One of you will end up here next!
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...iled-brief.pdfa freelance writer who thinks Scientology is a fraud would be violating New Mexico law (which bans religious discrimination as well as sexual orientation discrimination) if he refused to write a press release announcing a Scientologist event. And an actor would be violating the law if he refused to perform in a commercial for a religious organization of which he disapproves.
Since the same rule would apply to state statutes that ban discrimination based on “political affiliation,” e.g., D.C. CODE § 2-1411.02 (2001); V.I. CODE tit. 10, § 64(3) (2006); SEATTLE,WASH.MUN. CODE §§ 14.06.020(L), .030(B), a Democratic freelance writer in a jurisdiction that had such a statute would have to accept commissions to write press releases for Republican candidates (so long as he writes press releases for Democrats). And under similar laws banning discrimination based on “marital status,” e.g., VT. STATS. ANN. tit. 9, § 4502(a) (2006), a Catholic singer who disapproves of weddings of people who have been divorced would have to take a job singing at such a wedding, including singing songs that implicitly or explicitly praise the occasion or the couple.
Yet all such requirements would unacceptably force the speakers to “becom[e] the courier[s] for . . . message[s]” with which they disagree,” Wooley, 430 U.S. at 717. All would interfere with creators’ “right to decline to foster . . . concepts” that they disapprove] And all would interfere with the “individual freedom of mind,” id. at 714, by forcing writers, actors, painters, singers ,and photographers to express sentiments that they see as wrong.
One of you will end up here next!
So expecting to be treated fairly and with dignity is trolling now?If the gay community is going to continue to troll Christians
But there are more rational decent people than bigoted self proclaimed Christians.And there are more Christians than homosexuals.
There is nothing militant about wanting to buy a cake offered for sale in a business open to the public.It's only two pages, read it. As a Christian I am more than willing to be tolerant of a lifestyle I don't agree with, but if you are going to be militantly against my beliefs you can expect to get push back.
You too can chase them out of your church with a whip.And before anyone starts slinging scripture about turning the other cheek, keep in mind that Jesus turned over tables and chased the money changers out of the temple with a whip.
Good excuse.Keep in mind that Islam preaches against homosexuality as well.
YOu expected other bigots to be louder?It is not at all surprising that liberals who talk about being fair, being civil and treating everyone the same are the loudest and angriest finger pointers in the argument.
Yes, I can feel the love and the presence of Jesus.MOST Christians are not outwardly hostile to gays. But if you keep screaming that they are, expect them to come after you.
Because it is the Christian thing to do.Not because you are gay
Proving that self righteous Christians are also.but because you are an intolerant asshole.
Last edited by vesper; 02-27-14 at 01:21 PM.
Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;
but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.