• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AZ Supreme Court, Gay wedding invitation decision

Deuce said:
"No gays allowed" and "No blacks allowed" are morally equivalent. Right wingers naturally support this "freedom"
Click to expand...

How long do you think a business will stay in business with such a policy? By the way, it was the leftist bigot Democrats who had those signs posted all over the south. Not a single right-winger had them, just the anti-American left.
 
Glitch said:
A very reasonable fear considering homosexuals have specifically targeted Christians for harassment in the past.

Utter nonsense. Homosexuals seek out Christian businesses to harass them. They don't target Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or any other religion, just Christians and it is deliberate, spiteful, and dishonest. Homosexuals have systematically attempted to persecute Christians for their beliefs.

It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not, every business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. A government that compels businesses to provide goods and services is a fascist government.

People have the right to believe whatever they desire, and if that belief prevents them from providing a particular service then that is their choice. Nobody and no government has the right to compel them to do anything other than what they believe. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with religious belief and prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The Arizona law is unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore should be repealed.
Click to expand...

Christians have targeted homosexuals. Don’t act like Christians are simply victims of LGBT hate. There has been significant damage caused by certain Christian movements to their community: gay conversion therapy, disowning children, assaulting LGBT rights, god hates fags, etc.

Christians have a bad relationship with the LGBT community, and it’s easy to see why. And no, you’re not a pure innocent victim dealing with LGTB rage directed at you. From what I see in this thread, most people are saying positive things about Jesus and the Bible, but they say you are using the word of God incorrectly.
 
SheWolf said:
Christians have targeted homosexuals. Don’t act like Christians are simply victims of LGBT hate. There has been significant damage caused by certain Christian movements to their community: gay conversion therapy, disowning children, assaulting LGBT rights, god hates fags, etc.

Christians have a bad relationship with the LGBT community, and it’s easy to see why. And no, you’re not a pure innocent victim dealing with LGTB rage directed at you. From what I see in this thread, most people are saying positive things about Jesus and the Bible, but they say you are using the word of God incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Christians are entitled to their free speech, just like homosexuals. They can call them whatever they please, and visa versa. What is not allowed is for either of them to cause harm. That is the line in the sand. It is also unconstitutional for any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." States cannot create special groups of people and set them aside for additional protections that nobody else has. That is equally unconstitutional as depriving a group of people of their rights. All laws must be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or the color of their skin.

I'm neither a Christian nor a homosexual. I'm an outside observer who has witnessed numerous attacks specifically against Christians by both homosexuals and government. Even the Supreme Court admonished Oregon's government for their deliberate religious persecution of the baker in that case. Yet it happened again in Colorado. Which makes the religious persecution of Christians systematic. On the other side of the coin you have individual religious fanatics who have physically attacked homosexuals simply for being homosexual. Neither is right, but on the scale of things the systematic religious persecution of Christians by State/local governments is far more serious.
 
Glitch said:
How long do you think a business will stay in business with such a policy? By the way, it was the leftist bigot Democrats who had those signs posted all over the south. Not a single right-winger had them, just the anti-American left.
Click to expand...

When was this?
 
Glitch said:
Christians are entitled to their free speech, just like homosexuals. They can call them whatever they please, and visa versa. What is not allowed is for either of them to cause harm. That is the line in the sand. It is also unconstitutional for any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." States cannot create special groups of people and set them aside for additional protections that nobody else has. That is equally unconstitutional as depriving a group of people of their rights. All laws must be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

Preventing businesses that serve the public from discriminating against certain classes of people doesn't violate this. Allowing businesses that serve the public to discriminate against certain classes of people deprives those people of equal rights.
 
lwf said:
Preventing businesses that serve the public from discriminating against certain classes of people doesn't violate this. Allowing businesses that serve the public to discriminate against certain classes of people deprives those people of equal rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. States are required to enforce all laws equally, without exception.

How long do you think a business will stay in business if they discriminate unfairly? Businesses who discriminate fairly, like those that advertise "No shirt, no shoes, no service" don't have problems. But those businesses that do discriminate unfairly suffer indeed. Either way, it is entirely up to the business whether or not they wish to discriminate. That is not a decision a government that supports liberty can make. Only fascist governments dictate terms to businesses.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
Christians are entitled to their free speech, just like homosexuals. They can call them whatever they please, and visa versa. What is not allowed is for either of them to cause harm. That is the line in the sand. It is also unconstitutional for any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." States cannot create special groups of people and set them aside for additional protections that nobody else has. That is equally unconstitutional as depriving a group of people of their rights. All laws must be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or the color of their skin.

