It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Okay kids, do Christian artists HAVE to draw same-sex material

page: 10
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: JAGStorm
Lol sin sounds so last year.


And it's your right to believe that. I'm not trying to stop you. But neither should any of you be trying to stop me from continuing on in my beliefs because you think they're passe.




Good thing we have government that can dictate our freedoms to us....


You don't have the freedom to infringe on anothers right.




posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your still dancing around it.

Right now " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the law of the land. Any law that interferes with that is Unconstitutional on its face is it not?




AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


People have the right to buy or not buy an artists art. They do not have the right to force an artist to create the art they want on demand. Imagine what that would open the doors too. This is on some very dangerous ground. What if the demand was for them to create pornographic art on demand from a customer who wants it.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: JAGStorm
Lol sin sounds so last year.


And it's your right to believe that. I'm not trying to stop you. But neither should any of you be trying to stop me from continuing on in my beliefs because you think they're passe.




Good thing we have government that can dictate our freedoms to us....


You don't have the freedom to infringe on anothers right.


No you don't, including the right to the free exorcise of your religion.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: JAGStorm
Lol sin sounds so last year.


And it's your right to believe that. I'm not trying to stop you. But neither should any of you be trying to stop me from continuing on in my beliefs because you think they're passe.




Good thing we have government that can dictate our freedoms to us....


You don't have the freedom to infringe on anothers right.


I wonder where you can find the right to force me to commit sacrilege in the constitution. Doesn't that infringe on my right to freely exercise my religion?



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Personally I think government should get back in its box.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: JAGStorm
Lol sin sounds so last year.


And it's your right to believe that. I'm not trying to stop you. But neither should any of you be trying to stop me from continuing on in my beliefs because you think they're passe.




Good thing we have government that can dictate our freedoms to us....


You don't have the freedom to infringe on anothers right.




Yet in this case you asking for government to intervene and force people to go against their beliefs, that doesn't sound like freedom to me.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
And I can mock your beliefs.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I think discriminating based on race, religion, sexual preference etc. is wrong.


There are laws in place to protect people from discrimination.

I think these laws are good.



I can't make it any plainer than that.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Isn't hypocrisy a sacrilege?

For example, do these women have the same feelings of sacrilege writing wedding invitations for a couple that have been divorced in the past as they do with having to write two women's names, or two men's names on an invitation?

Christians are told to counsel and discipline members of their church, but I don't recall any scripture that requires Christians, or Jews, to discipline or reject those not of their faith for non-compliance with their faith. Jesus told Christians to leave town if their message wasn't welcome.

I sincerely doubt that a 1st century Christian, or Jew, butcher would refuse to sell a lamb to a Roman family for their daughter's Pagan wedding. There is no biblical precident for such a refusal.




edit on 23-12-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
100% sure these women were targeted specifically because they were christian, the gay couple looked up themselves a christian outfit or were turned on to it by some other left wing group.

to be targeted for destruction



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


I think discriminating based on race, religion, sexual preference etc. is wrong.


There are laws in place to protect people from discrimination.

I think these laws are good.



I can't make it any plainer than that.


I agree. But in a sense, isn't this socialism?

Trump has also removed laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity.
edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: snarfbot


These women were not targeted. They initiated a pre-emptive law suit against the state law, that makes it illegal for businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation. No gay couple has been rejected and subsequently filed suit against their business. As a matter of fact, the business has shops on Etsy and Facebook, and have signed non discrimination contracts with them.



edit on 23-12-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

oh well thats good to hear, i hope they win



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

Good Christ you damned commie!

Is everything socialism to you?



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I wouldn't want anything from someone that was forced to do it but that's like refusing to service someone at Mc'd because of your religious beliefs.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: DBCowboy

" or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Then why would you believe the free exercise of religious beliefs is any less sacrosanct than the freedom of speech?

Since you dodged the question.


Here in the city (a few decades ago) we confronted this very issue and it was decided that people could believe as they wished but that there were restrictions on where and how they practiced their religion. The police were ordered to enforce this, over the protestations of the congregants. They continued to worship in the same place, and it took a lot of negotiating with pastors to finally get them to worship somewhere else.

And the lawyers declared all this legal.

So, freedom of speech and freedom of religion aren't equal.

Oh. The faithful were members of Santaria and their worship service included sacrificing chickens in the local park (completely consistent with what is done in the religion.) They were told that chicken sacrifice was okay but only in certain locations and that they could not leave these offerings in the park or other public spaces and that there were restrictions on doing so at their homes.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: snarfbot
100% sure these women were targeted specifically because they were christian, the gay couple looked up themselves a christian outfit or were turned on to it by some other left wing group.

to be targeted for destruction


No, there was no suit against them. There was no controversy about their services.

THEY brought the lawsuit saying that the city was infringing on their rights (and in an added stroke of hypocrisy, they have web pages on Facebook and Etsy... and both places say you can't discriminate for sexual orientation.)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko


Once upon a time, when people saw that someone was a Christian, they respected that that person would not likely do certain things. Nowadays, there is no respect for the practices and beliefs of others. A Christian isn't likely going to cater to a porn shoot, for example.

As a Christian, I can eat pork, but I'm not going to go to a Muslim run place of business (or a Jewish one) and expect them to make pork available to me. Would you?


Man it is so situational, I can give examples on either side as to right or wrong... BTW porn stars can not be Christian? lol



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

These women were not targeted. They initiated a pre-emptive law suit against the state law, that makes it illegal for businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation. No gay couple has been rejected and subsequently filed suit against their business. As a matter of fact, the business has shops on Etsy and Facebook, and have signed non discrimination contracts with them.


So what is the point here? Lets take sexuality and religion out of it all, the women do not want to be forced by law to create something they might find offensive.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did the divorced couple come to them and say, "We need invitations for our second wedding. I am marrying this man after my divorce"? My instinct would be to say no. The couple likely came in and said, "We need invitations for a wedding."

Do you think they asked after it? You cannot tell much about the wedding just by looking at the couple ... unless you are looking at two men or two women. Heck if the baker or the florist only ever dealt with one half of the couple and nothing specific was needed for a cake or flowers, the person would have no way of knowing too. Not all wedding cakes need a little person cake topper. In fact, most of the nicer ones don't have them.

And selling a lamb is not creating a piece of artwork that celebrates something.

What this is about is less about the customers being gay and more about the Christian not wanting to participate personally in a ceremony they feel mocks God.







 
27
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join