AZ Supreme Court, Gay wedding invitation decision

SheWolf · Sep 17, 2019

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.

"Duka and Koski's beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some," the court decision reads. "But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone."

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

Lisa · Sep 17, 2019

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 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

This might be the case that gets the SCOTUS to rule on the core issue of whether a business can deny equal service to LGBT customers or others. Their customers are not concerned about their religious views and are certainly not trying to change them because their religious beliefs are outside the customer-client relationship in the marketplace. Not once have the customers ever inquired about what their beliefs are or told them that they could not pray.

How many times have you ever asked what the clerks or business owners religious views are before you bought something?

These people are just bigots who cherry-pick the 1200 pages of the Bible because they can hide their bigotry behind the religious protections of the 1st Amdnementy. The fact that Jesus explicitly told them to not do this is obvious.

The Mark · Sep 17, 2019

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.

EMNofSeattle · Sep 17, 2019

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

Marriage where one or both parties had a child out of wedlock is not sinful provided neither party has an existing marriage to a different person prior. So there would be no sin in facilitating such a Union

EMNofSeattle · Sep 17, 2019

Lisa said:
This might be the case that gets the SCOTUS to rule on the core issue of whether a business can deny equal service to LGBT customers or others. Their customers are not concerned about their religious views and are certainly not trying to change them because their religious beliefs are outside the customer-client relationship in the marketplace. Not once have the customers ever inquired about what their beliefs are or told them that they could not pray.

How many times have you ever asked what the clerks or business owners religious views are before you bought something?

These people are just bigots who cherry-pick the 1200 pages of the Bible because they can hide their bigotry behind the religious protections of the 1st Amdnementy. The fact that Jesus explicitly told them to not do this is obvious.

The homosexuals are demanding facilitation of their mockery of marriage. This is not a normal business transaction.

Drawdown · Sep 17, 2019

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

Biblical teaching is for believers not to be yoked together with sinners and homosexuality is a biblical sin. Different people have different interpretations how to apply these teachings to their day to day life. I know a daughter of a minister who got divorced at a young age. When she went to remarry, her father absolutely refused to perform the ceremony because she was a divorcee. Just attending was as far as his practice of his faith allowed him to go. I find it a bit odd some of the positions people take, but it is not for me to decided their faith practices for them.

apdst · Sep 17, 2019

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.

The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Since, as far as the Bible is concerned, two men/two women can't be married in the eyes of God, then they're fornicating and fornicating is a sin.

lwf · Sep 17, 2019

EMNofSeattle said:
Marriage where one or both parties had a child out of wedlock is not sinful provided neither party has an existing marriage to a different person prior. So there would be no sin in facilitating such a Union

“fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Revelation 21:8)

SheWolf · Sep 17, 2019

Lisa said:
This might be the case that gets the SCOTUS to rule on the core issue of whether a business can deny equal service to LGBT customers or others. Their customers are not concerned about their religious views and are certainly not trying to change them because their religious beliefs are outside the customer-client relationship in the marketplace. Not once have the customers ever inquired about what their beliefs are or told them that they could not pray.

How many times have you ever asked what the clerks or business owners religious views are before you bought something?

These people are just bigots who cherry-pick the 1200 pages of the Bible because they can hide their bigotry behind the religious protections of the 1st Amdnementy. The fact that Jesus explicitly told them to not do this is obvious.

Nobody does that, which is why they should declare their business as a Christian based business or something else. They should let the public know they don't serve everybody.

If they are going refuse business to a LGBT, then I am sure an LGBT person and others would like to know their business practices for any and all situations. LGBT people hire caterers, invitation designers, artists, etc. for all kinds of purposes outside of their personal weddings.

lwf · Sep 17, 2019

apdst said:
The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Since, as far as the Bible is concerned, two men/two women can't be married in the eyes of God, then they're fornicating and fornicating is a sin.

So they shouldn't do business with anyone who isn't either a virgin or married.

Lisa · Sep 17, 2019

EMNofSeattle said:
The homosexuals are demanding facilitation of their mockery of marriage. This is not a normal business transaction.

They are not demanding the approval of their relationship. They are demanding equality in public service. They didn't give a flip about your approval of their relationship because it is not part of the customer relationship. You are putting something into that trade that doesn't belong there. Take the profit from that transaction and donate it to your church. Your customers don't care what you do with it.

Were people required to support interracial marriage after the Loving v. Virginia decision or interfaith marriage? Are you equally insulted if the couple were not Christian, divorcees or maybe even atheists? Should we have "Whites Only" businesses and "Christian Only" businesses too? There are some Protestant sects that support LGBT marriage, so how would you discriminate against those couples, despite the fact that they were married in a Christian church?

Lisa · Sep 17, 2019

lwf said:
So they shouldn't do business with anyone who isn't either a virgin or married.

Or divorcees and interfaith couples.

apdst · Sep 17, 2019

lwf said:
So they shouldn't do business with anyone who isn't either a virgin or married.

