It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 01:11 AM

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

They knew the law was in place when they set up a business there. They could have chosen to go somewhere else (like move their shop just outside the city limits. Lots of people do that.)

It could be argued that they decided to target the city since this is just a theoretical lawsuit.

Gods laws trump the laws of men. We all have a choice as to which we will follow.
Romans 1:27
Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching

Genesis 19:5
They called out to Lot, saying, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have relations with them!"

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 01:58 AM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Now, have I infringed on his freedom? Nope.

Your solution doesn't scale well. Because if we go back several decades or move countries - where LGBT people were/are less accepted - then suddenly you could have a situation where LGBT people cannot even get a wedding cake, simply because religious people would hold so much more power over them. Therefore, all you are advocating for is a dynamic and power structure that by its very nature subjugates LGBT people, all in the name of "Freedom". Since this subjugates LGBT people, is it really freedom? Is it really just? The answer is no.

Many religious people want to deny the right of marriage to LGBT people. Many LGBT people want to get married. Those are two different things and I always place love and freedom to get married, over the right of religious people to discriminate because of their so called "god".

You know what would be discrimination? If people were stopping Christians from getting married or getting wedding cakes. That would be evil and disgusting.

Bake the #ing wedding cake, or use your "freedom" to find a new job.
edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 02:22 AM
a reply to: C0bzz

Religion doesn't cut it with God. It is a relationship. There is only one marriage that lasts eternal, and it isn't human to human.

You are neither male or female. You are a spiritual being. Your body, is either male or female, unless you were born with both types of sexual organs.

You are absolutely correct in your statement, LOVE WILL WIN!

God is Love

We are to love one another regardless.
We are not to disobey God

He is the good Father. That's what He is. We are loved by Him. That's what we are
edit on 24-12-2018 by visitedbythem because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 02:35 AM

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

The public, the customer, does have a say.

I guess I will have to be in disagreement with many I usually agree with.

C’est la via.

does have a say in what exactly, in the way someone runs their business? mate, you're out of your mind. did you even think for a second about the implications of the kind of thinking you're trying to push?

tell you what, take all those lemmings from the glorious la-la-land of america and drop them in some imaginary communist utopia. tell them they can have anything, everything, for free (equality all the way)... as long as they were treating everyone equally during their lives so far. you know what would happen? most would die from poverty, despite the superabundance of wealth.

you want a bunch of hypocrites to decide how someone runs their business? i'm with TheRedneck on this one. as a business owner, the only reasonable reply to them is GTFO.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 02:56 AM
a reply to: C0bzz

Sorry, this is just incorrect on a thousand levels.

First you start off arguing from a frame of reference of decades ago (what does that have to do with today?). Then you move on to a hypothetical where everyone is christian and is unwilling to bake a cake (despite the evidence of many Christians being willing to bake cakes for these people). Then you move on to this false idea that if people in a free society are free to not like you, then it's not really freedom, which is hilarious. Then you move on to people subjugating homosexuals? LOL. You've set up this whole fake world as a hypothetical and it's so far divorced from any reality in the last 30 years (and probably ever, look at the ancient societies the LGBT's like to tout as so tolerant of that lifestyle).

Marriage isn't a right, no one has ever said it is (If it were, you would have no need to petition the government for permission). Under a perverse ruling it was found to be unequal treatment, not a right. The right is to equal treatment under the law and somehow all men being able to marry women and all women being able to marry men was unequal treatment. The entire idea of denying people "marriage" under the law is not based on some bigotry or hatred of them but rather the good of society and not changing the meaning of a word to accommodate relationships (contracts) that the word does not accommodate. The vast majority have always been willing to accommodate those relationships under another word. A word that would confer the same legal benefits.

No one stopped them from getting married nor from getting a wedding cake. They simply hunted down someone so they could sue them because the couple were bigoted and intolerant of the religious views of the baker.
edit on 24-12-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:05 AM

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

It's about not wanting to participate in what they feel is sacrilege.

I've heard the argument before.

Where does that line stop?

Indeed. Can a restaurant refuse to serve a gay couple, can a paramedic refuse to offer aid to a homosexual, can a landowner refuse to rent to a homosexual, can a hotel turn away a gay couple?

Under the auspice of religious freedom can a parent sell their child into service, force a daughter to marry a person of their choosing. Where does that line stop?

that line should be at the point at which health and/or life is in danger.

so no, paramedic has no say. it's his damn duty to save lifes, regardless of the person in question.

if it comes to food though, you would have to be obviously starved. any other items or services - you can get them elsewhere (or do it yourself).

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:15 AM
a reply to: visitedbythem

A Bible thumper that likes to constantly post pictures of their weapons, really there is no red flags being raised at all, sincerely...

edit on 24-12-2018 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:16 AM
a reply to: jedi_hamster

Lost in all of this is the fact that the gay couple is not being refused service in general. They're being refused the artistic ability of a person to create something specifically for their event. They're not being refused service because of who they are, they are being refused service for a certain event. If I wanted to celebrate the rape and torture of the rawandan genocide should they have to draw it for me? Or how about if I want to celebrate my pornographic debut with a giant phallic cake, should they have to create it for me? Or maybe I want to celebrate the FGM of my muslim daughters, should they have to photograph it for me? Should a muslim cake artist be forced to bake me a cake with the inscription "F- allah and all muslims"?

