOU have the right to demand.

Someone who has no shirt may be hungry, or thirsty, or need facilities.  Or want refreshment.  Or may not want to put his shirt on.  And IMHO, not putting a shirt on is far less offensive than being forced to participate in a blasphemy parody of the sacrament of Marriage...FORCED, by threat of heavy fine or imprisonment.

I'd rather serve someone in my restaurant who has no pants and who's smeared with his own filth.  THAT passes with five minutes of cleanup.  Participating in the outrage and blasphemy...stains a conscience for a lifetime.

[roamer_1]

 
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.   

So now you have to post a sign for every instance you WON'T serve? How the hell does that work?

What's wrong with the simple and historical fix which is a sign that says:

"We retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"

That it would need a sign is ridiculous enough.

[skeeter]

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.

Unless you can name some manner of differentiating them from heteros biologically, homosexuality is entirely defined by behavior. You'll need to come up with another legal definition.

[Jazzhead]

Unless you can name some manner of differentiating them from heteros biologically, homosexuality is entirely defined by behavior. You'll need to come up with another legal definition.

Not so.  Sexual orientation is something you don't choose.  Did you choose to be straight?  Could you have sexual feelings for a dude even if you tried?   

Some homosexuals remain celibate.  That is, I believe, what God demands.  He makes 'em gay, and then punishes them with damnation if they act on their feelings.   So they remain celibate.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

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.   

Yes and no respectively. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

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.

ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms:   capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; More
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"
synonyms:   autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed; More
MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

Do you realize how silly it sounds? These people are suing because they were informed that the business limits its services. Why do we need a written sign to counter an unspoken misconception on the part of the would be customer. Informing them verbally should be sufficient. If not, why not?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

So now you have to post a sign for every instance you WON'T serve? How the hell does that work?

What's wrong with the simple and historical fix which is a sign that says:

"We retain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"

That it would need a sign is ridiculous enough.

Pretty sure I already posted that sign.  But hey maybe @Jazzhead missed it. Is this one good enough @Jazzhead ?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[TomSea]

And again, some of this smacks with the truth is that gays are not being denied marriage, we all have the right to marriage, marrying one of the opposite gender.

We all don't get to marry whom we want.

This is all about changing the definition of what marriage has been for thousands of years and then, accusing others of discriminating strangely enough for wanting that traditional definition.

[thackney]

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.   

They do sell wedding cakes.  Just because a group of liberals decided to redefine wedding doesn't change the business they are in.  If they define pedophilia and incest as weddings, are they now forced to include them? 

[INVAR]

If they define pedophilia and incest as weddings, are they now forced to include them?

YES!  That is EXACTLY where all this crap goes with Jazzheads and their aggrieved pervert militants leading the charge.  Look at his logic - look at his insistences.   Pedophiles, Beastialitists, incest practioners can use the same exact arguments he is making to assert their behaviors deserve holy matrimony status with legal affirmation and will be looking to sue and run out of business anyone who refuses to cater to their demands for service to celebrate those perversions.

[skeeter]

Not so.  Sexual orientation is something you don't choose.  Did you choose to be straight?  Could you have sexual feelings for a dude even if you tried?   

Some homosexuals remain celibate.  That is, I believe, what God demands.  He makes 'em gay, and then punishes them with damnation if they act on their feelings.   So they remain celibate.

Impulses aren't tangible. I might feel like stealing an item from a department store but I'm not a thief until I commit the act.

Homosexuality is a behavior. And although I am not allowed to indulge my every heterosexual impulse I do not feel like I'm being victimized by God. I simply control myself.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Impulses aren't tangible. I might feel like stealing an item from a department store but I'm not a thief until I commit the act.

Homosexuality is a behavior. And no, its not God's fault.

If it can be 'proved' that alcoholics, drug addicts, pedophiles or god help us any other deviant behavior has a genetic component; do we have to cater to their desires because it's not their fault?

We are all born sinners and we all have different struggles nobody gets a free pass. We all need forgiveness, I was born that way isn't going to help much on judgement day.

[Free Vulcan]

YES!  That is EXACTLY where all this crap goes with Jazzheads and their aggrieved pervert militants leading the charge.  Look at his logic - look at his insistences.   Pedophiles, Beastialitists, incest practioners can use the same exact arguments he is making to assert their behaviors deserve holy matrimony status with legal affirmation and will be looking to sue and run out of business anyone who refuses to cater to their demands for service to celebrate those perversions.

And the liberals in govt will play God and decide which groups at which time will be allowed such protected status. They will wait till the media/entertainment propaganda softens up society enough, and then suddenly the definition of marriage will 'change' so that like magic a group that was not equal before instantly now is under the 14th amendment. And everyone must trump the 1st to comply.

The whole 'non-discrimination in business practices' is nothing but shifting sand for liberals to advance their religion by constantly changing the definitions, and having the govt play the church in molding the nation's morality.

