NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Scholencia]

It is nothing, it is just that immigration should be encourage in every country. All minorities should be respected: from homosexual people to normal immigrants. The couple from the OP should not be discriminated at all, the company should pay something to the lesbian couple for being homophobic.

And immigration has nothing to do with the topic.

At all.

I was not just referring to immigrant, yet you somehow only stuck on the topic of immigration. my point is that all minorities should be respected and this is why I referring to immigrants and gays in the same time.

So, you dont like immigrants just because they are foreigners or just because they are christians? The same goes for gays.

[Dyakovo]

No.

Yes, and you are probably a xenophobic atheist.

Christianity (or any other religion) should have no power in any secular government.

[The Rich Port]

... They should have put an exemption for religious beliefs.

Well, it was the KKK's religious beliefs that blacks were genetically inferior, so...

Fucking idiots. Guess that's why they make fucking cupcakes.

[Bodobol]

So turning down people based on your religious beliefs isn't discrimination?

Glad these fucks closed it.

They're still in business, but it's a lot smaller now.

Still, at least it's something.

[Blasveck]

And immigration has nothing to do with the topic.

At all.

I was not just referring to immigrant, yet you somehow only stuck on the topic of immigration. my point is that all minorities should be respected and this is why I referring to immigrants and gays in the same time.

So, you dont like immigrants just because they are foreigners or just because they are christians? The same goes for gays.

Um...okay?

Your ramblings aren't making any relevant sense.

[Liriena]

The US should import Christian from around the world (mostly from South America) to maintain the power of the Christian faith in America.

And here I thought you hated immigrants.

Any other brilliant unconstitutional ideas?

[HappyShark]

I condemn the threats categorically.

As for the rampage, why is it a rampage for the activists to organize boycotts against the bakery's suppliers? We're often told that if there were no anti-discrimination laws, the free market would take care of these things, that a business that discriminated would quickly go out of business because fair-minded people would stop patronizing them. Encouraging their suppliers to be fair-minded as well is just part of that free market activism. I see nothing wrong with this.

Ah, but you see, this is how it works.

If gay rights activists participate in the political process by backing pro-equality candidates, supporting pro-equality legislation, or any other government-based means, then they are evil fascists seeking to use the law to force their queer agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

If gay rights activists instead opt for boycotts and privately-funded campaigns to raise awareness about homophobic businesses and encourage people to take their money elsewhere, then they are rampaging vigilantes seeking to use threats to shove their gay agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

This is why I continually argue to gay rights activists, and indeed any other pro-equality sorts: don't spend one instant of your time worrying about how your behavior will be received by the anti side. It doesn't matter what you do. No amount of politeness or gentleness will matter. Be as loud and aggressive as you want to be, because you're going to get exactly the same response regardless.

MLK and the African American community were successful because they sought a non-differentiated equality vs. one based on a protected privilege. It remains successful because the African American community has historically chosen their battles extremely well, and within this confine of a non-differentiated equality. They have recognized the damage violence and petty complaints does to the overall movement in the long run. In a calculated momentary victory, vs. the perception of radicalized overreach, the momentary victory was deemed unworthy. However where a right was provided to all and denied they fought vehemently and won.

incidences like those in New Mexico and Oregon do very little except harm the overall public perception of what the LGBT groups are fighting for.

Is the message really "fuck you and your religion, I want my cake, and you will fucking bake it for me"
Is the message really "fuck you and your religion you will take photographs of my gay wedding when I demand this of you"
Is the message really Who give a shit about your religion, your beliefs, or your morals, I'm gay and you will just fucking comply to my mandates.

because guess what this is what quite a few people are interpreting this as. You may not like how the above is worded but this is the message being sent with these victories.

[Herrebrugh]

Ah, but you see, this is how it works.

If gay rights activists participate in the political process by backing pro-equality candidates, supporting pro-equality legislation, or any other government-based means, then they are evil fascists seeking to use the law to force their queer agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

If gay rights activists instead opt for boycotts and privately-funded campaigns to raise awareness about homophobic businesses and encourage people to take their money elsewhere, then they are rampaging vigilantes seeking to use threats to shove their gay agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

This is why I continually argue to gay rights activists, and indeed any other pro-equality sorts: don't spend one instant of your time worrying about how your behavior will be received by the anti side. It doesn't matter what you do. No amount of politeness or gentleness will matter. Be as loud and aggressive as you want to be, because you're going to get exactly the same response regardless.

