8 states blast Phoenix attack on artists' speech
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Eight states have filed a brief with the Arizona Supreme Court in support of two calligraphy artists who are challenging a Phoenix ordinance that would require them to violate their Christian faith and support same-sex weddings.
The attorney general from Arizona was joined by officials from Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Kentucky. They stated that while they have an interest to protecting their citizens’ “freedoms of speech and religion,” they do not have any “legitimate interest in coercing artists to use their talents to create government sponsored messages.”
“Such a practice, if permitted, is not only constitutionally forbidden, but would undermine the ‘mutuality of obligation’ upon which our ‘pluralistic’ and ‘tolerant’ society is founded,” they wrote.
The comments come in support of Phoenix artists Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski. Under the Phoenix ordinance, they risk jail time and fines if they don’t adhere to the ordinance.
Other supporting briefs have been filed by lawmakers in Arizona, the CATO Institute, the Center for Religious Expression, the National Center for Law & Policy, Tyndale House Publishers, Crossroads Productions, the Ethics and Religious Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jewish Coalition for Religion Liberty, Arizona Catholic Conference, Association for Biblical Higher Education and Compassionate Counselors.
The ordinance also forbids public expression of the Christian belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
A Phoenix art studio, Brush & Nib, which specializes in hand-painting, hand-lettering and calligraphy for weddings and other events, challenged the city ordinance that requires its Christian owners to provide the same promotion to same-sex weddings as they do for traditional weddings.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Brush & Nib, said the state Court of Appeals allowed the city “to override” the art company’s decisions about “what messages to convey.”
The ordinance, ADF contends, violates “fundamental principles of freedom of speech and religion.”
The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty earlier pointed out that when the U.S. Supreme Court created same-sex marriage, the ruling “promised that religious believers and organizations would remain secure in their constitutional right to believe, teach and live out their sincere religious convictions that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“The promise was unmistakable and unambiguous,” the filing said.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion acknowledged those who believe marriage “is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman.”
“This view long has been held – and continues to be held – in good faith by reasonable and sincere people. … Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here,” the opinion stated.
Religious believers, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs, who argued the case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, said: “That’s what’s at stake in this case, and we hope that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision will protect artistic and religious freedom for everyone. The government must allow artists to make their own decisions about which messages they will promote. Joanna and Breanna are happy to design custom art for anyone; they simply object to being forced to pour their heart, soul, imagination, and talent into creating messages that violate their conscience.”
It was judges Lawrence Winthrop, Jennifer Campbell and Paul McMurdie on the Arizona Court of Appeals who allowed the city’s restrictions on speech.
The lower-court judges lashed out at the artists, charging that they “are not the first to attempt to use their religious beliefs to justify practices others consider overtly discriminatory.”
The eight states made clear their position: “The lower court arrived at this holding by concluding that this art is not protected speech when regulated by a public accommodation law that generally prescribes conduct. But art is a classic example of pure speech and pure speech cannot be made a public accommodation.”
The filing said the “concerns of compelled speech are further heightened here because the city’s ordinance would force petitioners to create art for a ceremony considered by them to have deep religious significance.”
That means Phoenix is violating the Arizona Free Exercise of Religion Act, they said.
The brief points out that the Arizona Constitution provides even greater protection for speech than does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“Pure speech ‘refer[s]’ not only to written or spoken words, but also to other media (such as painting, music, and film) that predominantly serve to express thoughts, emotions, or ideas.’ Petitioners’ creation of custom-made calligraphy and paintings fit squarely within this definition,” the brief said.
Scruggs said: “As the briefs filed this week affirm, the government shouldn’t threaten artists with jail time and fines to force them to create art that violates their beliefs. Joanna and Breanna work with all people; they just don’t promote all messages. Creative professionals should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Instead, the government must protect the freedom of artists to choose which messages to express through their own creations.”
