Posted on 02/26/2014 6:50:47 PM PST by lbryce
You apparently do not understand what freedom is, troll.
The only problem is that they felt it necessary to explain why. A simple “We are booked up through the next month” would have sufficed.
...except you’re assuming that an agreement hadn’t already been reached before the details regarding the cake became known...it quite reasonably could have occurred that the baker had affirmed that they could bake a cake on a specific date, and then found out the lesbians planned on feeding it to each other at their wedding; then ‘oh gee, will you look at that, we’re booked through next month’ is not only untrue, but as lame as it gets...
about the same as the ones that voted for 1062 and asked Brewer to veto it getting a spine.
"If not, what about generating a proposition to amend the AZ constitution?"
It depends on the people of AZ, but 1062 was an amendment.
Constitutional amendments passed by the legislature may have to signed by the Governor but voter-initiated propositions to amend the AZ constitution should not need her approval.
Well then, God bless the people of AZ with spine enough to get up and do something!
Case law already exists where an unmarried couple wanted to rent a room together. The rentor declined on religious grounds. Courts made them rent to anyway.
...whatever your strong point is, it’s clearly not drawing analogies...you cite an instance, without providing context, which found for a couple in need of the basic service of shelter...was it because they didn’t have the wherewithal to find or afford other such shelter? You don’t provide that...maybe there were no other options for them...
...having a cake baked is not in any way shape or form a basic human need...and ample opportunity existed for the lesbians to get the cake elsewhere...your analogy twists the concept of business, and its subtleties and nuances into a nonsensical one size fits all...putting a government in any and all instances in the position of final arbiter...true enough in communist regimes, but not here in the US...your logic is getting weaker as you continue to explain your position, and the lameness of your analogical proof only further cements the shallowness of your argument...
...you need to cite precedence where a government inserted itself into a business transaction regarding mundane services such as cake baking and established the principle that the vendor need be forced into servicing the buyer...and that the buyer actually won a litigation based on that principle...then your comments can stand...
Two male figures on a cake in tuxedos holding hands doesn't?
Why shouldn’t a Christian baker bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?
Because they are being forced to participate in an event they find sinful.
Or do you think those with pacifistic religious beliefs should have been forced into the Vietnam war though the draft? Do you think the Amish should be forced to participate in the ACA? Do you think pro-lifers operating pharmacies should be forced to sell abortion pills?
And in Colorado where this case happened (it did not occur in Arizona) the wording in that state’s constitution includes the terminology of sexual orientation.
I am not the one who wrote the laws. Colorado has done some things I think are absolutely nuts. I don’t live there. For those who do, change the law.
The baker in COLORADO is NOT free to refuse service for ANY reason
Then explain to me fair housing laws, or equal opportunity laws, or other non discrimination laws.
I did not say that I liked these things. I said the law requires it. If you don’t like it change the laws. We do not live in a free market society, haven’t for over a century. Government regulations control most of business. Change the laws. Don’t gripe at me that the laws exist
He or she certainly should be if the reason is providing the service violate his or her religious beliefs.
It is violation of the First Amendment to compel a citizen to take an action that violates his or her religious beliefs.
No law trumps the First Amendment.
I know what freedom is. I also know what responsibility is.
I find it interesting that people want to scream states rights until a state passes something they don’t like (which is what happened with COLORADO baker that every one keeps referencing). The Colorado state constitution includes sexual orientation in its verbiage. I didn’t put that there the citizens did.
You do realize that the muslims will use a law such as this to not pick people up at that air port, to not sell you the bacon you want, to discriminate against Christians and other non believers ? It happens already with out this type of legal ‘safe guard’. You cannot have it both ways. You want to protect “Christian’ view points but not those of others. A Constitutional republic can not stand doing that.
We are NOT a theocracy. Freedom is NOT license.
And the easiest thing in the world is to call someone a troll with whom you disagree. that doesn’t make me one
And good luck litigating that with the current courts
We will see if your analysis is correct when the Holy Hobby case decision comes back
No law trumps the First Amendment. What about that don't you understand?
You do realize that the muslims will use a law such as this to not pick people up at that air port, to not sell you the bacon you want, to discriminate against Christians and other non believers ?
So what? It's called freedom. You don't even understand the concept.
It sounds like that is something you're happy about.
We can have mass civil disobedience or an armed resistance if necessary to stop the government from forcing citizens to engage in behavior that violates their religious beliefs. Our Founders likely would have chose the latter.
Apparently, you want as secular theocracy or communist state if you agree the government should be forcing PRIVATE business owners to engage in acts that violate their religion.
Holy Hobby? You mean Hobby Lobby?
In 80% of the cases, the contraceptive mandate has been overturned by courts.
Are you tell us you're okay with the mandate?
Maybe they dont want the Rats turning out if they get it on the ballot. But I thought Brewer would want the Rats to turn out to protect Brewercare.
Brewer was also weak on protecting Russell Pearce from recall.
Immigration isn’t a conservative issue or social issue. People seem to think Brewer is a conservative because she signed a popular bill amongst everyone except La Raza and the Chamber of Commerce.
Pete Wilson was a huge RINO. The Sb1070 was an easy bill to sign. The question was if Arizona wants more or less people killed by illegal aliens each year.
you are delusional
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.