Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anijen

Christians Again Forced To Do Artwork For LGBT

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Well, I wouldn't call him a pig, but his behavior isn't entirely beyond reproach. As was mentioned, he was so zealous to prosecute this woman that he filed his case against her “without receiving a legal complaint” from the gay couple, and “he bypassed the state agency charged with enforcing the state’s nondiscrimination law.”

And he didn't just go after her business - he sued her in her personal capacity as well. So now, this 74 year old woman is looking at potentially losing not just her business and her livelihood, but her personal life savings as well. 

Classy.

Where was this passion "[f]or enforcing the laws of the State of Washington" when he refused to take action against the coffee-shop owner who threw Christian pro-life activists out of his Seattle store?

Let's be honest: it's a total double-standard.

He can get away with playing hardball with the little old lady out in Tri-Cities while giving the King County crowd a pass for doing the same sorts of things. 

 

Using public accommodation laws to come after religionists - religionists who both serve and hire gays, but only refuse to participate in gay weddings - is not going to end well unless the goal is to ensure that more jurisdictions refuse to add sexual orientation / gender identity as a protected class to their public accommodation statutes.   

I completely agree with you that discrimination laws should be equally pursued.  

 

Quote

 

I have no idea how you could be involved in so many of these discussions and not have seen it previously - especially, since I'm fairly certain I have personally pointed it out to you before (though I'm having a hard time finding it with the search function) - but the baker from Masterpiece Cakeshop does refuse to make other kinds of cakes which violate his Christian beliefs.

In fact, he has "declined to make a number of other types of cakes, including cakes for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages." [source]

I know he has made this claim, but has he ever provided any documentation to refusing to bake a cake for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages prior to his discriminating against gay couples.  Or is this just a CYA move.  Can you show any documentation???  Because we do have documentation that Mr Phillips agreed to make a wedding cake for two dogs despite his claim of the importance of the sanctity of marriage.

 

Quote

So please, give it a rest with this whole 'they're only out to get the gays' nonsense; it's both tiresome and false. 

See my documentation provided to Calm above on these two bakeries that are involved in these discrimination lawsuits. 

 

Quote

The only thing I care about in these cases is free speech. And I think people of principle support free speech even when it isn't popular to do so (e.g., Nazi's marching in a public parade, KKK members burning a cross on their own property, etc.). 

If the LGBT community wants to celebrate a legal marriage, that's great! Have at it.

But when the LGBT community tries to use the power of the government to force other people to celebrate along with them, then yeah - I've got a problem with that. 

 

Who said anything about denying free speech?  I think all agree that anyone is free to say anything they want.  It doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for what they say.  Take for example this wonderful mayor who thinks the solution to the "gay problem" is to kill them.  No one is saying he can't make such statements, but there certainly can be consequences for an elected official promoting such a policy.Do 

Since you want to defend these "christians", do you really think these stands to discriminate is really promoting the principles that Christ taught?  Do you honestly think people are drawn to Christianity when they hear these 'christians" refusals to serve the gay community?  Because THAT was my point.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2019 at 8:14 AM, Anijen said:

To Daniel, I understand you have been arguing straight from the case opinion, but that is still, IMO, not reliable. Not reliable, because Washington Supreme Court in its history has shown incredibly bias in favor of almost every liberal case they see, (as  do the notorious 9th circuit). I would suggest to be more objective link the entire arguments that both sides made to the court and not the decision. That way we can see through both lenses (objectivity).

Anijen,

If I understand you correctly, then, your comment that I am overlooking or only seeing what I want to see isn't based on any alleged misunderstanding of what the Washington ruling actually says or means, but is more based on your opinion that Washington's ruling won't stand/may be overturned....?

If that's the case, a couple of things:

I freely admit that any law may ultimately be overturned by the court system.  But unless/until it is, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington is the latest and most recently binding word on the matter.

I prefer to rely on the latest ruling, coupled with the preponderance of legal precident quoted in the ruling, rather than on unsubstantiated or unsupported assertions made by lay individuals that Washington interpreted the law wrong or didn't apply the law correctly.

If/when SCOTUS overturns Washington, I will be happy to admit that Washington got it wrong.  But until then, I don't think I'm overlooking anything---in fact, my practice and preference is to stay squarely within the bounds of the most recent court's ruling at the highest judicial level. 

From my perspective, to assert anything different is to ignore the current legal reality (albeit candidly admitting that it's subject to review by a higher judicial branch up and until SCOTUS overturns, sustains, or declines to hear the case).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

I wouldn't ever refuse service to them or anyone else because of their beliefs  if that is what you mean.  It doesn't mean I don't find it offensive when these "christians" use the name of Christ to promote discrimination. 

I am talking about reactions by potential customers who may get refused service. It isn’t, imo, solely the purview of the service provider to be loving and kind.  

No one should feel comfortable about talking of others in cliched or disrespectful or stereotypical ways in my opinion. I suspect there is no monolith of behaviour from those who refuse to service SSM just as I don’t see a monolith of behaviour from gay activist groups. Motivations and reactions vary in any large group even if there are similarities.  As soon as someone shifts to a ‘one size fits all’ in a group description, a red flag goes off for me and I see the argument as likely veering into emotional argument rather than reason. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Amulek, 

On 6/8/2019 at 1:51 PM, you said: 

Expressive conduct is generally considered to be protected by the First Amendment, even if the work in question can't be said to communicate any discernible message (e.g., a Jackson Pollock painting).

On 6/8/2019 at 3:35 PM, Calm asked you a follow-up question: 

Could you please post a source for this as the legal commentary Daniel posted appears to view conduct differently.

On 6/10/2019 at 8:27 AM, you responded to Calm's request to post a source for your legal commentary that refutes the case as quoted by myself by responding: 

HURLEY v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, INC. 
 
Here, the court stated that "the Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression. Noting that "symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas," our cases have recognized that the First Amendment shields such acts as saluting a flag (and refusing to do so), wearing an armband to protest a war, displaying a red flag, and even "[m]arching, walking or parading" in uniforms displaying the swastika. As some of these examples show, a narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a "particularized message," cf. Spence v. Washington, would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll." [citations omitted, emphasis added] 
 
Which isn't terribly surprising. Art is generally considered to be inherently expressive and thus protected by the First Amendment. How does the WA court deal with the petitioner's claim that custom floral arrangements are art? By waiving their hand and declaring "that the regulated activity at issue in this case—Stutzman's sale of wedding floral arrangements—is not "speech" in a literal sense and is thus properly characterized as conduct."
 
But I think that elides the point. The argument is that it is the creation of custom floral arrangements that should be considered art - and thus afforded speech protections - not merely the sale of already made goods.

You even got a couple of "Likes" for your post above, courtesy of USU78 and Anijen.

The great irony in your employment of Hurley as an example that is supposed to refute the legal case I quoted is that not only was Hurley already actually examined and employed by WA's Supreme Court in their ruling against Arlene's flowers, the rub is that I even quoted that portion--about Hurley and why the court found it different than the questions in Arlene's flowers--in the very same post that prompted Calm asked you to provide a citation that refutes the case I quoted!  

It's on page four of this thread and was posted at 9:25 AM this past Saturday.  For some reason, when I try to repost it here, I keep getting a 403 Error message, but you're welcome to go back and read it.  EDITING to add in the quote in question:

Stutzman contends that her floral arrangements are "speech" for purposes of First Amendment protections because they involve her artistic decisions. Relying on the dictionary definition of "art," as well as expert testimony regarding her creativity and expressive style, she argues for a broad reading of protected speech that encompasses her "unique expression," crafted in "petal, leaf, and loam." 

Ingersoll and the State counter that Stutzman's arrangements are simply one facet of conduct—selling goods and services for weddings in the commercial marketplace—that does not implicate First Amendment protections at all.

We agree that the regulated activity at issue in this case—Stutzman's sale of wedding floral arrangements—is not "speech" in a literal sense and is thus properly characterized as conduct. 

But that does not end our inquiry. The Supreme Court has protected conduct as speech if two conditions are met: "[(1)] [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [(2)] in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."  Recent cases have characterized this as an inquiry into whether the conduct at issue was "inherently expressive." 

Stutzman's floral arrangements do not meet this definition. Certainly, she argues that she intends to communicate a message through her floral arrangements. But the major contest is over whether Stutzman's intended communications actually communicated something to the public at large—whether her conduct was "inherently expressive." And her actions in creating floral arrangements for wedding ceremonies do not satisfy this standard.

The leading case on the "inherently expressive" standard is FAIR. The plaintiffs in FAIR—an association of law schools and faculty members—challenged the constitutionality of a law that required higher education institutions to provide military recruiters on campus with access to facilities and students that was at least equivalent to that of the most favorably treated nonmilitary recruiter.  The FAIR Court ruled that the law schools' conduct in denying military recruiters most-favorable-recruiter access to students was not protected by the First Amendment because it was not "inherently expressive." It explained that additional speech would be required for an outside observer to understand that the schools' reason for denying militaiy recruiters favorable access was to protest the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Stutzman's refusal is analogous. The decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding. As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism. Stutzman also testified that she has previously declined wedding business on "[m]ajor holidays, when we don't have the staff or if they want particular flowers that we can't get in the time frame they need." Accordingly, an outside observer may be left to wonder whether a wedding was declined for one of at least three reasons: a religious objection, insufficient staff, or insufficient stock.

Stutzman argues that FAIR is inapposite and that we should instead apply HurleyHurley held that a state anti-discrimination law could not be applied so as to require a private parade to include marchers displaying a gay pride message.  Stutzman claims Hurley recognizes her First Amendment right "to exclude a message [she] did not like from the communication [she] chose to make."
 
The Court noted that the parade's "inherent expressiveness" distinguished it from the places traditionally subject to public accommodations laws—places that provide "publicly available goods, privileges, and services." Hurley is therefore unavailing to Stutzman: her store is the kind of public accommodation that has traditionally been subject to antidiscrimination laws. See Elane Photography, 309 P.3d at 68 (rejecting photographer's reliance on Hurley because state antidiscrimination law applies not to defendant's photographs but to "its business decision not to offer its services to protected classes of people"; concluding that "[wjhile photography may be expressive, the operation of a photography business is not").'
 
United States Supreme Court decisions that accord free speech protections to conduct under the First Amendment have all dealt with conduct that is clearly expressive, in and of itself, without further explanation. See Hurley (parades); United States v. Eichman (burning the American flag), 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989) (burning the American flag); United States v. Grace (distributing leaflets outside Supreme Court building in violation of federal statute); Nat'I Socialist Party of Am. V. Village of Skokie, ('"[m]arching, walking or parading'" while wearing Nazi uniforms); Smith v. Goguen (treating flag '"contemptuously"' by wearing a small American flag sewn into the seat of one's pants); Wooley v. Maynard (state motto on license plates); Spence (displaying American flag upside down on private property with peace sign superimposed on it to express feelings about Cambodian invasion and Kent State University shootings); Cohen v. California (wearing jacket emblazoned with the words "'F**k the Draft'");  Schacht V. United States (wearing army uniform in short play criticizing United States involvement in Vietnam, inasmuch as it does not tend to discredit the armed forces); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (wearing black armbands to protest Vietnam conflict); Brown v. Louisiana (sit-in to protest "whites only" area in public library during civil rights struggle); Cox v. Louisiana (giving speech and leading group of protesters in song and prayer in opposition to segregation); Edwards v. South Carolina, (peaceful march on sidewalk around State House grounds in protest of discrimination); W. Va. State Bd.of Educ. V. Barnette (refusing to salute the American flag while saying pledge of allegiance); Stromberg v. California, (peaceful display of red flag as a sign of opposition to organized government). 
 
Stutzman's conduct—whether it is characterized as creating floral arrangements, providing floral an"angement services for opposite-sex weddings, or denying those services for same-sex weddings—is not like the inherently expressive activities at issue in these cases. Instead, it is like the unprotected conduct in FAIR. 

As others have suggested, it's puzzling that some seem to be continually weighing in on the matter without actually reading the case itself or even what's already been posted here in the thread.  

I don't understand that seemingly willful ignorance to a topic one participates in.  😳

To make a long story short, then, Calm, no.... despite Amulek's invocation of it as evidence that contradicts what I or the ruling are saying, Washington's Supreme Court rejected Hurley as applicable in this case.  

When a business owner chooses to engage in regulated commerce, such as either a) making and selling flower boquets (as in Arlene's Flowers, as decided currently by the Supreme Court of Washington State; TBD by SCOTUS) or b) of documenting a marriage as a wedding photographer (as in the case of Elane's photography, as decided by SCOTUS when they decline to intervene upon appeal) neither set of conduct classifies as First Amendment-protected speech.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Daniel, do you have any information on how this went from, "please make flowers for my wedding" to the actual lawsuit? None of the information above reveals anything about the couple's innocence regarding the lawsuit. I am sure Rosa Parks rode the bus many times, but the event that brought her lawsuit was a planned event. Still looking for information. 

Others beat me to the punch, so I think your question was answered already and won't elaborate further other than saying it's clear that the couple in question didn't start out by targeting or singling out Stutzman because of her beliefs; they simply anticipated the same amicable service they'd received from Arlene's flowers for the previous 9 years. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

I know he has made this claim, but has he ever provided any documentation to refusing to bake a cake for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages prior to his discriminating against gay couples.  Or is this just a CYA move.  Can you show any documentation???  

What sort of "documentation" are you looking for? Do you think bakeries keep a log book of all the cakes they refuse to bake (any why)?

If it will help satisfy your curiosity though, in addition to the article that I quoted from previously, the following items are all specifically referenced in Jack Phillips' sworn affidavit which was included as part of the documentation jointly submitted to the Supreme Court by both parties [source]:

25. If a client wanted a cake for a polygamous wedding, or a wedding for a reception for a man or woman waiting for their divorce to be finalized, but still actually married to other people, we would decline to design and create wedding cakes for such occasions. 

57-59. When the shop was opened, specific consideration was given and discussions were had in order to determine what cakes and products would be created and sold at Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. [...] For example, we made a decision that we would not sell any goods with alcohol in them, including coffee drinks or baked goods. 

61. I will not create cakes that promote antiAmerican or anti-family themes, a flag-burning or a cake with a hateful message (e.g., "God hates fags"), a terrorist message, a KKK celebration of an atrocity against African Americans, an atheist message such as "God is dead" or "there is no God," or even simply vulgarity or profanity on a cake. 

63. Additionally, I will not create or sell Halloween cakes, cookies, brownies or anything else related to this day because of my sincerely held religious beliefs. 

 

As for items not specifically referenced in the affidavit, you can assume whatever you want.

Everything I have seen, however, leads me to believe that Jack Phillips is being truthful about the kinds of cakes he will and will not create.

So, please drop this nonsense about how he only refuses to provide cakes for gay weddings - either that, or consider your next claim to the contrary to be immediately followed with a CFR to prove that he has, in fact, made cakes for 'Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, or cakes with atheist messages.'

 

Quote

Because we do have documentation that Mr Phillips agreed to make a wedding cake for two dogs despite his claim of the importance of the sanctity of marriage.

I'll let Mr. Phillips speak for himself on this one (ibid.): 

"Creating a bone-shaped cake for a celebration of a dog’s “wedding” hosted by an animal breeder, while I personally don’t think that this would be a prudent use of time or resources, is not religiously objectionable. It is a celebration that is not illegal, immoral or unbiblical that no one, including the animals, thinks is a legitimate marriage."

 

Quote
Quote

So please, give it a rest with this whole 'they're only out to get the gays' nonsense; it's both tiresome and false. 

See my documentation provided to Calm above on these two bakeries that are involved in these discrimination lawsuits. 

I saw your "documentation" and found it...wanting.

You are conflating multiple cases together and then saying this amalgamated "Christian" you have created in your mind is hypocritical. 

If all you are trying to say is that not all Christians find the same things to be inappropriate with respect to their faith / religion then yeah, that is obviously the case. 

However, if you are trying to say that committed Christians like Jack Phillips are only targeting gays, then you're going to have to do more than simply claim that to be the case. You're going to need actual evidence, and for Jack Phillips at least, I haven't seen you provide anything nearly close to backing up that assertion.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Justo be clear Mr. Phillips is not targeting gays or anyone. He will bake for anybody. What he is doing is refusing to bake items that he objects to on religious reasons.

  • He will not bake a cake that insults gays. e.g. anti-gay message
  • He will bake them any item that does not go against his religious beliefs, yes to cakes, no to SSM wedding cakes because his religious beliefs does not support SSM.
  • Yes to childrens birthday cakes, no to halloween cakes.
  • Yes to cookies brownies, cakes for family values, no to satanism, pro-Hitler, anti-jewish, or SSM. 

As we can see it is his religious beliefs not the sexual identity of his customer. He will sell to a gay man a cake, but not a cake that goes against his religious beliefs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

The great irony in your employment of Hurley as an example that is supposed to refute the legal case I quoted is that not only was Hurley already actually examined and employed by WA's Supreme Court in their ruling against Arlene's flowers, the rub is that I even quoted that portion--about Hurley and why the court found it different than the questions in Arlene's flowers--in the very same post that prompted Calm asked you to provide a citation that refutes the case I quoted!  

Oh man, you really got me on this one.

I mean...I mentioned Hurley, and the opinion you are blindly quoting from also references Hurley, so obviously I'm a fool!

Give me a break.

My problem with the opinion is that the court, with a simple wave of the hand, declares that creating custom floral arrangements is not inherently expressive.

Why, you may wonder? Well, because they said so...in all of about one sentence. 

Then, after masterfully setting that pesky little detail aside, they go on to apply the Spence test to see if what we're dealing with should be considered expressive conduct - only, instead of looking at the conduct of creating floral arrangements, the court decides instead to examine the conduct of "selling goods and services for weddings in the commercial marketplace." 

Again, I think that dodges the issue.

 

Quote

As others have suggested, it's puzzling that some seem to be continually weighing in on the matter without actually reading the case itself or even what's already been posted here in the thread.  

I don't understand that seemingly willful ignorance to a topic one participates in.  😳

You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing between disagreement and ignorance.

I'm not an attorney, I freely admit that, but following First Amendment law has been something of a hobby of mine for several years.

Not only have I read the actual WA ruling in its entirety, I have also read the overwhelming majority of the amicus briefs which were submitted in support of Arlene's Flowers when it was sent to SCOTUS, including (but not limited to) the following:

        Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute, et al.
        Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
        Brief amici curiae of The States of Texas, et al.
        Brief amici curiae of United States Senators and Representatives
        Brief amicus curiae of The Thomas More Society
        Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

How many of these have you read? How much time have you spent looking at the other side of the argument presented by actual lawyers and not just opinion pieces? 

Look, if you find the Washington State Supreme Court's opinion convincing - even though they aren't even a federal court - then so be it, but please remember that they aren't anywhere close to being the highest court in the land, and disagreement with their opinion doesn't mean that one is ignorant about the law or the issues at hand. 

 

Quote

To make a long story short, then, Calm, no.... despite Amulek's invocation of it as evidence that contradicts what I or the ruling are saying, Washington's Supreme Court rejected Hurley as applicable in this case.  

If one assumes that the Washington Supreme Court did not misapply Hurley or make any other mistakes then yeah, it's axiomatically correct to say that it's not applicable. 

But that kind of begs the question though. 

 

Quote

When a business owner chooses to engage in regulated commerce, such as either a) making and selling flower boquets (as in Arlene's Flowers, as decided currently by the Supreme Court of Washington State; TBD by SCOTUS) or b) of documenting a marriage as a wedding photographer (as in the case of Elane's photography, as decided by SCOTUS when they decline to intervene upon appeal) neither set of conduct classifies as First Amendment-protected speech.

SCOTUS never issued a ruling on the Elane Photography case; it was simply denied cert. Now, that does effectively mean that the lower court's ruling remains in effect, but it doesn't make it the law of the land outside of that circuit. And it doesn't mean that it is necessarily correct either. As I said before, the court may simply be biding its time, waiting for the right suit in order to draw the line on these kinds of cases. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, you started rambling about stuff only peripherally connected to the discussion at best . . .

 This thread is about coercion . . . which the LEFT is really big on.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

suggesting moral perfidy on my part for not condemning “an actual college professor” that I have never heard of for doing something I have never read about. It sounded a little like the beginning of some kind of mental break. If not, I apologize.

I suppose if you are not so concerned about a professor getting out on the campus and physically punishing people for wearing red caps or for not following politically correct rules and denying the people's First Amendment Rights then maybe we should wait for something more drastic than that.  Oh wait!  There was one at the baseball practice field.  From the wikipedia:

"On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. A ten-minute shootout took place between Hodgkinson and officers from the Capitol and Alexandria Police before officers fatally shot Hodgkinson, who died from his wounds later that day at the George Washington University Hospital. Scalise and Mika were taken to nearby hospitals where they underwent surgery.
"Hodgkinson was a left-wing activist from Belleville, Illinois, while Scalise was a Republican member of Congress. The Virginia Attorney General concluded Hodgkinson's attack was "an act of terrorism...fueled by rage against Republican legislators". Scalise was the first sitting member of Congress to have been shot since Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in 2011."

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And again, I am an Eisenhower Republican on economic issues. I am not a leftist. I have no political home right now.

I seriously doubt that.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

. . . and dig deep into the foundations of the beliefs you espouse

I have been doing that for many decades.  From when I was a young boy.  I have read many history books.  I love Rose and Milton Friedman's book:  "Free to Choose" (a real classic).  I have read several of Ezra Taft Benson's books (a real tour de force on America's political history).  When I was a teenager I was deeply enthralled by Arthur C. Clarke's book: "2001 A Space Odyssey" which caused me to ponder for many year what the conditions might have been in the pre-existence (beginnings of beginnings).  I am not such a simpleton that you try make me out to be.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 . . . instead of the latest clickbait designed to make you hate.

Your entire post is chock full of ad hominem insinuations.  You just really can't help yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, california boy said:

Pig of an AG?  For enforcing the laws of the State of Washington?  The very job he was elected to do?

And these "christians" who believe Christ was big on discriminating against sinners.  Have they even read their Bibles where Christ specifically talked about the then shunned group in telling us exactly how to treat those differently than us in the story of the Good Samaritan?  Do they even understand exactly why the priest and Levite refused to help, and why Christ used the Samaritan as the one that offered the help?  Discrimination is ugly and this country has long ago decided it is not something that Americans want to embrace.  

Religion, being used as a weapon to discriminate is not going to end well unless the goal of religion is to push decent people who believe in treating everyone with respect and dignity away from religion. When the only sin these 'christians" are unwilling to bake a cake for or make a flower arrangement is SSM, then the sincerity of their "religious beliefs" looses all credibility.  Where are these "christians" refusing to bake a cake for the unwed mother or the divorce celebration or bachelor parties where strippers entertain or a hundred other sinful events their cakes may be eaten at.  Why aren't these "christians" going through a little interview process to see exactly who is eating their products and what possible event it might be used in.  Please.  IMO, most people look at this as shear discrimination against the LGBT community because they seem to be the only targeted group.  

Those of you who rally around these religious excuses for discriminating against the LGBT community celebrating a legal marriage really think this is going to help attract more people to your message?  Do you really think calling the Attorney General of Washington State a pig for enforcing the law to not discriminate is going to win over followers?  Do you really want discrimination tied directly to Christ and what He stands for?  I personally am outraged that anyone is using Christ as a weapon to perpetuate discrimination.  Bake the cake.  Show kindness to all who enter your store.  If you want to use your business to preach your beliefs, then find, hand out bibles or brochures with each and everything you sell.  Or put some scripture on the bottom of your drinking cups.  But discriminate as a way to bring people to Christ?  Don't think that is going to work out well.

Hello Cal, 

When politicians go on political crusades for sacred cows, I tend to look upon with with an extremely jaundiced eye. Do you think if this was happening to a white, straight male that he was be as active? Not a chance in a pig's three moons. 

The problem with your accusation that individuals use religion as a weapon....is that everyone with religious convictions are deemed insincere and their beliefs, their religion, has no value. In your proposal, religious people must disregard their religious beliefs if they conflict with your "rights". Not real tolerant and inclusive. 

Look, religious people do not care about whether you believe what they believe or anyone else. As far as the LDS community - they will preach their message and you choose. Done, end of story. 

I am outraged that your rights are superior to everyone else's just because you are gay. Now where are we - you are outraged and I get to be outraged?  Your rights end where my rights begin - I know, a novel approach, but that is what our laws our and the courts have not judged yet whose rights are superior to everyone else's.  

Here is a thought you might want to consider - when social norms swing so wildly in such a short period, bad things happen. When it swings back the other way - what do you do?  I am afraid that the Left and their identity politics has grabbed a tiger by the tail. It may look like the majority is bowing down to worship this golden calf we call LGBTQ, but when groups get power hungry, which the LGBTQ are certainly drunk on at present, groups always become despots. Power corrupts. This will not end well for our society and as the LGBTQ continues to push something will eventually pop. 

I fear what could happen to the nation - I am not confident it will stand given the political animosity, if not completely hatred, between Left and Right.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

 This thread is about coercion . . . which the LEFT is really big on.

I suppose if you are not so concerned about a professor getting out on the campus and physically punishing people for wearing red caps or for not following politically correct rules and denying the people's First Amendment Rights then maybe we should wait for something more drastic than that.  Oh wait!  There was one at the baseball practice field.  From the wikipedia:

"On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. A ten-minute shootout took place between Hodgkinson and officers from the Capitol and Alexandria Police before officers fatally shot Hodgkinson, who died from his wounds later that day at the George Washington University Hospital. Scalise and Mika were taken to nearby hospitals where they underwent surgery.
"Hodgkinson was a left-wing activist from Belleville, Illinois, while Scalise was a Republican member of Congress. The Virginia Attorney General concluded Hodgkinson's attack was "an act of terrorism...fueled by rage against Republican legislators". Scalise was the first sitting member of Congress to have been shot since Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in 2011."

I seriously doubt that.

I have been doing that for many decades.  From when I was a young boy.  I have read many history books.  I love Rose and Milton Friedman's book:  "Free to Choose" (a real classic).  I have read several of Ezra Taft Benson's books (a real tour de force on America's political history).  When I was a teenager I was deeply enthralled by Arthur C. Clarke's book: "2001 A Space Odyssey" which caused me to ponder for many year what the conditions might have been in the pre-existence (beginnings of beginnings).  I am not such a simpleton that you try make me out to be.

Your entire post is chock full of ad hominem insinuations.  You just really can't help yourself!

Now I am supposed to worry about campus politics and a two year old shooting that still do not relate to the thread?

Okay fine, I lied, you caught me. I am not an Eisenhower Republican. I am a half-Hispanic half-Sudanese Buddhist terrorist sent to this country by the shadowy cabal that runs the Islamic-LGBT alliance. I was sent here to spread the good word of Authoritarian Communism on LDS message boards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...