NM Supreme Court Forces Christian to Take Gay Wedding Photos

[Blasveck]

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.

1. Source ALL that.
2. Too fucking bad again. What some 200 year old dead guy said about religion has nothing to do with the law of America. George Washington didnt write that in the Constitution. Nobody did. America has secular laws.

[Dyakovo]

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.

George Washington was nothing more than a jumped up colonel who got lucky. His words express his personal feelings on the subject and do not in any way reflect the founding principles of the country. Also, no, it isn't remotely true.

[Liriena]

1- 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

2. 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).

3. 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.

1. So...you propose unconstitutional discrimination as an immigration policy? Fascinating.

2. Since the United States of America were founded as a secular nation and the separation of Church and State forbids Christians from imposing their doctrine as the law of the land, your argument is as unrealistic as it is lacking in self-awareness.

3. STRAWMAN ALERT!

[The Rich Port]

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!

[Liriena]

"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.

1. Source ALL that.
2. Too fucking bad again. What some 200 year old dead guy said about religion has nothing to do with the law of America. George Washington didnt write that in the Constitution. Nobody did. America has secular laws.

I'd also like to see Free Missouri prove increasing social liberalism to be a causation of these allegedly "new" problems.

[Farnhamia]

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

You really don't get it, do you? It wasn't those "fuck you" attacks you constructed. In both cases it was more like:

"Hi, we'd like to [buy a cake/get some pictures taken]."
"Okay, well, tell me about your event."
Talk, talk, talk ...
"Oh, wait, you're lesbians?"
"Yes, we are."
"Sorry, we don't serve homosexuals."
"What?"
"We're Christians, our religion says homosexuality is bad so we can't provide any services to you, that would be like approving of you."
"Yeah, but ..."
"Sorry."

In both cases, the states where this took place had said that refusing service to someone because they're homosexual is illegal. So the gay couple decided to sue. They didn't have to but to not do so would be giving tacit approval to breaking the law. I suspect that if the Elane Photography and Sweet Cakes by Melissa had been discriminated against because they were Christians, the gays who were protesting would have been on their side.

[Herrebrugh]

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

And that's not the perception that would be given off to those who are absolutely neutral and up to date with all information on the subject, I'd wager.

Besides that, an argumentum ad populum isn't going to help you. Especially on a poll on an internet-forum, which can be easily rigged through puppet-voting.

[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.

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."

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for whites only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

http://www.innovativeclassroom.com/File ... ADream.pdf

[Dyakovo]

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

You really don't get it, do you? It wasn't those "fuck you" attacks you constructed. In both cases it was more like:

"Hi, we'd like to [buy a cake/get some pictures taken]."
"Okay, well, tell me about your event."
Talk, talk, talk ...
"Oh, wait, you're lesbians?"
"Yes, we are."
"Sorry, we don't serve homosexuals."
"What?"
"We're Christians, our religion says homosexuality is bad so we can't provide any services to you, that would be like approving of you."
"Yeah, but ..."
"Sorry."

In both cases, the states where this took place had said that refusing service to someone because they're homosexual is illegal. So the gay couple decided to sue. They didn't have to but to not do so would be giving tacit approval to breaking the law. I suspect that if the Elane Photography and Sweet Cakes by Melissa had been discriminated against because they were Christians, the gays who were protesting would have been on their side.

Didn't you know? The only protected class that should exist is "christians".
*nods*

[Free Missouri]

As per my previous post, Fox says there were threats; the Portland Tribune says otherwise.

And it goes without saying that Faux News is notoriously unreliable.

and it goes without saying, since they didn't even cover the protests,

CNN, MSDNC (I mean MSNBC), and ABC are notoriously unreliable as well

it's called these big TV corporations are eating the money out of establishment political parties' pockets

[Blasveck]

And it goes without saying that Faux News is notoriously unreliable.

and it goes without saying, since they didn't even cover the protests,

CNN, MSDNC (I mean MSNBC), and ABC are notoriously unreliable as well

it's called these big TV corporations are eating the money out of establishment political parties' pockets

Still waiting for that source......

[Mavorpen]

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."

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "for whites only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

http://www.innovativeclassroom.com/File ... ADream.pdf

Why the hell is this relevant?

[Free Missouri]

"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.

I never said that there WEREN'T STDS, OR PREGNANCIES OR UNDERAGE DRINKING OR SUICIDE, OR DRUGS,
I SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT AS PREVALENT A PROBLEM AS THEY'VE BECOME TODAY

[HappyShark]

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

You really don't get it, do you? It wasn't those "fuck you" attacks you constructed. In both cases it was more like:

"Hi, we'd like to [buy a cake/get some pictures taken]."
"Okay, well, tell me about your event."
Talk, talk, talk ...
"Oh, wait, you're lesbians?"
"Yes, we are."
"Sorry, we don't serve homosexuals."
"What?"
"We're Christians, our religion says homosexuality is bad so we can't provide any services to you, that would be like approving of you."
"Yeah, but ..."
"Sorry."

