Christian artists can’t be forced to make same-sex wedding invitations, Ariz. Supreme Court rules

Christian Post ^ | 09/17/2019 | Michael Gryboski

[Wuli]

Even Voltaire - “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” - would defend this decision.

[George Rand]

aint too bad lookin, either :)

[hal ogen]

Hahaha. Great.

[marktwain]

Discrimination is what people do all the time. It is the essence of decision making in human affairs.

The entire idea of making private discrimination illegal is a direct assault on freedom of association.

There should never be laws against private choices in who one may associate with.

Government, on the other hand, should not discriminate on anything but conduct.

Racial discrimination in the South, particularly, was propped up by governmental discrimination.

[Amendment10]

As state capitol, you would think that city government “leaders” in Phoenix would at least know the basics of state and federal constitutions, along with state laws, concerning this issue.

[Balding_Eagle]

Here in Colorado the baker is being sued for the third time, even though he won the two previous card battles.

[Gay State Conservative]

The next step will be to look for an Obola appointee in San Francisco. Same old song and dance!

[MortMan]

“Nor are appellants penalized for refusing to create wedding-related merchandise as long as they equally refuse similar services to opposite-sex couples.”

So, they aren't penalized for refusing to provide custom artwork for same-sex marriages, provided they do not provide custom artwork for any marriages. Such astounding logic!

[DoodleDawg]

However, the Arizona high court’s ruling was limited to just the “creation of custom wedding invitations,” with the ruling not allowing for “a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations.”

Why would one facet of the business operation be protected but not others? It's all art.

[DoodleDawg]

The next step will be to look for an Obola appointee in San Francisco. Same old song and dance!

Not unless they take it to federal court. The state Supreme Court was as high as they could go at this level.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not sure, but in context I think it means that they might have moral objections to some things opposite-sex couples might want to have cards designed for. Maybe their impending divorce?

I'd venture that they wouldn't design products for Satanist weddings, regardless of the "couple's" sexual orientation.

[Gay State Conservative]

I understand that. But when Maoists lose in state court they always see Federal court as “Round Two”.

[Gene Eric]

To Hell with the LGBT thugs

[i_robot73]

>
>>
However, the Arizona high court’s ruling was limited to just the “creation of custom wedding invitations,” with the ruling not allowing for “a blanket exemption from the Ordinance for all of Plaintiffs’ business operations.”
>>
Why would one facet of the business operation be protected but not others? It’s all art.
>

It’s so the govt-law-lawyer-money mill can keep going round & round & round &....

I mean, what would govt DO if courts, @ the min., reminded the other 2 branches of its LIMITED role(s) & authority??

[Vaduz]

Back to the closet where they belong.

[100American]

AJ Barr is taking steps to stop the Nationwide injunction craziness and take it back to the intent meaning if a Loony Judge in SF wants to ban it then the injunction has effect only in the area they are seated in, not the whole country

[shanover]

It is the foundation of who we are:no American can be forced to do anything against their will but liberals see things quite differently.

[teeman8r]

i wonder who wears the pants in that relationship...

i know i know they are not the same sex couple...

sarc

[Albion Wilde]

bump