Jump to content
Anijen

Christians Again Forced To Do Artwork For LGBT

Recommended Posts

Will members of the  LDS church be the next targets?

The owners of a wedding invitation design business goes against a city ordinance that protect's LGBTQ couples from discrimination, currently on the Arizona Supreme Court docket, (see here).  It appears the new way to fight First Amendment religious freedom rights is to have a city ordinance that fights discrimination.This new legal warfare is just the beginning. What are your thoughts? Do you feel that it is legally justified to diminish one constitutional right (First Amendment on religion and freedom of speech) to show a preference to another constitutional right (allowing religious discrimination)? 

I believe that much of the gay rights movement have become legal bullies and over time and experience they are finding ways to diminish long held First Amendment rights of religion and rights of freedom of speech, which protects against compelled speech too. One of the Colorado Commissioners described Christianity (our faith) as; “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” 

I have written about this in the past here on these boards and was lambasted, implicated that I am a racist, homophobe, and bigot. I was even compared to a privileged white man who probably wishes there still was slavery. Additionally it took less than one page before I was by implication compared to hitler and the holocaust. Which, ironically, that same Colorado Commissioner said about Phillips in his Masterpiece Cake business when he compared Phillips’ "invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I think we would be seeing tons more cases if it was "much of the gay rights movement".  Given the actual number, it seems more likely few are involved in such tactics, though more may be supportive of them verbally even if they wouldn't do it themselves.

Calm,There are many pending cases (hence "much") nationwide, we just do not hear about them from the media and when we do it is usually put in a very negative light against the Christian business. I have not checked every state yet, but the ones that have ordinances such as to protect LGBTQ suspect class (a legal term, don't let it upset you) all have suits going on. Many of the suits are at their states highest appellate level.

There are many cases out there and IMO many more to come. 

Share this post


Link to post

And how many gay rights activists are there out there in comparison to the lawsuits, do you think?  (Serious question)

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

And how many gay rights activists are there out there in comparison to the lawsuits, do you think?

Well, according to US Census reports there are 2 😉

Share this post


Link to post

Contrast the handwringing by Brush and Nib with what some LGBT’s are ACTUALLY facing, this just in from NBC News klast week:

Judge rules against lesbians rejected from retirement home

Bev Nance, 68, and Mary Walsh, 72, were denied an apartment in Missouri’s Friendship Village because their marriage is not “understood in the Bible.”

Jan. 18, 2019, 8:12 AM MST

A federal judge this week ruled against a lesbian couple who sued a Missouri retirement home for rejecting their apartment application because their marriage is not "understood in the Bible.”

Bev Nance, 68, and Mary Walsh, 72, were married a decade ago in Massachusetts and have been in a committed relationship for roughly 40 years.

When they applied to move into the Friendship Village senior living facility, they did so “because it is in their community, they have friends there, and it offers services that would allow them to stay together there for the rest of their lives,” said Julie Wilensky, an attorney representing the couple.

But once Friendship Village staff found that Nance and Walsh are married, they told the couple that they were not allowed to move in, because the home did not condone homosexuality. The letter they received said that the only married couples they accepted were those in unions between "one man and one woman."

The couple sued, alleging “discrimination on the basis of sex,” and a federal judge in Missouri ruled Wednesday that "sexual orientation rather than sex lies at the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims.”

LGBTQ groups decried the outcome, and the couple’s lawyers said “we disagree with the court’s decision, and our clients are considering next steps.”

Michael Adams, CEO of SAGE, which advocates for LGBTQ seniors, said, “This is sex discrimination, and it is against the law.”

“Mary Walsh and Bev Nance were discriminatorily denied admission to the Friendship Village retirement community for one reason only — because they are two women in a committed relationship rather than a woman and a man,” Adams told NBC News.

The couple’s lawyers made that argument in court: that because Walsh and Nance are women who are in a relationship with a woman instead of a man as is traditional, they would not have been prevented from moving in if their sex were male.

Judge Jean C. Hamilton, however, provided a different view of the case’s merits.

“At no time do Plaintiffs assert that had they been men involved in a same-sex relationship or marriage, they would have been admitted as residents in Friendship Village,” Hamilton wrote in the court’s decision. “Under these circumstances, the Court finds the claims boil down to those of discrimination based on sexual orientation rather than sex alone.”

Hamilton then dismissed the women’s claim, noting that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Missouri and other Midwestern states, ruled in 1989 that existing federal civil rights law “does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.”

The case Hamilton referred to, Williamson v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, is currently being challenged in court by the LGBTQ legal advocacy group Lambda Legal. The group is representing a man whose job offer was rescinded after the company found out he is gay. This case, Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Management, could be decided this year, and if the 1989 precedent is overturned, discrimination against LGBTQ people would become illegal at the federal level in all the states in the 8th Circuit: North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas.

The Supreme Court is also considering whether to take up one or several appeals court cases that address whether “sex” discrimination bans in federal civil rights law include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is currently a patchwork of mismatching laws across the U.S. regarding this issue.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Anijen said:

Calm,There are many pending cases (hence "much") nationwide, we just do not hear about them from the media and when we do it is usually put in a very negative light against the Christian business. I have not checked every state yet, but the ones that have ordinances such as to protect LGBTQ suspect class (a legal term, don't let it upset you) all have suits going on. Many of the suits are at their states highest appellate level.

There are many cases out there and IMO many more to come. 

Again, CFR on how many actual cases like this that there are, as well as how many there are in relation to the official estimate of how many same-sex couples there are in the United States. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Anijen said:

One of the Colorado Commissioners described Christianity (our faith) as; “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” ...

...ironically, that same Colorado Commissioner said about Phillips in his Masterpiece Cake business when he compared Phillips’ "invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

 

Even more ironic is that you omitted that the Supreme Court actually ruled in FAVOR of Masterpiece Cakes because they ruled that the Colorado Commission showed anti-religious bias towards Phillips and his beliefs on the very basis of the type of rhetoric you quoted, thereby unjustly singling him out. So.... yep, he won, which is what many had predicted on all sides of the issue.  

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Interesting.

Your overwrought article about their deeply held religious beliefs falls flat when you dig a little and find out they originally sold their product on Etsy which means they voluntarily accepted an agreement that they would not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Kind of calls their deeply held religious beliefs into question when at one point they agree to this restriction voluntarily for business reasons but then you get:

People can do things that they dont see as a problem, only to latter realize there is one.    It isn't hypocrisy if that is the case.   And it isn't hypocrisy if someone moves their position later based on additional consideration, either.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rpn said:

People can do things that they dont see as a problem, only to latter realize there is one.    It isn't hypocrisy if that is the case.   And it isn't hypocrisy if someone moves their position later based on additional consideration, either.

 

You can but then you do not quietly allow others to write articles about your beliefs and how your business was founded on them when you used to not care. They are covering up their past.

This is like a business that owned slaves saying it was founded on the principle of racial equality. It is a lie even if they do believe in racial equality now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Anijen said:

Will members of the  LDS church be the next targets?

The owners of a wedding invitation design business goes against a city ordinance that protect's LGBTQ couples from discrimination, currently on the Arizona Supreme Court docket, (see here).  It appears the new way to fight First Amendment religious freedom rights is to have a city ordinance that fights discrimination.This new legal warfare is just the beginning. What are your thoughts? Do you feel that it is legally justified to diminish one constitutional right (First Amendment on religion and freedom of speech) to show a preference to another constitutional right (allowing religious discrimination)? 

I believe that much of the gay rights movement have become legal bullies and over time and experience they are finding ways to diminish long held First Amendment rights of religion and rights of freedom of speech, which protects against compelled speech too. One of the Colorado Commissioners described Christianity (our faith) as; “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” 

I have written about this in the past here on these boards and was lambasted, implicated that I am a racist, homophobe, and bigot. I was even compared to a privileged white man who probably wishes there still was slavery. Additionally it took less than one page before I was by implication compared to hitler and the holocaust. Which, ironically, that same Colorado Commissioner said about Phillips in his Masterpiece Cake business when he compared Phillips’ "invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

 

Luke 6:29

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Interesting.

Your overwrought article about their deeply held religious beliefs falls flat when you dig a little and find out they originally sold their product on Etsy which means they voluntarily accepted an agreement that they would not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Kind of calls their deeply held religious beliefs into question when at one point they agree to this restriction voluntarily for business reasons but then you get:

That left Joanna and Breanna with an impossible choice. They didn’t want to violate the law. They didn’t want to go to jail and pay $2500 for each day they failed to comply. They didn’t want to close the business they poured so much into. But the alternative wasn’t doable. They could not compromise their artistic and religious beliefs. They could not accept sitting down in their studio and hand-drawing artwork that contradicted who they are and what they hold dear. They could not condone lying to customers or wasting customers’ time – telling customers that Brush & Nib would create something it couldn’t. And they could not stomach staying silent about the very beliefs that inspire their art.”

Oh.....how sweet and hypocritical.

And, oh please. These women are on Fox News getting free publicity for hawking their overpriced (take a look at their website) products. They launched the lawsuit themselves. This was not precipitated by gay activists. They are doing this. The ADF gets their case and uses it to drum up their cause for donations and these ladies with their situational ethics get a ton of publicity and you want me to feel sorry for them and wring my hands over this?

Sounds like the OP is an even mix of disinformation and anti-gay animus.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If a gay couple compels you to bake a cake give them brownies also.

Not a good analogy. A Roman soldier could compel a Jew to carry his pack for a mile. Refusal meant flogging, which frequently ended in death.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Maidservant said:

"The Christian shoemaker does his duty not by putting little crosses on the shoes, but by making good shoes."  Martin Luther

In the United States of America, governments are forbidden to compel speech, forcing an artist to “art” is to compel speech.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

Not a good analogy. A Roman soldier could compel a Jew to carry his pack for a mile. Refusal meant flogging, which frequently ended in death.

So... Christ’s lesson to “go the extra mile” ONLY applies if you’re facing corporal punishment that could lead to death...?  That’s a spin I haven’t heard before.... By “love your enemies, and do good to those who hurt you,” do you think the only enemies Christ was referring to are enemies whom you are literally physically at war with.....?!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SeekerB said:

Not a good analogy. A Roman soldier could compel a Jew to carry his pack for a mile. Refusal meant flogging, which frequently ended in death.

I thought this whole thing was about how soon everyone will be fined for not baking cakes or doing calligraphy for people. Seems incredibly apt to suggest doing more for those who ask it of you.

Seems like a more scripturally approved action then preemptively filing a lawsuit in case you are flogged later when a hypothetical Roman soldier might ask you to carry his pack. Or maybe this is one of those parts that is not translated correctly and that is what the Savior really meant?

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

So... Christ’s lesson to “go the extra mile” ONLY applies if you’re facing corporal punishment that could lead to death...?  That’s a spin I haven’t heard before.... By “love your enemies, and do good to those who hurt you,” do you think the only enemies Christ was referring to are enemies whom you are literally physically at war with.....?!

Should governments be permitted to violate the rights of individuals?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, provoman said:

In the United States of America, governments are forbidden to compel speech, forcing an artist to “art” is to compel speech.

I wish I was told this years ago. My elementary school teachers told me I had to draw things as part of my schooling. I did not realize my rights were being violated. Can I sue for this?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×