MLK and the African American community were successful because they sought a non-differentiated equality vs. one based on a protected privilege. It remains successful because the African American community has historically chosen their battles extremely well, and within this confine of a non-differentiated equality. They have recognized the damage violence and petty complaints does to the overall movement in the long run. In a calculated momentary victory, vs. the perception of radicalized overreach, the momentary victory was deemed unworthy. However where a right was provided to all and denied they fought vehemently and won.

incidences like those in New Mexico and Oregon do very little except harm the overall public perception of what the LGBT groups are fighting for.

Is the message really "fuck you and your religion, I want my cake, and you will fucking bake it for me"
Is the message really "fuck you and your religion you will take photographs of my gay wedding when I demand this of you"
Is the message really Who give a shit about your religion, your beliefs, or your morals, I'm gay and you will just fucking comply to my mandates.

because guess what this is what quite a few people are interpreting this as. You may not like how the above is worded but this is the message being sent with these victories.

How about: "you aren't allowed to discriminate like this, what religion you adhere to has absolutely no bearing to that fact"?

[Free Missouri]

Here's my question for people that like this ruling...


Do they believe that a Catholic Church should be forced to host and a catholic priest be the officiator over their wedding? that's every bit as much a private "business" that is refusing based on their religious beliefs. If you say "Yes" then you're simply anti-christian (or even anti-religion) and want to trample on a church or pastor's religious right, if you say "no" then you're a hypocrite because it's just as much a private entity "discriminating" (not really discriminating) based on their religious beliefs.

[The Rich Port]

Here's my question for people that like this ruling...


Do they believe that a Catholic Church should be forced to host and a catholic priest be the officiator over their wedding? that's every bit as much a private "business" that is refusing based on their religious beliefs. If you say "Yes" then you're simply anti-christian (or even anti-religion) and want to trample on a church or pastor's religious right, if you say "no" then you're a hypocrite because it's just as much a private entity "discriminating" (not really discriminating) based on their religious beliefs.

We trample on the rights of paedophiles all the time.

And, no, I'm not saying that Catholic priests are all paedophiles.

I'm saying we should prosecute Catholic priests for discrimination because fuck their rights.

:D

[Blasveck]

Here's my question for people that like this ruling...


Do they believe that a Catholic Church should be forced to host and a catholic priest be the officiator over their wedding? that's every bit as much a private "business" that is refusing based on their religious beliefs. If you say "Yes" then you're simply anti-christian (or even anti-religion) and want to trample on a church or pastor's religious right, if you say "no" then you're a hypocrite because it's just as much a private entity "discriminating" (not really discriminating) based on their religious beliefs.

No, because of separation of church and state.

LRN2LAW, please.

[Divair]

This is the part that makes the post.

[Dyakovo]

MLK and the African American community were successful because they sought a non-differentiated equality vs. one based on a protected privilege. It remains successful because the African American community has historically chosen their battles extremely well, and within this confine of a non-differentiated equality. They have recognized the damage violence and petty complaints does to the overall movement in the long run. In a calculated momentary victory, vs. the perception of radicalized overreach, the momentary victory was deemed unworthy. However where a right was provided to all and denied they fought vehemently and won.

incidences like those in New Mexico and Oregon do very little except harm the overall public perception of what the LGBT groups are fighting for.

Is the message really "fuck you and your religion, I want my cake, and you will fucking bake it for me"
Is the message really "fuck you and your religion you will take photographs of my gay wedding when I demand this of you"
Is the message really Who give a shit about your religion, your beliefs, or your morals, I'm gay and you will just fucking comply to my mandates.

because guess what this is what quite a few people are interpreting this as. You may not like how the above is worded but this is the message being sent with these victories.

How about: "you aren't allowed to discriminate like this, what religion you adhere to has absolutely no bearing to that fact"?

Nah... That's crazy talk!

[Scholencia]

The US should import Christian from around the world (mostly from South America) to maintain the power of the Christian faith in America.

And here I thought you hated immigrants.

Any other brilliant unconstitutional ideas?

I have never opposed immigration in generally, if you see my posts I was only referring to immigrants from Islamic countries. To this idea I stand even now: immigration from majority muslim countries should be banned. All other immigrants are welcomes

The muslims if they become a majority in some country they would try to impose some rather unconstitutional measures like, while giving entrance to all God-fearing Mexicans and Africans can only make the American national idea stronger since America was created as a Christian nation. Maintaining the Christian faith is not unconstitutional since it goes give the power to that religion to interfere in the government (it is the case of vice-versa).

As far I see the only xenopfobic here are atheist who dont want to God-fearing Africans and Mexicans to immigrate in America, which is really racist.