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
48 visitors
“Religious believers, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs, who argued the case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, said: “That’s what’s at stake in this case, and we hope that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision will protect artistic and religious freedom for everyone. The government must allow artists to make their own decisions about which messages they will promote. Joanna and Breanna are happy to design custom art for anyone; they simply object to being forced to pour their heart, soul, imagination, and talent into creating messages that violate their conscience.”
It was judges Lawrence Winthrop, Jennifer Campbell and Paul McMurdie on the Arizona Court of Appeals who allowed the city’s restrictions on speech.
The lower-court judges lashed out at the artists, charging that they “are not the first to attempt to use their religious beliefs to justify practices others consider overtly discriminatory.”
The eight states made clear their position: “The lower court arrived at this holding by concluding that this art is not protected speech when regulated by a public accommodation law that generally prescribes conduct. But art is a classic example of pure speech and pure speech cannot be made a public accommodation.”
The filing said the “concerns of compelled speech are further heightened here because the city’s ordinance would force petitioners to create art for a ceremony considered by them to have deep religious significance.”
That means Phoenix is violating the Arizona Free Exercise of Religion Act, they said.
The brief points out that the Arizona Constitution provides even greater protection for speech than does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”
please be sure to provide the link when quoting the work of others [SP]
Judicial activism. They will be overturned by actual judges.
If they are a business that serves the public then they are reqired by the 1964 Civil Rights Act to serve all people equally.
A religion has the right to pick and choose who they will marry but a public business can't refuse to serve people based on the owner's religious beliefs. Newman v. Piggy Park is the precedent on this issue because he tried to refuse to serve black/interracial people based on his religious beleifs that the races should not mix. The SCOTUS ruled unanimously agianst him.
"The Supreme Court’s majority opinion acknowledged those who believe marriage “is by its nature a racial-differentiated union of man and woman.”
“This view long has been held – and continues to be held – in good faith by reasonable and sincere people. … Many who deem interracial marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here,” the opinion stated."
"Eight states have filed a brief with the Arizona Supreme Court in support of two calligraphy artists who are challenging a Phoenix ordinance that would require them to violate their Christian faith and support interracial weddings."
Funny how this debate becomes so clear when you just swap out the new "sincere" prejudice with the old "sincere" prejudice. The same excuse of religious freedom was used back then to justify their opposition to interracial marriage, and not much has changed with those bitter bigots who demand their right to discriminate against law abiding, tax paying American citizens.
when will [deleted] learn that their oppressive religious fantasies are subordinate to the US Constitution
When will [deleted] stop stripping people of their human rights?
removed for context
imposing ignorant religious dogma on others isn't a human right, and never will be in a secular USA
If that's what you think is happening, then you should also ask when will conservatives stop trying to strip people of their rights too?
I see not call for any such statement. [deleted]
And yet, your statement has nothing to do with the topic.
So conservatives weren't trying to deny people their rights to abortion or same sex marriage?
That is a pure ad hom attack.
Who is imposing?
[deleted]
Refusing to be a part of that lifestyle I'm sorry to inform you is not discrimination.
Absolutely, no one is expecting you to partake! Not being part of the homosexual lifestyle (whatever that is) is absolutely not discrimination. Trying to deny them civil rights certainly is though.
removed for context
No one has a right to coerce me or another to produce anything for them in the “celebration” of such. Coercing freedom of speech or expression is not a public accommodation.
Many of them very much would and gleefully so if only they could. It’s the nature of what they are.
removed for context
.
No, it appeared to be more of a CoC violation than anything. Especially since nothing was offered to back up such an assertion. At the very least, it was a purely emotionally based retort.
it seems some thumpers need to examine their criteria for judgement. adultery, lying, and stealing are addressed in the 10 commandments, sodomy and abortion didn't make the list.
Oddly enough, neither does slavery. That really speaks about the supposed "morality" of god. And if you break it down, lying, adultery, and stealing are all just aspects of honesty (in those cases, one is being dishonest). God could have simply said "Thou shall be honest." George Carlin was really on to something there.
Okay you got your thumper reference in.
As for the rest WTF are you talking about?
What is the actual point are you trying to get across here?