In both cases, the states where this took place had said that refusing service to someone because they're homosexual is illegal. So the gay couple decided to sue. They didn't have to but to not do so would be giving tacit approval to breaking the law. I suspect that if the Elane Photography and Sweet Cakes by Melissa had been discriminated against because they were Christians, the gays who were protesting would have been on their side.

"Hi, we'd like to [buy a get well soon cake]."
"Oh, I hope your loved one gets better soon."
Talk, talk, talk ...
"Oh, this is for your wife after her abortion?"
"Yes, unfortunately the baby would have been born with major birth defects."
"Sorry, i cannot do it because my religious and moral beliefs state life is at conception and i would be supporting murder per my faith."
"What?"
"We're Christians, our religion says murder and abortion is bad so we can't provide any services to you, that would be like approving of your decision."
"Yeah, but ..."
"Sorry."


Equality ???

Can i sue and win ...

or are the lawsuits in New Mexico and Oregon above and beyond anything the general public would be afforded.

[Divair]

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.

I never said that there WEREN'T STDS, OR PREGNANCIES OR UNDERAGE DRINKING OR SUICIDE, OR DRUGS,
I SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT AS PREVALENT A PROBLEM AS THEY'VE BECOME TODAY

And I'm sure you've got an unbiased source to prove this, right?

[Blasveck]

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.

I never said that there WEREN'T STDS, OR PREGNANCIES OR UNDERAGE DRINKING OR SUICIDE, OR DRUGS,
I SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT AS PREVALENT A PROBLEM AS THEY'VE BECOME TODAY

Source?

[Mavorpen]

Can i sue and win ....

No.

That was easy.

[Liriena]

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.

I never said that there WEREN'T STDS, OR PREGNANCIES OR UNDERAGE DRINKING OR SUICIDE, OR DRUGS,
I SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT AS PREVALENT A PROBLEM AS THEY'VE BECOME TODAY

I'd still love a source, though.

[Herrebrugh]

Why the hell is this relevant?

Hi

Yay! Smileyspam!

[HappyShark]

Can i sue and win ....

No.

That was easy.

Thank you, so what the gay couples did in both cases was not seek equality, but take the privileged status they hold and used it as a weapon to require service upon demand.

[Divair]

No.

That was easy.

Thank you, so what the gay couples did in both cases was not seek equality, but take the privileged status they hold and used it as a weapon to require service upon demand.

Check your privilege.

[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.

No, because of separation of church and state.

LRN2LAW, please.

separation of church and state DOES NOT appear anywhere in actual law...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
-Meaning that Congress (and according to atheists, leftists (Democrats are not liberal, liberal means someone that believes in liberalism which is far far far from the big government surveillance-state crap you leftists like), and a left-leaning supreme court, the states and) and can't make laws that give rights to only one establishment of religion

"or restrict free exercise thereof."
-Meaning congress (and more broadly the states, according to the supreme court) cannot restrict actions (so long as they are not harmful to society nor a significant breach in criminal law like human sacrifice or some shit like that) taken in the carrying out of someone's religious belief

[Mavorpen]

Thank you, so what the gay couples did in both cases was not seek equality,

Yes they did.

[Blasveck]

No.

That was easy.

Thank you, so what the gay couples did in both cases was not seek equality, but take the privileged status they hold and used it as a weapon to require service upon demand.

Mourning abortion =/= Discrimination

Or whatever nonsense comparison you made.

[Blasveck]

No, because of separation of church and state.

LRN2LAW, please.

separation of church and state DOES NOT appear anywhere in actual law...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
-Meaning that Congress (and according to atheists, leftists (Democrats are not liberal, liberal means someone that believes in liberalism which is far far far from the big government surveillance-state crap you leftists like), and a left-leaning supreme court, the states and) and can't make laws that give rights to only one establishment of religion

"or restrict free exercise thereof."
-Meaning congress (and more broadly the states, according to the supreme court) cannot restrict actions (so long as they are not harmful to society nor a significant breach in criminal law like human sacrifice or some shit like that) taken in the carrying out of someone's religious belief

It's a good thing then that there's this thing called "Interpreting the Constitution"

An quit with the idiotic as fuck "liberal leftist" shit.

It makes you look fucking stupid. It's annoying as fuck. So fucking quit it.