[skeeter]

If it can be 'proved' that alcoholics, drug addicts, pedophiles or god help us any other deviant behavior has a genetic component; do we have to cater to their desires because it's not their fault?

We are all born sinners and we all have different struggles nobody gets a free pass. We all need forgiveness, I was born that way isn't going to help much on judgement day.

Exactly right. There are temptations playing on heteros and homos alike that we are called by God to resist. It is our choice.

[INVAR]

 

Yeah, but that's not what they advertise.  They advertise wedding cakes.

A wedding is between a man and a woman, period.  Wedding cakes are for the celebration of holy matrimony.  Only recently when a minority of perverts and the government decided that marriage can be redefined to include perversion, going against 6,000 years of recorded human history, religious and natural law - has the institution of marriage been perverted to include something it was never designed for.

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.

Poor, poor tyrannical snowflakes.  There are literally THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of homosexual-owned businesses that cater to their community.  You are condoning a witch hunt and inquisition and giving all your stupid justifications for it.

These shopowners are hardly noble in their profession of religious principle.

Says the man pushing an abomination in accordance to scripture, natural law and tradition.  You sir, have no authority upon which to make such judgments regarding religious principle as you have illustrated you have absolutely no understanding or regard for it.

Let 'em post a sign, in full view of the general public,  that homosexuals are sinners and aren't welcome.   

And you know as well as the rest of us, the MOMENT that any business puts up such a sign, the minority of perverts and their lawyers will descend and work with local, state and federal government authorities to publicly punish, shut down and ruin said business owner.

Won't be long before the pedophiles, beastialitists, polygamists and even more horrifying perversions get to wield the same legal hammers to force everyone to cater to their demands as well, thanks to folks like yourself.

[TomSea]

Unfortunately, all that Jazzhead is saying fits into progressivsm,

Be for abortions in a rather callous way, be for infertile marriages, call Trump a fascist, stand up for Muslims, talks about others forcing religious beliefs on others.  This seems a lot the way the GLBT voting bloc thinks.

[Jazzhead]

Unfortunately, all that Jazzhead is saying fits into progressivsm,

Be for abortions in a rather callous way, be for infertile marriages, call Trump a fascist, stand up for Muslims, talks about others forcing religious beliefs on others.  This seems a lot the way the GLBT voting bloc thinks.

I want nothing to do with statist progressivism.  What I argue for is individual liberty.  Some issues, like this one, are difficult because one person's liberty (the consumer) conflicts with another's (the shop owner).   I've suggested at several places what I think are reasonable ways to resolve the conflict.   Why not allow a wedding business to state to the public that it provides services to celebrate religious marriages only?   

Obviously,  you've noticed that I've been posting recently on an abortion thread as well.  But I'm no "abortion defender", as I've been accused of over there.   I think abortion is morally wrong, as do most here.   But that's not the issue - 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.   

[TomSea]

JH seems to enjoy attacking the values of others, perhaps one should start dredging up the information on the gay lifestyle being unhealthy and things like that; because as of now, this is very on- sided.

Progressives:
For gay marriage, check
For abortion, check
Sympathetic to Muslims, check.

[thackney]

But that does not justify the government's abridgment of liberty,  especially in such a fundamental matter as this.

Protecting the life of the innocent and those that cannot defend themselves is the higher calling of the government. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

JH seems to enjoy attacking the values of others, perhaps one should start dredging up the information on the gay lifestyle being unhealthy and things like that; because as of now, this is very on- sided.

Progressives:
For gay marriage, check
For abortion, check
Sympathetic to Muslims, check.

He's ok, he just thinks a little differently. At least he's thinking which is better than the progressives.

[thackney]

JH seems to enjoy attacking the values of others, perhaps one should start dredging up the information on the gay lifestyle being unhealthy and things like that; because as of now, this is very on- sided.

Progressives:
For gay marriage, check
For abortion, check
Sympathetic to Muslims, check.

It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion.  @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.

[TomSea]

It seems foolish in a debate of whose liberty and fundamental rights warrant the protection by government, to try and make it a personal attack on those with a different opinion.  @Jazzhead and I have different perspectives in these discussions but both of us are arguing for the protection of others.

And he's come in here calling Trump a fascist, so no problem to offend others,  this is a conservative forum after all.

I think it is right to hope the Supreme Court, which he/she is using as a beating stick on others to overturn the progressivism that is being espoused here.

[Jazzhead]

JH seems to enjoy attacking the values of others, perhaps one should start dredging up the information on the gay lifestyle being unhealthy and things like that; because as of now, this is very on- sided.

Progressives:
For gay marriage, check
For abortion, check
Sympathetic to Muslims, check.

How the hell have I "attacked the lifestyles of others"?    I am trying to have a respectful, back and forth conversation about an issue that's hardly easy to resolve because conflicting rights are involved.   Why the need to make this personal?