These Christian owned businesses are being targeted because they're Christian owned businesses. I'm LMAO at these activists assholes losing these court cases.

SheWolf · Sep 17, 2019

apdst said:
The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Since, as far as the Bible is concerned, two men/two women can't be married in the eyes of God, then they're fornicating and fornicating is a sin.

In many cases, the bible said marriage was between one man and multiple women.

SheWolf · Sep 17, 2019

lwf said:
So they shouldn't do business with anyone who isn't either a virgin or married.

Who are they kidding. I am sure like most of the Christians in America, they had sex before marriage.

Oborosen · Sep 17, 2019

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

Simply put, refusing to do business with a gay person. Is not actually a Christian teaching. Nor is it any kind of teaching held over from any recently applied Christian source, that I believe can actually be cited at this point.

We also don't see anyone other then American Christians focusing on LGBT people like this, because when something like this happens. It's blown up out of proportion and when it happens anywhere else, it's usually ignored. Because you can find videos of people trying to have a wedding cake made for such events at Muslim owned bakery, and getting turned away for the same reasons, with no fanfare to be seen.

I don't really like these cases myself. I'm under the assumption that a business should be able to do business as it sees fit, and then suffer the repercussions of such actions as they follow.

lwf · Sep 17, 2019

SheWolf said:
Nobody does that, which is why they should declare their business as a Christian based business or something else. They should let the public know they don't serve everybody.

If they are going refuse business to a LGBT, then I am sure an LGBT person and others would like to know their business practices for any and all situations. LGBT people hire caterers, invitation designers, artists, etc. for all kinds of purposes outside of their personal weddings.

It shouldn't be legal for a business to refuse to serve customers based on their sexuality. That said, neither can you force an artist to create something they don't want to create. Refusing to accept payment to paint a gay pride picture should be just as legal as refusing to accept payment to paint a white pride picture. However, if a gay person or a white supremacist enters your establishment and offers to pay for an already painted picture on display that you have marked for sale, it should be illegal to refuse to sell it to them based solely on their beliefs or sexuality.

Lisa · Sep 17, 2019

apdst said:
The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Since, as far as the Bible is concerned, two men/two women can't be married in the eyes of God, then they're fornicating and fornicating is a sin.

Do you want to have a strip search and virginity test at the front door? Jesus was adamant about opposing divorce, so what do you plan to do about that?

Jesus affirmed (and still affirms) the permanence of the marriage bond. But He also acknowledged that because of the depravity of the human heart, the marriage bond might be severed under certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? That requires us to turn to the "exception clause" of Matthew 19:9:

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

lwf · Sep 17, 2019

apdst said:
These Christian owned businesses are being targeted because they're Christian owned businesses. I'm LMAO at these activists assholes losing these court cases.

No, they're being targeted because they are discriminating against American consumers based solely on their sexual preference.

Lisa · Sep 17, 2019

SheWolf said:
Nobody does that, which is why they should declare their business as a Christian based business or something else. They should let the public know they don't serve everybody.

If they are going refuse business to an LGBT, then I am sure an LGBT person and others would like to know their business practices for any and all situations. LGBT people hire caterers, invitation designers, artists, etc. for all kinds of purposes outside of their personal weddings.

I want a permanent, unobstructed and well-lighted sign that is 24"x36" in the front door informing people that they are conservative religious bigots, who oppose the teaching of Jesus to love others like yourself and instead they reserve the right to deny anyone the right to serve so enter at your own risk. The sign would also list their name, their home address and what church they attend.

Bullseye · Sep 17, 2019

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

As I understand it, it's not "doing business", per se, it's supporting gay marriage that sets them off.

AProudLefty · Sep 17, 2019

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

I didn't know they could be put in jail for that?

apdst · Sep 17, 2019

SheWolf said:
In many cases, the bible said marriage was between one man and multiple women.

1 Corinthians 7 says:

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

Jesus said:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

lwf · Sep 17, 2019

Bullseye said:
As I understand it, it's not "doing business", per se, it's supporting gay marriage that sets them off.

Fortunately, respecting the civil rights of all Americans is a requirement to run a business in America. Americans don't need businesses that can't manage this simple requisite.

apdst · Sep 17, 2019

lwf said:
No, they're being targeted because they are discriminating against American consumers based solely on their sexual preference.

Thanks for admitting that they were targeted because of their religious beliefs.

Liberal tolerance my ass.

AZ Supreme Court, Gay wedding invitation decision

SheWolf

Lisa

salem ac leporem,

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

Drawdown

apdst

lwf

SheWolf

lwf

Lisa

salem ac leporem,

Lisa

salem ac leporem,

apdst

SheWolf

SheWolf

Oborosen

Doctor D

lwf

Lisa

salem ac leporem,

lwf

Lisa

salem ac leporem,

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter

AProudLefty

apdst

lwf

apdst