Again who is oppressing you? and how?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[inflammatory content]
removed for context
Wrong and wrong. As usual!
Like I said, better work on your comprehension.
removed for context
Who cares? Not everyone believes in your god or follows your religion. So that statement is meaningless.
But not in the eyes of secular law, which your god/religion has no say or place!
Discrimination in a public business is not one of your religious rights. Don't open a business that serves the public if you are a religious bigot.
The only bigots are those who would coerce people to produce speech and expression/art that violates ones religious beliefs. There is no public accommodation that compels speech or expression that goes against belief. Only hate filled bigots would try to enslave people into coerced expressions diametrically opposed to their beliefs. The Phoenix bigots the bigot state appeals panel supported also violated free speech by making it against the law for artists to use their art to oppose same sex unions or state that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Phoenix is engaging in censorship.
Maybe the Klan has a lawyer who will defend his claim of a right to religious bigotry. Surely Fred Phelps knows a lawyer who might hate gays as much as he does.
So a wife giving her husband a BJ is "adultery"? Really?
Do Not Spread That Around !!
lol
( Ya know how bad rumors get started )
LOL
"The only bigots are those who would coerce people to produce sandwiches, an expression of food art, for those cursed "sons of Cain" at the lunch counter that violates ones religious beliefs."
Nope, the only bigots are those refusing to serve their fellow man because of their deep seated indoctrinated prejudices based on misinterpretations of a 2,000 year old compilation of over 60 different authors musings.
If you interfere with their rights then you are denying their rights as many so called christians try and do
Cornhusker show me where you are being coerced
Where have you been coereced
I was using the example of those forcibly refusing service to blacks at lunch counters in the past as there is zero difference between denying someone service based on their race and denying someone service based on their sexual orientation. I recognize I'm not being coerced today, though I was for many years. Organized religion, from childhood, threatened me with not just punishment in this life but claimed it could violently punish me in the next as well if I didn't behave and obey their every whim.
Coercion: noun - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
Now ignorant religious persons are claiming they're being "coerced" into doing the jobs they chose as their secular employment. They either don't understand the meaning of "coercion" or they're just too stupid to realize they can always choose to stop offering services to couples getting married if they have a problem with our marriage laws. No one is forcing them to bake cakes for any weddings or write the invitations in calligraphy, just if you say "I'll bake cakes for weddings" or "I'll make invitations for weddings" and then immediately say "But we don't serve your kind here!", do they really expect there to be no backlash for their blatant display of intolerance?
deleted
no link or citation for the quoted paragraph [SP]
(-no comment-
)
Conservatives clutched their pearls and make the same outrageous claims after interracial marriage bans were declared unconstitutional. You will likely never get over it but your children will and they will be ashamed of you because of your religious bigotry.
[deleted]
Christians have done just that throughout history.
If they weren't killing them when they refused to convert.
You mean Islam today?
[deleted]
Exactly.
you didn't know that Islam took a lesson from Christianity ?
from:
and that's just one example ( there are many many more if you care to research and learn a little history )
It continually amazes me to see self-proclaimed liberals who invest so much effort into denying others' human rights. The lack of any tolerance or empathy seems pathological in some folks.
What's amazing is your sweeping generalizations.
"sweeping generalizations"
I don't think you know what that phrase means...
I know exactly what it means and it applies to your statement.
Sorry, you are wrong. [Deleted]
If you are implying that I am a socialist, then it is you who is wrong!
Nah. [Deleted]
Your personal attack demonstrates how weak your argument really is.
No shit. Too bad they can't seem to keep their warped version of ancient mythology within church property lines and out of the public domain. I'm disappointed that the founders didn't think to empower private citizens with a remedy to address those that overstep the boundaries of the establishment clause in the attempt to spread unamerican and unconstitutional ideologies.
We are simply holding the courts to the Supreme Court standard.
when the U.S. Supreme Court created same-sex marriage, the ruling “promised that religious believers and organizations would remain secure in their constitutional right to believe, teach and live out their sincere religious convictions that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“The promise was unmistakable and unambiguous,” the filing said.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion acknowledged those who believe marriage “is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman.”
