• 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

ludin said:
yet you are posting the exact opposite. you are saying they have to be compelled.
Click to expand...

No. You’re imagining I wrote something I didn’t, because it’s not my position
 
ludin said:
sure they do.
they don't serve all events. which is within their right.
again you are confused on the issue.

telling them they have to label their business christian is discrimination and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Where did I argue that they have to create a gay wedding invitation?
 
SheWolf said:
Where did I argue that they have to create a gay wedding invitation?
Click to expand...

sorry i am not going to play this game with you.
*yawn*
 
ludin said:
artist can refuse to paint anything that they would find offensive or demeaning or anything else.
protected under the first amendment you don't seem to know what you are talking about.



Did you not read the OP or are you just making stuff up?



So you are being just as bigoted. not a good thing to be in this discussion.
Actually, the Hobby Lobby case says otherwise.

again businesses discriminate against events all the time.
Click to expand...
Do you have a picture of the cake or the invitation that was so offensive?


The Hobby Lobby case was nonsense. They are not paying for anything out of their pocket. Their employees earned those benefits and that family seeks to inject their religious beliefs into the lives of their employees to tell them how they can use the healthcare benefits that they earned via hours. Should your employer also be able to tell you what you can spend your paycheck on? if your employer is a vegan can they also forbid you from buying meat because of their beliefs? If your employers are a Christian Scientist can they forbid you from using medical care and instead force you to pray when you get sick? If you work for a Mormom can they forbid you from buying or drinking pop and coffee because it contains caffeine?

People need to understand and accept the fact that your religious beliefs end at the tip of your nose where the rights of others begin.
Other people are not required to obey and live their lives by your myths.

Can you explain what evangelicals love to quite Levisticus 18:22 but they suddenly develop incurable amnesia before they read Leviticus 19:33-34?

Why is it that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 seem to be two tons of kryptonite to them, despite their claim of being devout Christians. How exactly does that work? Shall I explain what the word hypocrite means?
 
ludin said:
There are millions of gay people that are christian. your first sentence makes 0 sense.

so why are you being bigoted toward their religious beliefs?

again facts are facts. you still have not addressed a few arguments here.
1. are business allowed to discriminate against events? yes they are and they do so on a regular basis.
2. are artist allowed to not make custom paitings or other works of art if they find it offensive or against something they believe? yes they are.
all fall under 1st amendment protections.
Click to expand...


Yes, there are millions of Christian gays. They belong to churches that don't have bigotry as a major tenet of their religion. And when a religion wallows in it's bigotry, gets hostile and proclaims they have a right to bigotry, it's hard not to be disgusted with them and their religion. When they state, in their public mission statement, that they believe in a theocracy not democracy, it's OK to act against their establishment of a theocracy.

No, businesses serving the public in the public square is allowed to discriminate. A Kosher deli can refuse to make a ham and cheese sandwich but that applies to all customers not just Jewish customers. A Christian book store can refuse to stock and sell books on Satanism but that decision applies to all customers. A wedding cake maker can refuse to make a wedding cake but then that applies to all customers not just gay customers.

If you are selling to the public in a public you cannot deny to one customer what you will sell to another and Mr. Philips of Masterpiece Cakes fully understood that. He quit selling wedding cakes altogether in his store. Any wedding cakes he sell now are made by private arrangement.

Artists are not working in the public venue. Their sales and the sale you describe are a personal arrangement and are not bound by the same regulations as stores selling to the public in a public place.
 
ludin said:
sorry i am not going to play this game with you.
*yawn*
Click to expand...

Translation: your lie was totally called out, exposed and got destroyed.

Nobody is saying the things you falsely posted
 
lwf said:
So a business that sells poison disguised as lollipops should merely be boycotted until they run out of money, rather than shut down by the government?
Click to expand...

Wedding invitations are "poison"? That seems like a reach.
 
akyron said:
Wedding invitations are "poison"? That seems like a reach.
Click to expand...