Notice how they never go to a muslim bakery for their lawsuits (there have been many videos of people going into muslim bakeries asking for a wedding cake for a gay wedding and being denied service). It's an attack on christians and christian values, nothing more, nothing less.

There's no reason for a paramedic to deny service to an LGBT person. It has nothing to do with their transaction. There's no reason for a restaurant to deny service either. The left wants to, yet again, conflate things to make them confusing. It's simple, don't deny service to anyone based on who they are or their beliefs, but don't expect people to violate their beliefs to accommodate yours either.
edit on 24-12-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:35 AM

originally posted by: C0bzz
I say:

- Banning those (Conservatives) who spread hate and intolerance is "serving the public"
- Serving LGBT people at bakeries and restaurants is "serving the public".
- Serving conservatives at bakeries and restaurants is "serving the public".

and, assuming i understand the way you've worded this, correctly, i say: double standards.

for me it looks like this:
- youtube can ban anyone they want
- bakery can kick out anyone they want
- restaurant can kick out anyone they want

in case of youtube, and google in general, i would say it's a little bit more complicated, because you trust them with your data, so you would want to get said data back - but they can still screw you over if they chose so, if their TOS allows it. there's also an issue of the legality of the content being uploaded, but that's entirely another thing. they have the same right to remove illegal content like they have the right to remove legal content "just because". one day they may ban hateful conservatives, next day they may ban cheerful gays, and both cases would be fair.

basically, anyone can get banned/kicked out/refused service by any private entity, regardless if they're conservative, liberal, gay, black or a battlecruiser with tits - because private entity should have the right to refuse. anyone who claims that one of those cases is fair, but some other is not, is a hypocrite.

there's only one entity that should have the obligation to serve everyone - it's called the government. obviously, that includes all the subsidiaries of said government, like public healthcare.
edit on 24/12/2018 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:50 AM
a reply to: Dfairlite

you're focusing on the details that, in general, don't matter.

private company should have the right to refuse, period. without giving any explanation.

it doesn't matter wether you think they're right or wrong. it's about their right to be wrong. "just because" is a valid reason, because it's an expression of their freedom.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:57 AM
a reply to: DBCowboy

Arizona has been taken over by liberals,ever since that Joe Arpaio has left office,Az is doing a spiral down the toilet

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 04:22 AM
a reply to: jedi_hamster

Those details are quite important in our republic. They're the difference between free speech and threats of physical violence with intent. The difference between seditious libel and sedition. The difference between owning a handgun and a rocket launcher. We don't live in a free society and haven't for about 50 years (at least since the war on poverty and the war on drugs began).

While you can continue to argue for why we should go back to a free society I'll continue to try to hold the ground we still have.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 04:49 AM
a reply to: Dfairlite

no. we're talking about company's right to refuse. it isn't about threats, nor about gun laws.

it's about the availability of service, which should be decided by the business owner and the business owner alone, period.

otherwise, the business owner becomes a slave of the mob, and the beloved freedom you've got there (or one of the small pieces of it left) goes out of the window.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 04:55 AM
a reply to: jedi_hamster

It's already gone as you imagine it. It left in the 60's during the civil rights movement. So like I said, you can keep arguing about why we should go back to a free society and I'll argue for keeping the ground we still have.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:04 AM
a reply to: Dfairlite

the way i see it, your nation isn't holding the ground. it's digging deeper.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:06 AM
a reply to: jedi_hamster

If by digging deeper you mean losing ground, you're right. Been pushing away from a free society for quite some time now.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 08:44 AM

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ketsuko

It's a bit hard to call yourself a practicing and observant Christian when you engage in sex outside marriage for money with multiple partners for the purpose of allowing others to watch it ...

Welcome to reality... I know what practicing and observant Christians do...they do the same damn things that nonpracticing Christians

Such a cynic! And because some are hypocrites, we all are and therefore, none of us should have the right to actually practice our faith?

Thanks but no thanks. I live my faith. I truly do. Not saying I never sin. We all do, but I don't flagrantly defy the rules and then claim I am infinitely forgiven like so many.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 08:48 AM
a reply to: Byrd

Did they? These types of anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws are relatively new. Some of the businesses being taken to court over them have been there far longer than the actual laws.

Apparently in this case, they filed suit pre-emptively to try to avoid trouble.

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 09:02 AM
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Oh well then Hillary haters are like Hillary... Too funny

Yeah but which Hillary Clone would that be - the one that ran out of eveready energizer battery and lurched into the black minibus at the 911 memorial or the one that coughed up the green loogie

Using your analogy right now I'm the 911 clone

Tomorrow after many XMas cigs and alcohol i'll be the Loogie Clone

Next week after New Years partying I''ll be any of these Hillarys'

posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 09:14 AM
a reply to: ignorant_ape

you missed this bit?

it forces the butcher to become spiritually unclean even if you can't see why he cannot kill the pig in that manner and say the prayers over it.

Maybe you should look up Kosher and Halal laws before twaddling off.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in