“This view long has been held – and continues to be held – in good faith by reasonable and sincere people. … Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here,” the opinion stated.
Religious believers, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs, who argued the case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, said: “That’s what’s at stake in this case, and we hope that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision will protect artistic and religious freedom for everyone. The government must allow artists to make their own decisions about which messages they will promote. Joanna and Breanna are happy to design custom art for anyone; they simply object to being forced to pour their heart, soul, imagination, and talent into creating messages that violate their conscience.”
Read more at
They didn't create anything. They simply said there was no justification to prohibit same sex marriage.
No, they said marriage is a fundamental right. Marriage was not legally defined as between man and woman only. And in this country, marriage is a legal contract. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial, but carries no legal weight.
people can have whatever opinion of SSM they want. But from a legal standpoint, their opinions are meaningless!
And no church or religious institution has ever been required or compelled to perform a marriage ceremony that didn't conform to its particular tenets.
My post quoting a portion of the seed literally quoted the Supreme Court in its ruling inventing the right to pervert the institution of marriage. The court not only promised protection of free exercise there of to churches but did so for all individuals with those beliefs in every aspect of our day to day lives. Florists, caterers, photographers, bakers, caligraphers, planners, etc are both individuals this protected and doubly so as they can not be compelled to create expression/art/ speech that violates their religious beliefs. It’s all part of the same ruling.
How was marriage "perverted" exactly?
Free exercise was never in jeopardy anyway.
They are also required to obey business and nondiscrimination laws too. Providing a product is not participating in anything.
[deleted]
[inflammatory content]
It's a crying shame that you aren't able to, prove any of these wild claims.
It's simple.
In YOUR Church or any Church need not marry a gay couple, you need not ATTEND a gay wedding if your Church did have one, you don't have to marry a gay man if you don't want to, and you sister doesn't have to marry gay if she don't want to. Your cleric can rant 24/7 about the evil gay invasion to your hearts content. They didn't even demand you turn gay, can't get fairer then that.
See? All still there, >EXCEPT< it lessens their ability to use religion to bully people, and I know how important that is to the religious bigots.
What good is having religion if you can't use it to beat people over the head with?
DID everybody know you can go in at almost any craft shop and buy a illustrated calligraphy book, a paint brush, and some paint? Just follow the pretty pictures. Oh, I see, the high art is in the ivory scrollwork on the sides. WOW, what talent.
I'm sure you believe that. Too bad that you're wrong. But you can believe whatever you want. Funny how god doesn't even mention homosexuality in the 10 commandments. Not that it actually matters in regards to our secular laws, including marriage laws and rights.
Cornhusker4Palin why not post the entire ruling instead of just the parts you like
Cornhusker4Palin Wrong again
No, its actually part of gods plan, and the test is how others respond, especially the evangelical 'values' crowd. Most of them are failing miserably.
Everybody is free to life according to their dictates until they impinge on another's rights. You go into business, you follow public laws that don't discriminate. Don't like it, don't go into business working with the public.
Until you can prove your God exists, not a single word of that statement has any value. Until we are all subjugated by your imagined deity, you can keep your interpreted opinions of what your deity demands and apply it all you want in your own life. No one is forcing you to be gay, to be friends with any gays, to go to gay weddings or officiate over a gay wedding. And it's pretty easy for any baker or calligrapher who doesn't want to do any work for a gay couple exercising their right to marry, just stop offering your services for any weddings to the general public.
"But, but, that's my primary jobs, working for weddings and advertising to the general public!"
Okay, then offer your services to every protected class, and most States now include "sexual orientation" in their protected classes. So just like I can't refuse service to a Christian regardless of how firmly I disagree with their life styles, because religion is one of those protected classes, bakers and calligraphers shouldn't be able to refuse to serve those in the LGTBQ community either. It's a pretty simple concept.
Um, no. Humans are not the only species on Earth that can be born homosexual.
If 'God' hates homosexuals, why does he create them?