Yes, and you are probably a xenophobic atheist.

Christianity (or any other religion) should have no power in any secular government.

Yes, sure, but the American declaration of independence and even the early version of the Constitution have references to God, in other word it is founded on Christian principles and tolerance toward other religions is also a Christian principle. It would not be bad if Christianity have a more respectable status in the US, therefore Christianity makes American patriotism stronger.

[Bottle]

Ah, but you see, this is how it works.

If gay rights activists participate in the political process by backing pro-equality candidates, supporting pro-equality legislation, or any other government-based means, then they are evil fascists seeking to use the law to force their queer agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

If gay rights activists instead opt for boycotts and privately-funded campaigns to raise awareness about homophobic businesses and encourage people to take their money elsewhere, then they are rampaging vigilantes seeking to use threats to shove their gay agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

This is why I continually argue to gay rights activists, and indeed any other pro-equality sorts: don't spend one instant of your time worrying about how your behavior will be received by the anti side. It doesn't matter what you do. No amount of politeness or gentleness will matter. Be as loud and aggressive as you want to be, because you're going to get exactly the same response regardless.

MLK and the African American community were successful because they sought a non-differentiated equality vs. one based on a protected privilege. It remains successful because the African American community has historically chosen their battles extremely well, and within this confine of a non-differentiated equality. They have recognized the damage violence and petty complaints does to the overall movement in the long run.

Funny, that's pretty much exactly the opposite of what MLK said:

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation."

[The Rich Port]

:D

This is the part that makes the post.

I'm not ENTIRELY serious. :D

But I do think Catholic priests discriminate against homosexuals if and when they do that and people are too afraid/ignorant to challenge that, Catholics high and low included.

[Dyakovo]

Christianity (or any other religion) should have no power in any secular government.

Yes, sure, but the American declaration of independence and even the early version of the Constitution have references to God, in other word it is founded on Christian principles and tolerance toward other religions is also a Christian principle. It would not be bad if Christianity have a more respectable status in the US, therefore Christianity makes American patriotism stronger.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and no, the Constitution does not contain any references to 'God'. The US is not and never has been any christian nation.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

See, unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Tripoli is a legal document.

[HappyShark]

MLK and the African American community were successful because they sought a non-differentiated equality vs. one based on a protected privilege. It remains successful because the African American community has historically chosen their battles extremely well, and within this confine of a non-differentiated equality. They have recognized the damage violence and petty complaints does to the overall movement in the long run. In a calculated momentary victory, vs. the perception of radicalized overreach, the momentary victory was deemed unworthy. However where a right was provided to all and denied they fought vehemently and won.

incidences like those in New Mexico and Oregon do very little except harm the overall public perception of what the LGBT groups are fighting for.

Is the message really "fuck you and your religion, I want my cake, and you will fucking bake it for me"
Is the message really "fuck you and your religion you will take photographs of my gay wedding when I demand this of you"
Is the message really Who give a shit about your religion, your beliefs, or your morals, I'm gay and you will just fucking comply to my mandates.

because guess what this is what quite a few people are interpreting this as. You may not like how the above is worded but this is the message being sent with these victories.

How about: "you aren't allowed to discriminate like this, what religion you adhere to has absolutely no bearing to that fact"?

I'm just talking about the perception being sent, especially to those who are just sitting on the fence, wondering if there is a worthy cause here. Should i give my money in support of LGBT Groups or to those who oppose them...

and the poll at the top of the page says out of 491 people who responded so far.

Yes 228 46%
No 263 54%

so 263 people out of 491 basically saw what I wrote maybe not with the same outright vulgarity, but the basic perception was the same. You probably won't be swinging many people over to your side with these types of tactics. Hey but if this is what you call winning then more power to you I wish you all the best of luck with your hearts and minds campaign of bombing the poor into submission

[Free Missouri]

Yes, sure, but the American declaration of independence and even the early version of the Constitution have references to God, in other word it is founded on Christian principles and tolerance toward other religions is also a Christian principle. It would not be bad if Christianity have a more respectable status in the US, therefore Christianity makes American patriotism stronger.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and no, the Constitution does not contain any references to 'God'. The US is not and never has been any christian nation.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

See, unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Tripoli is a legal document.

the constitution contains 5 references to "divine providence"

I can find them and direct you to them if you would like, but you cannot read "divine providence" without recognizing that in 1789, that was a reference to god,yahweh, jesus, the almighty one, whatever you want to call the christian god.

[Divair]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and no, the Constitution does not contain any references to 'God'. The US is not and never has been any christian nation.

See, unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Tripoli is a legal document.

the constitution contains 5 references to "divine providence"

I can find them and direct you to them if you would like, but you cannot read "divine providence" without recognizing that in 1789, that was a reference to god,yahweh, jesus, the almighty one, whatever you want to call the christian god.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html
ctrl+f "divine providence"
0 results

[Farnhamia]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and no, the Constitution does not contain any references to 'God'. The US is not and never has been any christian nation.

See, unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Tripoli is a legal document.

the constitution contains 5 references to "divine providence"

I can find them and direct you to them if you would like, but you cannot read "divine providence" without recognizing that in 1789, that was a reference to god,yahweh, jesus, the almighty one, whatever you want to call the christian god.

1787 and do show us, please.

[Free Missouri]

Yes, and you are probably a xenophobic atheist.

Christianity (or any other religion) should have no power in any secular government.

"You cannot have national morality without religious principle."

said by GEORGE WASHINGTON in his farewell address... and quite frankly, it's true

in recent years, the United States has become far far far more liberal both politically and socially, and we've paid for it.

There were no mass shootings in the '50s, nor were teen pregnancy, teen stds, minors in possession of alcohol, drug cases, suicide, or pretty much any of the other rampant problems in modern school systems prevalent in the '50s, don't you think that might have something to do with the fact that, while not really recognizing or devastating it, we still accepted christianity as a wise religion, and held it high as the religion of our founding fathers, and not only that but even in atheist communities we were far far far more conservative.

[Dyakovo]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and no, the Constitution does not contain any references to 'God'. The US is not and never has been any christian nation.

See, unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Tripoli is a legal document.

the constitution contains 5 references to "divine providence"

I can find them and direct you to them if you would like, but you cannot read "divine providence" without recognizing that in 1789, that was a reference to god,yahweh, jesus, the almighty one, whatever you want to call the christian god.

Sure... Go see if you can find references to divine providence in the Constitution.

[Grave_n_idle]

Ah, but you see, this is how it works.

If gay rights activists participate in the political process by backing pro-equality candidates, supporting pro-equality legislation, or any other government-based means, then they are evil fascists seeking to use the law to force their queer agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

If gay rights activists instead opt for boycotts and privately-funded campaigns to raise awareness about homophobic businesses and encourage people to take their money elsewhere, then they are rampaging vigilantes seeking to use threats to shove their gay agenda down the throats of innocent religious citizens.

This is why I continually argue to gay rights activists, and indeed any other pro-equality sorts: don't spend one instant of your time worrying about how your behavior will be received by the anti side. It doesn't matter what you do. No amount of politeness or gentleness will matter. Be as loud and aggressive as you want to be, because you're going to get exactly the same response regardless.

MLK and the African American community were successful because they sought a non-differentiated equality vs. one based on a protected privilege. It remains successful because the African American community has historically chosen their battles extremely well, and within this confine of a non-differentiated equality. They have recognized the damage violence and petty complaints does to the overall movement in the long run. In a calculated momentary victory, vs. the perception of radicalized overreach, the momentary victory was deemed unworthy. However where a right was provided to all and denied they fought vehemently and won.

incidences like those in New Mexico and Oregon do very little except harm the overall public perception of what the LGBT groups are fighting for.

Is the message really "fuck you and your religion, I want my cake, and you will fucking bake it for me"
Is the message really "fuck you and your religion you will take photographs of my gay wedding when I demand this of you"
Is the message really Who give a shit about your religion, your beliefs, or your morals, I'm gay and you will just fucking comply to my mandates.

because guess what this is what quite a few people are interpreting this as. You may not like how the above is worded but this is the message being sent with these victories.

Those people are interpreting it like that DESPITE the reality on the ground, not because of it.

[Divair]

Christianity (or any other religion) should have no power in any secular government.

"You cannot have national morality without religious principle."

said by GEORGE WASHINGTON in his farewell address... and quite frankly, it's true

in recent years, the United States has become far far far more liberal both politically and socially, and we've paid for it.

There were no mass shootings in the '50s, nor were teen pregnancy, teen stds, minors in possession of alcohol, drug cases, suicide, or pretty much any of the other rampant problems in modern school systems prevalent in the '50s, don't you think that might have something to do with the fact that, while not really recognizing or devastating it, we still accepted christianity as a wise religion, and held it high as the religion of our founding fathers, and not only that but even in atheist communities we were far far far more conservative.

There was no teen pregnancy, no STD's, no underage drinking, no suicide, and no drugs in the 50's.


You can tell this guy is an expert on American history.