I'm neither a Christian nor a homosexual. I'm an outside observer who has witnessed numerous attacks specifically against Christians by both homosexuals and government. Even the Supreme Court admonished Oregon's government for their deliberate religious persecution of the baker in that case. Yet it happened again in Colorado. Which makes the religious persecution of Christians systematic. On the other side of the coin you have individual religious fanatics who have physically attacked homosexuals simply for being homosexual. Neither is right, but on the scale of things the systematic religious persecution of Christians by State/local governments is far more serious.
Click to expand...

LGTB have same rights on paper, but not in practice... Every other religious group in America has the same rights as Christians. However, it’s obvious Christians demand a special place of privilege in America when they say this country belongs to them, and was created for them. The constitution doesn’t say that. I am not sure how many Christians want equality for all people.
 
Glitch said:
Yes, it does. States are required to enforce all laws equally, without exception.

How long do you think a business will stay in business if they discriminate unfairly? Businesses who discriminate fairly, like those that advertise "No shirt, no shoes, no service" don't have problems. But those businesses that do discriminate unfairly suffer indeed. Either way, it is entirely up to the business whether or not they wish to discriminate. That is not a decision a government that supports liberty can make. Only fascist governments dictate terms to businesses.
Click to expand...

Laws preventing discrimination are enforced equally by disallowing businesses to discriminate against certain classes of people. Owning a business is not an inalienable right. There are a number of regulations that are designed to protect consumers that you must abide by if you want to run a business in a free country. If you can't abide by them, then you don't get to own a business in America until you can figure out how to meet these regulations. One of these regulations outlaws discrimination.
 
"Whites only"


Vulgarity warning...




LGBT are just the new niggers.
 
SheWolf said:
LGTB have same rights on paper, but not in practice... Every other religious group in America has the same rights as Christians. However, it’s obvious Christians demand a special place of privilege in America when they say this country belongs to them, and was created for them. The constitution doesn’t say that. I am not sure how many Christians want equality for all people.
Click to expand...

Most christians want that and this one certainly does because im not a bigot like the retards in the OP. i understand the FACT that civil rights, anti-discrimination laws and public accommodation laws don't infringe on my rights one single bit. I have to play by the same rules as everybody else i dont get special treatment and THATS what some INDIVIDUALS want.
 
SheWolf said:
The interesting thing about this case, is that nobody asked or even tried to force these women to make a gay wedding invitation. They just "feared they would be put in jail" for not making a gay wedding invitation if asked.

The more I think about issues like this, the more I wonder why these businesses just don't advertise that they are Christian business and do not serve the general public. If businesses like this business operated like that, I am certain gay people wouldn't even bother with them, which both sides would probably prefer.



I have never understood how refusing to do business with a gay person is a Christian teaching. As for free speech, I understand the concept of compelled speech. I support these women and this decision as far as them being forced to create art they don't want, or convey a message which they do not want to convey. I agree this could potentially strengthen free speech for others, as the article points out. I am just not sure it's a Christian teaching to target one group of people committing a sin, and living in sin. All Abrahamic religions recognize homosexuality is a sin, but it seems only American Christians are focusing on LGBT people like this.

There is a very high probability these women would be asked to create a wedding invitation involving a child out of wedlock. This legal case was only based on LGBT people, however.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled two business owners did not have to make invitations for a same-sex wedding - CNN
Click to expand...

Progressivism must not be christian endeavor, either, since progressives refuse to do business with Trump...or Russia.
 
SheWolf said:
LGTB have same rights on paper, but not in practice... Every other religious group in America has the same rights as Christians. However, it’s obvious Christians demand a special place of privilege in America when they say this country belongs to them, and was created for them. The constitution doesn’t say that. I am not sure how many Christians want equality for all people.
Click to expand...

I really don't care what Christians claim. The documentation is overwhelming, the US was specifically created as a secular nation, neither favoring nor prohibiting any particular religion. Historically, however, the majority of Americans have been Christian and they have repeatedly used their religious beliefs to enact Christian Blue Laws. That would give anyone pause about Christian special privileges in America if they didn't take history into account. However, neither position is correct. The US is not and never has been a Christian nation, nor are Christians afforded any additional privileges or benefits than any other religion.

At the same time we have leftists deliberately evoking the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even when there is no possible way government could be establishing a religion. Such as the prohibition against Christian valedictorian speeches. It is not possible for government to be establishing a religion without first enacting a law. Valedictorian speeches by high school students do not establish a government religion, no matter how religious in nature they may be. This is a deliberate form of Christian persecution by the left.
 