So we are in agreement: Businesses can absolutely be forcibly compelled to follow rules that the federal government dictates.
 
weaver2 said:
Yes, there are millions of Christian gays. They belong to churches that don't have bigotry as a major tenet of their religion. And when a religion wallows in it's bigotry, gets hostile and proclaims they have a right to bigotry, it's hard not to be disgusted with them and their religion. When they state, in their public mission statement, that they believe in a theocracy not democracy, it's OK to act against their establishment of a theocracy.
Click to expand...

you don't seem to know what the definition of bigotry is. there are christian churches out there that still uphold the definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman that is not being bigoted. if you consider it bigoted then you are being just as bigoted as you claim that they are. yea i don't know too many church's that state what you think they state.

No, businesses serving the public in the public square is allowed to discriminate. A Kosher deli can refuse to make a ham and cheese sandwich but that applies to all customers not just Jewish customers. A Christian book store can refuse to stock and sell books on Satanism but that decision applies to all customers. A wedding cake maker can refuse to make a wedding cake but then that applies to all customers not just gay customers.
Click to expand...

Business's discriminate against events all the time. what you are describing are not artistic impressions. artistic impressions can discriminate against messages that they do not support.
see first amendment rulings. if they went in to buy a cake and were told no i would fully support any discrimination law suit against them. custom artistic expressions are a different story.

If you are selling to the public in a public you cannot deny to one customer what you will sell to another and Mr. Philips of Masterpiece Cakes fully understood that. He quit selling wedding cakes altogether in his store. Any wedding cakes he sell now are made by private arrangement.
Click to expand...

actually he still sells cakes in this store you don't know what you are talking about and he won his case by the way.

Artists are not working in the public venue. Their sales and the sale you describe are a personal arrangement and are not bound by the same regulations as stores selling to the public in a public place.
Click to expand...
yep they are. you can't force a business to do events.
 
ludin said:
actually he still sells cakes in this store you don't know what you are talking about and he won his case by the way.


yep they are. you can't force a business to do events.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS did not rule on the large issue of whether he had the right to deny service. That issue was kicked down the ruling for a ruling in the future. The court only ruled on a small issue of whether he was treated fairly by the Colorado State commission. They ruled that he didn't because the state commission called him a religious bigot. Colorado has an LGBT protection law that is still in effect and Jack Phillips has to obey it, so he cannot refuse to serve LGBT customers as equals.

Wedding cakes are always a custom order so he cannot claim that LGBT customers must pick a stock cake from the cooler while he makes custom wedding cakes for heteros.
 
lwf said:
So we are in agreement: Businesses can absolutely be forcibly compelled to follow rules that the federal government dictates.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional laws should be illegal. They are not always.
 
akyron said:
Unconstitutional laws should be illegal. They are not always.
Click to expand...

There is nothing unconstitutional about regulating commerce.
 
ludin said:
1.) actually he still sells cakes in this store you don't know what you are talking about and he won his case by the way.
2.) you can't force a business to do events.
Click to expand...


1.) and another lie lol
2.) in america nobody is doing that in regard to civil rights, PA and AD laws

try again, more fails for the course
 
Condor060 said:
I have been married for 35 years. (Happily) but OMG, to have more than one wife, in the same house, and just me?
Nooooooooooooooo thank you. I have a hard enough time keeping one happily. lol
Click to expand...

Happy wife. Happy life. Unhappy wife...Stone cold misery ensues.
 
Lisa said:
Do you have a picture of the cake or the invitation that was so offensive?
Click to expand...
that is up to the person making the cake or invitation. hence artistic license.

The Hobby Lobby case was nonsense. They are not paying for anything out of their pocket. Their employees earned those benefits and that family seeks to inject their religious beliefs into the lives of their employees to tell them how they can use the healthcare benefits that they earned via hours. Should your employer also be able to tell you what you can spend your paycheck on? if your employer is a vegan can they also forbid you from buying meat because of their beliefs? If your employers are a Christian Scientist can they forbid you from using medical care and instead force you to pray when you get sick? If you work for a Mormom can they forbid you from buying or drinking pop and coffee because it contains caffeine?
Click to expand...
actually it wan't but it proved you wrong.
No one says that they had to take their company benefits. so your example falls on it's face.

People need to understand and accept the fact that your religious beliefs end at the tip of your nose where the rights of others begin.
Other people are not required to obey and live their lives by your myths.
Click to expand...

See the first amendment. you need to understand the fact that your beliefs end at the tip of your nose where the rights of others begin.
other people are not required to obey and live their lives by your myths.

Can you explain what evangelicals love to quite Levisticus 18:22 but they suddenly develop incurable amnesia before they read Leviticus 19:33-34?
Click to expand...

For most people there is no amnesia. Simply because i do not believe the same things as someone else or agree with them does not mean
that i have to treat them badly.

Why is it that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 seem to be two tons of kryptonite to them, despite their claim of being devout Christians. How exactly does that work? Shall I explain what the word hypocrite means?
Click to expand...

First off he is talking to the pharasee's they were not devote christians. they were the jewish priests. yes they were acting hypocritical.
kinda like people that claim to be open minded but only if people agree with them.
 
Lisa said:
What law are you claiming is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Dred Scott Decision

"The Dred Scott decision was the culmination of the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, one of the most controversial events preceding the Civil War. In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its decision in that case, which had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri. Scott argued that time spent in a free state entitled him to emancipation. But the court decided that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom. The Dred Scott decision outraged abolitionists and heightened North-South tensions.

This convoluted case (1857), both a cause and an effect of sectional conflict, contributed to antebellum political and constitutional controversy. It also made Chief Justice Roger B. Taney seem a satanic figure to contemporary antislavery activists and many later historians."

ds.JPG

Interestingly enough, he made similar arguments in his brief to justify slavery that leftists use today to justify abortion, racism, and other problematic unconstitutional assertions.
 
ludin said:
See the first amendment. you need to understand the fact that your beliefs end at the tip of your nose where the rights of others begin.
other people are not required to obey and live their lives by your myths.
.
Click to expand...
Sweet irony and this i swhy your claims all fail and you dont even realize it. thats hilarious.
You are one of the only posters in this thread that want to violate the rights of others

I love that your side is losing though and rights are winning, in our live times i say 10 years max but more realistically 2-6 years sexual orientation will also be nationally protected and it will be another loss for people with your bigoted views just like equal marriage rights was.
 
SheWolf said:
The issue is that you don’t comprehend my actual argument
Click to expand...

no i understood it and then tore it to shreds. maybe if you were more consistent on what your argument actually was then it would be fine.
the issue is that they do not have to label themselves or declare their business anything.

which you said they should do.
the only thing their lawsuit did was ensure that people didn't go to jail over their free speech.
the court saw that the state law did in fact punish people for their free speech and that it was unconstitutional.

so i am not sure why you are against the ruling.
 
akyron said:
Interestingly enough, he made similar arguments in his brief to justify slavery that leftists use today to justify abortion, racism, and other problematic unconstitutional assertions.
Click to expand...


leftisits? just like when somebody mentions righties, Christians or Muslims etc and groups them all together its always an instant fail LMAO

its gonna be fun exposing these lies

what arguments are you speaking of?

what arguments to justify "abortion"
what arguments to justify "racism"

:popcorn2:
 
ludin said:
no i understood it and then tore it to shreds. maybe if you were more consistent on what your argument actually was then it would be fine.
.
Click to expand...
your posts have failed at every turn and had the **** kicked out of them by facts and multiple posters, nice try.though its hilarious to deny this fact.
This is why you cant post one fct that supports your failed lies, if you disagree simply do so now, thanks!
 
akyron said:
Dred Scott Decision

"The Dred Scott decision was the culmination of the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, one of the most controversial events preceding the Civil War. In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its decision in that case, which had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri. Scott argued that time spent in a free state entitled him to emancipation. But the court decided that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom. The Dred Scott decision outraged abolitionists and heightened North-South tensions.

This convoluted case (1857), both a cause and an effect of sectional conflict, contributed to the antebellum political and constitutional controversy. It also made Chief Justice Roger B. Taney seem a satanic figure to contemporary antislavery activists and many later historians."

View attachment 67264135

Interestingly enough, he made similar arguments in his brief to justify slavery that leftists use today to justify abortion, racism, and other problematic unconstitutional assertions.
Click to expand...

What does Dred Scott have to do with anything in the 21st century?

The Dred Scott decision was rendered mute by the US Civil War and the reconstruction amendments.
 
ludin said:
sure they do.
they don't serve all events. which is within their right.
again you are confused on the issue.

telling them they have to label their business christian is discrimination and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

People who would force them to do this aren't really freedom loving Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom