This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

creslaw · Sep 5, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
Religious beliefs should have no bearing on civil law.

The right to practice one's religion should be protected by civil law.

FireDragon76 · Sep 5, 2019

creslaw said:
The right to practice one's religion should be protected by civil law.

Your right to practice your religious beliefs ends where my rights begin. The US is made up of more than just Christian fundamentalists.

creslaw · Sep 5, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
Your right to practice your religious beliefs ends where my rights begin. The US is made up of more than just Christian fundamentalists.

Your right to practice your beliefs ends where my rights begin. The US is made up of more than just LGBT activists
.
It is the LGBT community that wants to compel others to comply with their ideology. Christians are not trying to force anyone to do anything.

FireDragon76 · Sep 5, 2019

creslaw said:
Your right to practice your beliefs ends where my rights begin. The US is made up of more than just LGBT activists
.
It is the LGBT community that wants to compel others to comply with their ideology. Christians are not trying to force anyone to do anything.

You are discounting the privileges that conservative Christians experience every day. Everybody is free to open a business, but they are not free to violate other peoples rights. Gay people have a right to goods and services just as other people do.

creslaw · Sep 5, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
You are discounting the privileges that conservative Christians experience every day. Everybody is free to open a business, but they are not free to violate other peoples rights. Gay people have a right to goods and services just as other people do.

Christian business owners welcome homosexual customers, even those owners who decline to be involved in same sex weddings.
In many cases owners have the right to decline to be involved in specific activities. Same sex weddings should be no different but the LGBT community wants special rights that infringe on the right to practice one's religion, and actually force people to behave in a way that violates their beliefs, and punish them when they do not.

FireDragon76 · Sep 5, 2019

creslaw said:
Christian business owners welcome homosexual customers, even those owners who decline to be involved in same sex weddings.
In many cases owners have the right to decline to be involved in specific activities. Same sex weddings should be no different but the LGBT community wants special rights that infringe on the right to practice one's religion, and actually force people to behave in a way that violates their beliefs, and punish them when they do not.

How is this person's religious freedom being infringed? They were just asked to make a T-shirt.

creslaw · Sep 5, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
How is this person's religious freedom being infringed? They were just asked to make a T-shirt.

Making a specific product for a specific event when that event blasphemes the beliefs of the owner is most certainly an infringement of religious freedom.
Respecting the right of a person not to be involved in an event, IOW the right to do nothing, is beyond the understanding of LGBT activists, so instead they use every means they can to punish that business and obliterate the rights of others.

FireDragon76 · Sep 5, 2019

creslaw said:
Making a specific product for a specific event when that event blasphemes the beliefs of the owner is most certainly an infringement of religious freedom.
Respecting the right of a person not to be involved in an event, IOW the right to do nothing, is beyond the understanding of LGBT activists, so instead they use every means they can to punish that business and obliterate the rights of others.

I think it has more to do with respecting the dignity of LGBT people, than a desire to punish groups for not conforming to an ideology.

hedrick · Sep 5, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
How is this person's religious freedom being infringed? They were just asked to make a T-shirt.

Yes, but the tee shirt has a message on it. While there's not a final resolution on that case, I think being forced to put on a message you disagree with will be considered compelled speech.

hedrick · Sep 5, 2019

john23237 said:
Which

Which begs the question, if it were an interracial couple and the business objected to such based on religious or other reasons could they refuse based on "compelled speech" ?

It depends upon how speech is involved in the case. If the transaction required them to express a message that approves interracial marriage, and they thought such a thing was wrong, likely it would be found unconstitutional. There was recently such as case, but I'm too lazy to look up the reference. Free speech isn't meaningful unless people can use it for things we consider offensive.

There are still segments of our community that would welcome a return to pre-Civil Rights days. We're moving in that direction. Personally, I think the compelled speech argument is right, as long as it's a pretty explicit communication. If it extends to any service supporting an event that you don't like, I think it's a mistake. But remember, if we return to the 1950's, it's not just going to affect gay issues, but race and nationality. If Republican control continues, I think you can also expect to see reconsideration of policies for people with handicaps.

JackRT · Sep 5, 2019

creslaw said:
On appeal, the 8th Circuit said that Telescope’s videos are the Larsens’s personal speech. The Larsens’s exercise significant editorial discretion over its media productions and promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage, the panel said.

So they are allowed to "promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage" by attacking the sanctity of someone else's marriage?

MournfulWatcher · Sep 5, 2019

JackRT said:
So they are allowed to "promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage" by attacking the sanctity of someone else's marriage?

Declining to participate in another person's marriage is not "attacking" it, and they should not be legally obligated to promote all kinds of marriages and not just the ones they think are right.

HannahT · Sep 5, 2019

JackRT said:
So they are allowed to "promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage" by attacking the sanctity of someone else's marriage?

Why would it be considering attacking anything? Business, organizations and social groups all have their messages, taglines and mission statements that they promote. It's part of it. That doesn't mean they are attacking anyone.

People claiming that I view things this way, and if you don't view it this way you are attacking me is a rather arrogant and narcissistic way of viewing the world. No one is that special.

If compelled speech is your thing? It's not as compassionate as you think it is. No one should be forced to promote anything that is against their personal belief systems. In a nutshell if compelled speech was law? That would be item that would be attacking something - not the other way around.

hedrick · Sep 5, 2019

JackRT said:
So they are allowed to "promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage" by attacking the sanctity of someone else's marriage?

Of course. In the US that qualifies as free speech. Canada seems to have more restrictions than we do.

Queller · Sep 10, 2019

SavedByGrace3 said:
The dissenting opinion perfectly describes the fundamental difference between the thinking of the left and the thinking of the right. It essentially states that we have to regard "sexual preferences" as additional sex (genders.)

"In dissent, Judge Jane Kelly warned that the majority’s thinking could be used to evade civil rights laws that bar race and sex discrimination. Kelly is considered a contender for a Supreme Court appointment under a Democratic president.

“Its logic would apply with equal force to any business that desires to treat customers differently based on any protected characteristic, including sex, race, religion, or disability,” Kelly wrote. “In this country’s long and difficult journey to combat all forms of discrimination, the court’s ruling represents a major step backward.”

There are two genders, male and female. "Lesbian" is not a gender, or "sex." It is an act between two people of the same gender - female. No new genders...

Male and female is exactly what discrimination on the basis of sex is talking about. Discriminating against someone because they are heterosexual or homosexual is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Queller · Sep 10, 2019

redleghunter said:
Heading to lunch. Going to an SDA deli and going to order a ham and bacon sandwich. Then going to a Muslim tattoo shop and demanding I get a "Zion rules" tattoo. Hopefully I make it back alive.

Does the SDA deli sell ham or bacon to anyone? If not, then there's no discrimination taking place and you are ignorant of the law.

AACJ · Sep 10, 2019

redleghunter said:
A federal appeals court has ruled for the first time that religious believers can invoke the First Amendment when declining to participate in same-sex weddings.

The case involves a Christian couple named Carl and Angel Larsen, who operate a media production company.

The Larsens want to expand their business to include weddings, but a Minnesota state law requires that they serve both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

A federal appeals court has revived a legal challenge to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), ruling for the first time that religious business owners can invoke free speech rights when refusing to service a same-sex wedding.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Carl and Angel Larsen in Telescope Media Group v Lucero, a Christian couple who operate a video production company called Telescope Media Group. The Larsens want to expand their business to include weddings, but state officials say the MHRA requires the Larsens to accommodate both same-sex and opposite sex partners.

“Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways,” Judge David Stras wrote for a divided three-judge panel. “First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech.”

The decision is particularly significant in view of the Supreme Court’s 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, which involved a Christian baker who declined to make custom weddings cakes for same-sex marriages. Though the baker prevailed in that dispute, the high court did not decide whether religious conservatives can use the First Amendment to skirt anti-gay discrimination laws.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the baker in the Masterpiece case, also represents the Larsens. ADF is a public interest law practice that litigates around religious liberty issues.

The Larsens sued state officials in December 2016, saying the MHRA prevented them from operating their business consistent with their religious beliefs. U.S. District Judge John Tunheim sided with the state and dismissed their lawsuit in September 2017.

On appeal, the 8th Circuit said that Telescope’s videos are the Larsens’s personal speech. The Larsens’s exercise significant editorial discretion over its media productions and promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage, the panel said.

As such, the majority said the MHRA forces the Larsens to defy their religious beliefs and create speech that is favorable to same-sex marriage. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus decision, the 8th Circuit said that “compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable,” is a core First Amendment violation. In Janus, the high court said that unions could not collect mandatory dues from non-members for First Amendment reasons.

Elsewhere in the decision, Stras wrote that the MHRA regulates speech based on content, another violation. The majority said the safer course for the Larsens would be to avoid the wedding business altogether, a type of “compelled self-censorship” that violates free speech rights.

The 8th Circuit also allowed the Larsens’s to proceed with their claim that the MHRA interferes with their right to practice religion. Stras said the couple is in a unique “hybrid situation” in which they can use their free exercise concerns to “reinforce their free speech claim.”

Judge Bobby Shepard joined Stras’s opinion. President Donald Trump included Stras on his list of prospective Supreme Court nominees.

More at link:

This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop - Conservative Daily News

Good. Another victory. Let this be a lesson to those Christians who actually believe that society must continue to deteriorate morally prior to the Rapture event. We had the Colorado Baker victory, now this, and of course we have an administration supporting Christian businesses. Praise God!

And there are Christians who actually want liberals in office, even knowing how they vote in these matters.

We have to also pray for the Colorado baker as he is being targeted again, the last time I heard.

We must also pray for the judges in these cases, as we know how their enemies will potentially try to go after them.

AACJ · Sep 10, 2019

Queller said:
Does the SDA deli sell ham or bacon to anyone? If not, then there's no discrimination taking place and you are ignorant of the law.

Not sure exactly how "sex" is defined in the relevant Minnesota law, but "sex" is no more sexual orientation than sexual orientation is "sex."

Liberals have tried to claim an equivalency between the two in US Title 7.

redleghunter · Sep 10, 2019

Queller said:
Does the SDA deli sell ham or bacon to anyone? If not, then there's no discrimination taking place and you are ignorant of the law.

So like the business in question, before opening up to the market they asked the question and got the legal review. They are being very forthcoming they are not serving "ham" in advance.

AACJ · Sep 10, 2019

hedrick said:
... But remember, if we return to the 1950's, it's not just going to affect gay issues, but race and nationality. If Republican control continues, I think you can also expect to see reconsideration of policies for people with handicaps.

Equating homosexual practice with race, in terms of discrimination, is no more than moral grandstanding, and frankly it does not work anymore.

The other major concern here is product usage, people. Shall we expect a private business owner to rent a truck out to someone knowing they intend to use it to run down a crowd? Product usage, folks. Start reminding people of this. This is a major component of this whole matter of rights of business owners vs supposed rights of a particular category of people. We must argue intelligently covering all possible and pertinent issues, even if such issues are not officially mentioned in a legal case. All such components will affect the minds of judges and voters. Remember the importance of reducing arguments to possible absurd results.

Serious consideration must be given for private business owners refusing a service or product to someone if they believe their service or product is going to be used for evil or to glorify sin, such as creating a particular cake that will in turn be used to glorify sin. The racial element of civil rights law is not effected and can and will be preserved.

A major problem here is the misinterpretation of US Title VII. Of course the word "sex" there did not include the idea sexual orientation.

You Christians who actually care about putting the right people in office had better get yourselves to the voting booths. Call your friends and family and get them out to vote. Please.

This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

In the beginning was the Word.

Newbie

Senior Veteran

I'm where?

I'm where?

Please Pray

Please Pray

Thank You Jesus!

Please Pray

Similar threads