Can you imagine the outrage if a Muslim opened a cake shop and refused to serve Christians based on religious beliefs?
The shit would REALLY hit the fan.
No it wouldn't, we would just go buy our cake somewhere else and revel in the fact that he just lost a lot of business when words get out.
Bullshit.
Right, that sound sooooo much like todays Christians... /s
Whites-only businesses said the same thing to black customers 50 years ago.
And isn't it the same thing that Liberals do when they call for boycotts of business's like Chick' fil A? Hobby Lobby? when you disagree with their position. Take your business elsewhere?
I mean are you really saying that what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander?
Or, IOW, is some bigotry good and some bad?
Obviously that is the position some are taking.
My question? who gets to decide?
They are not being denied equal service. The people who take part in boycotts are choosing to make others known of discriminatory policies of the business in question in the hopes that they will also spend their dollars elsewhere until the business changes its support of certain ideas.
Good for them, and thank you for the honesty.
The answer is obviously, YES.
The people who take part in boycotts are choosing to use discriminatory policies to make others aware of discriminatory policies of the business in question in the hopes that they will also spend their dollars elsewhere until the business changes its lack of support for the ideas they personally believe in.
Same thing, I just choose to express it without all the verbiage as a rationalizationed attempt to justify the choice....
Some bigotry is good when it supports the ideals I hold dear and bigotry that doesn't is bad....
Much more clear and concise.....
In my world view, two wrongs do not make a right.
What discriminatory policy is being implemented by the protesters during a boycott? Does a business or its management team have the right not to be criticized for their actions or speech? Nobody is forcing anyone to take part in a boycott, or to not spend their dollars there if you disagree with the boycott.
I was not aware that we were required to shop at certain businesses.
That's the point I made, but you seemed to reject!
So I make the point that choosing to "move on down the road to the next merchant" was the best choice, the you made the complaint that white people did that exact same thing to blacks in the 50's-60's so the ideal of moving on to the next merchant was a racist thing...
So I made the obvious connection to the same policies today.
Only it is liberals who are now executing the policy against those they dislike.....
The exact same thing.
But it is obvious you believe it is not when it supports your point of view....
So discrimination/bigotry is a good thing when using it supports you, and a bad thing when someone else does it to support something you disagree with.....
There is no way out of the conundrum you have clearly represented as one of your beliefs....
if what you are protesting against is wrong, than creating a protest in the same manner of what your protesting is wrong also.....
In essence you want to stop discrimination, stop calling for discrimination!
There is no rationalization that can make that point invalid.....
Nor make the discrimination/bigotry right.
The customer is the one who buys, the private person who chooses where to shop. The businesses follows the laws to serve the public. See the difference?
Morally, ethically and philosophically it's a distinction without a difference.
Your now interjecting law, (and necessarily the politics behind the law) into the conversation which changes the landscape considerably.....
When you do that you also interject intent into the mix and from there force.....
I believe in all people being equal in all things and reject any force being applied to anyone to conform to anyone's ideals of what is right/wrong...
holy matrimony does not equal marriage. You need to learn the differences between the two. You can have a holy matrimony ceremony without ever being legally married. you can have a legal marriage ceremony without ever having a holy matrimony ceremony. Your god need not be involved at all on any level for a legal Marriage - many non-religious people get married every day and don't have your god at all in their ceremonies, but they are still legally married.
Then you agree christian and political noses need to butt the hell out of women's healthcare decisions, from contraception to abortion.
So, conservatives cannot use the pronouns that are an accurate description. But you can use whatever names you want? [Deleted]
And that was supposed to be a coc against someone somewhere, somehow? It is exactly the Biblical position on the issue even though we accept them as people that way and don’t deny them basic civil right and allow them to adopt children through willing agencies. Otherwise, I fully believe, mean, and stand by every word I said and apologize to no one for saying it exactly as I did.
Actually not. I am not wrong in any way about what I said and believe.
He didn’t. He created Adam and Eve. Homosexuality is here strictly as a result of sin happening here and would if not for that not be here at all.
Gay people have been around as long as humans have.
If one wants to get technical about the bible and that the world was started with two people, then we are all constructs of incest.
Sin is only a tool to keep people in line. To keep people thinking/acting as some think they should.
Jesus supported slavery and taught how people were supposed to deal with their slaves, so is the 13th amendment a violation of your religious rights to own slaves?
Why would any rational person tolerate discrimination? Are the Klan a conservative Christian rights organization because they also cite their religious views to support racism and bigotry?
Unsurprisingly you miss the point. First, I have no religious beliefs. Second, I couldn't use any such beliefs to justify enslaving others. Just like the government can't compel speech from Christians. Try to follow the SCOTUS logic since it's the law of the land.
Follow your own advice.
Nobody is being enslaved in any way. The owner chose to open the business to sell their work and they are being paid a price for their work that they determined, so drop the religious hyperbole. The requirement that they serve all people equally has been federal law probably before this person was born and they were informed of this requirement when they received their business license, so go water the lawn with your religious crocodile tears.
Our religious rights are only the right to believe in god/s and the right to worship so their religious rights are not being violated in any way. Close the business and work for a church a or make it a "members only" business where they can pick and choose who they serve if they have a problem with the equal accommodation requirement.
Again, wrong. They cannot be compelled to create personalized art to express a view they do not want to. Period.
Just like they could not be compelled to serve black people?
The owner of Piggie Park BBQ, Maurice Bessinger, also claimed to be a BBQ artist when he refused to serve black and interracial customers. The SCOTUS didn't buy his racist nonsense.
The owner is not being asked to like or agree with his customer's views, but only to serve them equally.
so you are stating that a business owner who voluntarily opened a secular public business, knowingly and voluntarily subjected themselves to public anti-discrimination laws - shouldn't have to serve the public as they voluntarily decided to do ?
Not the same. These artists are not asking to be able to refuse service to or to not sell things already made or on display to people because they are gay. They are asking not to be coerced into creating new speech or expression to advance something that is diametrically opposed to their religious beliefs.
A baker, a florist, or a calligrapher would not have pre-made wedding cakes, floral bouquets or wedding invitations made up and stacked on a shelf because all 3 are custom ordered for a wedding. Wedding invitations are not like a box of 20 Christmas cards that you pick up at the Hallmark store.
I have asked you many times and yet you refer to answer me how is a wedding cake for a wedding of 2 people of the same gender different from one made for a heterosexual couple? If the cakes were side-by-side how would you tell them apart?
Wouldn't a transgendered wedding also be heterosexual, or did you not notice that?
It doesn’t matter. No one is refusing to sell anyone any already existing product. The issue is not coercing people to act, express, or speak in any form in such a way as to violate their religious beliefs and their free exercise there of. Just as the California judge in his ruling in a similar case in Bakersfield said. The Supreme Court said in its ruling inventing the right to same sex marriage that the full free exercise there of rights of all persons believing that marriage was meant only to be between one man and one woman would be respected and not disparaged here. We intend to hold them to that part of their ruling.
Tiered wedding cakes, bouquets and wedding invitations are all custom orders and therefore do not exist as a stock item on the shelves of those businesses. You can't walk in and buy a bridal bouquet or wedding invitations off the shelf. No bakery would have a tiered wedding cake on the shelf because they are 8 hours of work and have a very limited shelf life. It's a 1-2 day order to get a funeral bouquet so there is no way that a florist shop would have the necessary flowers for the bride, her attendants and the groom's boutonnieres, plus the flowers for the church and reception hall on the shelf waiting to be purchased by somebody who just happened to walk in at the local FTD. The very fact that LGBT couple aren't getting the same custom service that heterosexual couples would get if someone such as myself ordered these same items is an example of separate but unequal that the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Ed.
It appears obvious that you have never been married or that she and her friends/family handled all of these arrangements because you wouldn't make these silly claims if you were part of the wedding preparations.
Where did Justice Anthony Kennedy say this in the Obergfell v. Hodges decision? Part of your religious beliefs is not the right to deny others their equal secular or religious rights.
LGBT equal rights were no more invented in Obergfell than marriage rights for interracial couples were invented in Loving v. Virginia.
If I remember right what was quoted from the court in the seeded article and what was referenced by myself was written by the Chief Justice, Roberts, not Kennedy who isn’t there anymore. So Kavanaugh will be deciding how much of our religious liberty is preserved.
That would be the Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado decision and no Obergfell v. Hodges. Did you forget the last paragraph in that decision? The Justices made it very clear that LGBT people must receive equal treatment in public market accommodations.
You have the same religious rights to believe in a god/s and worship as you choose that you have always had. What you have never had, because it would be unequal and unconstitutional, is the right to deny others their equal secular and religious rights because of your religious beliefs. I have been trying to explain this very simple concept to you for many months if not years, but it's like talking to a wall because you are so driven by your emotions that you cannot understand this basic fact of law. Your religious beliefs do not supersede the rights of others and your rights are not being taken away because that is not possible.
No. The quote in the seeded article is clearly stated as coming from obergfell. We shall see what the current court says if this case reaches them. The Phoenix law will be tossed by the State Supreme Court because in addition to compelled coerced speech it also restricts and constrains free speech and free expression by prohibiting artists from using their talent to create messages saying marriage is for one man and one woman or that same sex marriage is morally wrong.
No right was invented. Marriage is not a right, it is a legal construct between two consenting adults. All that it did was give same sex couples the same protections that others enjoy.
It has in no way harmed you or anyone else.
People are free to believe any bullshit they want. One is not free to push those beliefs onto others.
Pat Sajack, Can I buy a comma or a period?
Denying people service in an open market place just because one thinks it is icky, is not a legal defence.
After years of hearing from the right wing that the justices should not legislate from the bench, that is exactly what some of them want done now.
If Heartland is claiming that this action is an established constitutional right to deny equal service to customers because of the owner's religious beliefs and it is being taken away then he will have no trouble providing multiple past instances of that action happening and the business not being hauled into court to answer for their discriminatory behavior?
The Supreme Court does not and cannot rule as a matter of law on religious morals because doing so would be a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. The fact that our laws are not based on the ideas in the Bible or any other religious tome should be obvious to most rational people.
Jefferson had a few choice words on this subject,
.
Nope. Still wrong. Maurice was required to serve all customers his base product. He could not be compelled to create a special BBQ for views he did not espouse. So very wrong...
Where are these base wedding cakes, floral wedding decorations and invitations that they sell to others? They must sell the very same quality product to all if they offer it to one person/couple, so their custom services must be available to all or it is unconstitutional.
He made the very same argument that he was a BBQ artist and that blacks and interracial people were inferior so he did not have to provide them with equal service. He was racist until the very end.
So black customers required a "special BBQ" to cook their barbecue? What "base product" are you describing? The uncooked ribs? He claimed the cooking process was where he got "artistic" thus making his cooked ribs "works of art". He was refusing to sell his cooked BBQ to blacks, just like bakers today are refusing to sell their baked wedding cakes to gay Americans. No "special" wedding cake needed. So far I haven't heard anyone give a good explanation of what difference there might be between a "heterosexual" wedding cake and a "gay" wedding cake.
Wow, Trump has done that quite often yet nothing out of the mouths of republicans rebukes him, amazing
Bullshit.
You mean like railing against who can marry who, what people do in their own bedrooms and denying women the right to make their own health care choices? Oh wait, that's the right that does that..
They are protecting their religious right to dictate the lives of everyone else via their beliefs.
Exactly. One of the biggest differences between the left and the right is that the left couldn't care less what people do as long as it's not hurting anyone or breaking the law...the right feels that if THEY don't like something, they will do everything they can to deny 'it' to everyone.
It's almost as if they're afraid their psychopathic sky fairy will punish them if others do something that their book of myths tells them that believers cannot do. Everyone must be as miserable as they are in this world according to conservative religious belief. Being happy is apparently a sin!
Lol. What bullshit. The left suppresses human rights willy nilly. You people cannot tolerate a diversity of opinion.
Examples?
"You people?" Well, when an opinion is wrong, why should it be tolerated?
why do the religious constantly feel the need to be excluded from secular laws just based on their beliefs of an unproven mystical entity ? do they think they are more "special" than everyone else ?
they can't accept the fact that their cherry picked version of the bible is rendered irrelevant by the Constitution
that's the primary motivation for their religious freedom bullshit. animal farm syndrome. some are more equal than others.
Naw, see they follow mans' laws in a sorta sloppy fashion to stay out trouble, but they really follow the secret godlaws, whatever they hear or think up on their own as a godlaw.
When following a godlaw, no other laws or rules apply. You can shoot somebody in the back in a Church, (as long as it's not yours) assault people, make threats, a bomb, arson, whatever they think they need to do, It's god's will and they should know, god told them himself in a dream just the other day.
What fun, hey?
On a slightly different tact, did I miss the mention of the gay people who wanted the skilled and so artist masterpiece? Did the dudes start this up BEFORE anybody asked for a banner?
Looks a lot like the states raising a fuss went LOOKING for some poor "abused Christian" they could "help" and Georgia must have left early and missed out to sign up with the others. Georgia Loves this kind of thing, they'll be terribly disappointed.
And as a bonus, the two artists get some real good free publicity with conservatives, and they probably can use the help.
I give this thing a B.S. rating of a full heaped cartload.
LOL
Bullseye.
I love that movie, and they nailed the Church and nuns perfectly, it gave this poor Catholic (reformed) boy the shivers.
[Deleted]
Now, my jury is still out on gods existence, but the jury is in on religions and the verdict is against them.
LOL
Damn, where's the spelling checker when you need it?
I did know people like that, I don't see them much anymore because oddly enough they couldn't shake the urge to talk religion and the arguments were circular and repetitious.
They can feel that way, I can feel this way, and from time to time you can arrange a "truce" where we talk about other things, many of which we CAN agree on. If you agree on a lot of other things religion and politics can just slide to the side. It doesn't always last, but it IS possible.
There is a lot more than just politics and Religion to talk about, and things to do.
Well, I admit it's not easy to find one that doesn't wanna jump right to religion or politics, 'tis a rare thing and I got lucky a time or two because I made a effort to.
A couple of times it fell down and we had to make a new truce or usually a parting of the ways.
"Eight states have filed a brief with the Arizona Supreme Court in support of two calligraphy artists who are challenging a Phoenix ordinance that would require them to violate their Christian faith and support same-sex weddings."
You know what I always think when I get a beautifully calligraphic wedding invitation? I think "Man, whoever did this calligraphy must really love Ben and Kathy and support their union, they must totally agree with their marriage and endorse it in every way even though their name is no where to be found because the invitation is all about Ben & Kathy and their upcoming union and its not about the anonymous calligrapher...". And when I go to said wedding and see their wedding cake I always think "My goodness, look at that amazing heterosexual cake, the baker must totally love and support Ben and Kathy's union and endorses their wedding even though I don't see the bakers name displayed anywhere either, all I see is Ben & Kathy's name everywhere since the wedding is about them and not some anonymous baker...".
So writing "Ben and Steve" on an invitation is no more an endorsement of a couples wedding than writing "Ben & Kathy", or even "Donald & Melania" since shouldn't a Christian calligrapher or cake artist be able to refuse service to adulterers if they can refuse service to gay Americans? If the baker knew Trump had cheated on and divorced two previous wives, couldn't he say his faith keeps him from working for someone who has so clearly violated Christian moral standards? Is that what we want? Where every open to the public business becomes a law unto themselves based on their individual religious beliefs instead of just serving the general public as they said they would on their business application?
Sadly, your opinion does not trump the artists'.
Using religion to spread hate. Pretty big departure from the teachings of Jesus.
[Deleted]
But your personal attack does?
Locked for RA review.
Questionable source.