AGENT J said:
Most christians want that and this one certainly does because im not a bigot like the retards in the OP. i understand the FACT that civil rights, anti-discrimination laws and public accommodation laws don't infringe on my rights one single bit. I have to play by the same rules as everybody else i dont get special treatment and THATS what some INDIVIDUALS want.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing this up.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) of course it is, its pure discrimination based on sexual orientation. why be so dishonest?
2.) lol and there it is .. **** individual rights . . who cares . . and in fantasy land "virtually" nobody would do it, riiiiiiiight
3.) yeah like if there were only 19 rapist in the country why not just make rape league . . making rape legal based on somebody factually wrong perception of how many rapists exist wouldnt be retarded at all <sarcasm> lol
Click to expand...

Rape is a violation of bodily sovereignty, refusing service is not. In fact with “anti-discrimination laws” a complainant Can get the state to violently breach the subjects bodily sovereignty.

In fact in your case the complainer is metaphorically the rapist, not the other way around
 
SheWolf said:
The interesting thing about this case, is that nobody asked or even tried to force these women to make a gay wedding invitation. They just "feared they would be put in jail" for not making a gay wedding invitation if asked.

The more I think about issues like this, the more I wonder why these businesses just don't advertise that they are Christian business and do not serve the general public. If businesses like this business operated like that, I am certain gay people wouldn't even bother with them, which both sides would probably prefer.



I have never understood how refusing to do business with a gay person is a Christian teaching. As for free speech, I understand the concept of compelled speech. I support these women and this decision as far as them being forced to create art they don't want, or convey a message which they do not want to convey. I agree this could potentially strengthen free speech for others, as the article points out. I am just not sure it's a Christian teaching to target one group of people committing a sin, and living in sin. All Abrahamic religions recognize homosexuality is a sin, but it seems only American Christians are focusing on LGBT people like this.

There is a very high probability these women would be asked to create a wedding invitation involving a child out of wedlock. This legal case was only based on LGBT people, however.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled two business owners did not have to make invitations for a same-sex wedding - CNN
Click to expand...

I don't buy that argument at all. IMO the reverse would be true. Too many of these situations are just people looking for trouble.
 
lwf said:
A business is not a private party. It is a regulated entity that holds itself out to serve the public. Such entities are barred by law from discriminating against members of the public for things they can't change about themselves.
Click to expand...

A business is absolutely a private party. There's no legal requirement to "serve the public".
 
lwf said:
Businesses that "refuse to participate" with certain classes of people is the persecution of those people by those businesses. What if a Christian business "refused to participate" with Jewish people? Jews can still do business elsewhere, right?

Because of this, The United States of America should "refuse to participate" with any business that refuses to participate with sections of the public based on race, sex, religion, sexuality, or nationality. This is not persecution, it is the outlawing of persecution.
Click to expand...

A Muslim owned catering business can't be forced to serve pork, if pork isn't on their menu.

In the case of this company, they don't offer wedding invitations for same sex marriages.

They're running an invitation service, not a grocery store. If this was an instance of a grocery store refusing to sell necessities of live, like food and water, to gays, I would agree
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Rape is a violation of bodily sovereignty, refusing service is not. In fact with “anti-discrimination laws” a complainant Can get the state to violently breach the subjects bodily sovereignty.

In fact in your case the complainer is metaphorically the rapist, not the other way around
Click to expand...

Translation: you think your feelings and deflections matter over facts....... they do not lol
fact remains it is still pure discrimination based on sexual orientation, while AZ doesnt protect this yet thats still what it is regardless of your false claims :)
 
apdst said:
A business is absolutely a private party. There's no legal requirement to "serve the public".
Click to expand...

No, but once they do they are bound by enforceable business regulations that they must obey.
 
apdst said:
A business is absolutely a private party. There's no legal requirement to "serve the public".
Click to expand...

That’s exactly right. A business can operate as a private/members only entity and in so doing discriminate against anyone on any basis they want. So thanks for pointing out how utterly ridiculous it is for bigots to claim they need special exemptions from the law when they find themselves in these predicaments because they chose to operate as a public accommodation business.
 
The Mark said:
I'm fairly sure the "christian" teaching that homosexuality is bad stems from humans who hated gay people hundreds of years ago saying that's what this and that part of the bible meant.

Though I was raised in a christian household which generally frowned upon such things, I've come to hold the belief that if god exists, and said god actually thinks being gay is a sin, then god is wrong about that.
Click to expand...

I think God put gay people on earth for a reason. He knew that the earth could not sustain an explosion of people so gay people were sort of buffer against unchecked population.
 
lwf said:
Laws preventing discrimination are enforced equally by disallowing businesses to discriminate against certain classes of people. Owning a business is not an inalienable right. There are a number of regulations that are designed to protect consumers that you must abide by if you want to run a business in a free country. If you can't abide by them, then you don't get to own a business in America until you can figure out how to meet these regulations. One of these regulations outlaws discrimination.
Click to expand...

It is the "certain classes of people" that makes those laws unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from creating "certain classes of people." That by itself clearly denotes that the laws are not being applied equally, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom