Posted on 10/28/2017 4:11:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
“The only other options is to start going after Muslim/Jewish concerns in the same way.”
Good point - “equal protection” and all that...
Your assertion/conjecture are absolutely true.
That’s not the point.
The point is to force everyone to “offer a pinch of incense to Caesar”.
They should print the invitations. Instead of the text the queers want, they should print the text of the First Amendment ... word for word.
And the Thirteenth Amendment against involuntary servitude.
Outsourcing would probably work actually. Just like out sourcing some complex part to a more qualified subcontractor. You probably should caveat in your fine print that “some or all aspects of any given job may be outsourced to affiliates better able to accommodate certain requests.”
Those posts are by crypto-liberal libertarians who are atheists.
Their brand of libertarianism means no religion in the public square vs any/all
Well, some of their posts are so liberal, I wonder what they’re doing on a conservative site. Just here as an irritant, I suppose, thinking they’re adding “balance”. We get more than enough of that, elsewhere, IMHO.
I was going to say something to that effect. Why haven’t they gone after muslim businesses? Because they know they won’t do it and do not want that highlighted. Knowing the courts love the lgbtq??? and will always rule against Christians, they choose their targets wisely.
She will be answering to the Ultimate Judge one day. Woe to her.
We must continue to fight back against these activist judges.
JoMa
Would the judge use the law to force a dress designer to design a dress for Mrs. Trump?
This statement is amazingly stupid and self-contradictory - this fact was apparently lost on them. Discriminating against people and forcing them to participate in an event against their will is a victory for "nondiscrimination." No, my dear, it is called tyranny.
Homo-fascists strike again.
Now...let’s not get carried away...progressivism is a one way street donchaknow?
Oh...and...the wrong ones will cut their heads off.
Yep
That’s funny- nightclubs and bars are allowed to bar members of the public and even toss them out using bouncers. And they are allowed to - required to- discriminate based on age.
Health insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on all kinds of reasons.
Theme parks are allowed to discriminate based on height.
Airlines based on weight.
Beauty contests based on beauty.
The military likewise discriminates for various reasons.
Universities discriminate against Asians.
In this case we have government discriminating against people based on their religion and government establishing religion of its own [liberal secularism] that it forces onto others by placing itself as the ultimate authority on what the religious beliefs and practices of business owners shall be:
“She said, “the printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs’ independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives.”
Here the judge has left the confines of law to enter the confines of theology. She is, by asserting her own beliefs about what does and does not constitute a religion, establishing the Church of Judge Karen Mullins. She thinks religion is just going to church, singing hymns, and expressing beliefs, but not in actually PRACTICING those beliefs.
She is asserting that a religion may not define as sin anything the state or mere judge defines as permissible and the faithful must perform any act the state permits merely because another person requests it, putting the faith or lack thereof of a third party ahead of the faith of the business owner. Now, it’s one thing for a government to prohibit a religious practice deemed harmful to other individual’s inalienable rights [those rights upon which government is not allowed to infringe ] but quite another for a government to require the religious to commit a sin by active participation in or by facilitating others in sinning so others’ feelings won’t be hurt.
The judge is also failing to recognize that in some protestant churches, whatever vocation we find ourselves in is not merely a job but an act of faith done foremost for the glory of God. Some may, with clean consciences, decide that by doing excellent work for everyone they are witnessing, but the consciences of others just as cleanly may lead them to conclude they would be aiding others in sin and thus they refuse this work. The judge is putting her conscience ahead of all others.
She is forcing a provider of nonessential services to abandon their faith and join her newly fabricated cult or face persecution. She’s also defining what does not constitute a sin by declaring that anything government declares is legal cannot be a sin.
And Halal or Kosher butchers must abandon their practices upon demand so as to not offend secular customers...
An unjust law is no law at all -MLK
Wouldn’t the cards all say repent on them if they made them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.