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: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The question still remains: Whose weight holds more weight in a business situation, those providing a service, or those seeking service?


It is a difficult question with ramifications on both sides, for the entire country.

Would it be ok, if say a photographer, who is Jewish, to deny taking photo's of a Muslim wedding? Would it be ok for a surgeon, who is a Lutheran, to refuse to do a life saving surgery on say a patient who is Catholic? Why is it ok for people to condemn a muslim taxi driver to refuse to take a fare with a service dog, yet in this case, we would say the poor women are unfairly treated? Both are claiming their actions were due to religion.




posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

"The question still remains: Whose weight holds more weight in a business situation, those providing a service, or those seeking service?"


Supply and demand will always be the colour of the day, there is your weight right there, no matter the morality, which is simply beside the point.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I know,but some people tend to be more protected than others.
This world seems to be going off the deep end.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Seems to be???

Looks to me to be already 40ft deep in the ocean with a few rocks in the pocket and going down fast.

We are not thinking about jumping from the proverbial cliff, the truth is we jumped some time ago.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: ketsuko

The question still remains: Whose weight holds more weight in a business situation, those providing a service, or those seeking service?



I think the real question is who's rights would be infringed here. I heard about the right of religion, but never heard about the right of service.




Would it be ok, if say a photographer, who is Jewish, to deny taking photo's of a Muslim wedding? Would it be ok for a surgeon, who is a Lutheran, to refuse to do a life saving surgery on say a patient who is Catholic? Why is it ok for people to condemn a muslim taxi driver to refuse to take a fare with a service dog, yet in this case, we would say the poor women are unfairly treated? Both are claiming their actions were due to religion.


Yes, those cases with be ok with me as long as these are private people who deny me service. It would not be ok if these are governmental services who are denied from the same reasons.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
This is wrong...how are the gays supposed to feel naughty and needed day to day punishment in Satans sex dungeon by making homosexuality normal?


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



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


But soooooo many leftists here on ATS were good with restaurants not serving conservatives, soooo many are good with Twitter/YouTube/Facebook censoring, I just wonder if the hypocrites will show up and "reee" all over my thread?

I feel like I'm beginning to get under your skin. This is good. Anyway, my response:

SO many conservatives here were okay with bakeries not serving LGBT people, because freedom. But then against Youtube banning some conservatives, because freedom. Which one is it? This is your choice because you guys love to talk about freedom. Is it just whichever freedom which supports your conservative ideology of screwing over others?

For the record,

In the first case we have:

- A small number of conservatives were spreading hate and intolerance on platforms which have guidelines prohibiting this sort of thing. Often this is aimed at LGBT people. They got banned.

In the second case we have:

- LGBT people were just trying to get married and wanted a wedding cake.

In the third case we have:

- Conservatives trying to eat at a restaurant.

The first is different from the latter two. Which are serving the public?

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".

This is really simple, I don't understand why people have issues with it.


But there's been a change. Ever since social media platforms have been censoring conservative voices, ever since restaurants have been kicking out conservatives, the tone has changed to, "It's a private business, they can do whatever they want".


There's also been cases of conservatives telling people that it's okay to not serve LGBT at bakeries because it's a private business. Then trying to sue Youtube because certain conservatives broke the rules and got banned. Here's an example:




Then this happened:

Judge Tosses PragerU Lawsuit Accusing Google, YouTube of Censoring Conservative Content

Who is PragerU?


PragerU, originally Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing perspective

en.wikipedia.org...


You guys are hypocrites.

"Rule 6: Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" - Jordan Peterson

(I hate Jordan Peterson, but he's a conservative, so I thought you might listen to him).
edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Allaroundyou

So if a business didn’t want to serve thems colored folk, you’d support their decision.


Yes. See how long their business lasts in this current climate. Right to refuse service should be for every business. People should have the right to make or break their business with their own decisions and policies.


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



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha


See how long their business lasts in this current climate


And what if we lived in a time where this wasn't the case? Would you still support the right of a business to not serve "colored folk" several decades ago? Or is it only okay now because in some respects society is more equal?
edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Get to the point then. What DO you think we are talking about.


I'm just reading the title that suggests a gay couple wanted gay associated material created for their cards and you are suggesting the cards were just pretty things on the generic side.

I don't think that if the gay couple walked in and picked out some cards with flowers or some other generic thing no one would give it a second thought. If though they demanded something long the line depleting homosexuality that might be crossing the lines for a person who doesn't agree with it.




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



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha


See how long their business lasts in this current climate


And what if we lived in a time where this wasn't the case? Would you still support the right of a business to not serve "colored folk" several decades ago? Or is it only okay now because in some respects society is more equal?


It was hurting their business then to refuse paying customers and it'll hurt it now.

If you're an artist or a baker and don't want to do a particular project then you shouldn't be forced to. That's just dumb.

There are other bakers and artists that will be happy to serve a paying customer.



On a side note, there's a prank call show I listen to where he calls up artists and bakeries asking for outrageous decorations or orders that are inappropriate. He gets refused all the time.

Why should someone be forced to work on something they think is inappropriate? Answer this question.




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



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
In my mind, this subject is a bit more nuanced than usually presented.

On one hand, in a truly free market, the market would decide who sinks or swims. The issue is when it becomes widespread and overtakes a community. I don't see much if an issue with some random, single business doing something like this when there a plethora of other options. Punishing it because of "what might be" also leaves a bit of a sour taste.. That said, I have major, major issues with even the idea of a community ostracizing a group of people, much less the actuality of it happening.

We don't actually have a free market either, so there's that too.

Regardless, I do feel like there is a distinction between denying someone service based solely on who they are versus denying them service solely on a case-by-case basis determined by the circumstances of that single transaction.

Meaning, I see a difference between a baker denying service to the LGBT community as a whole and them denying service only when it involves something like a wedding.

In the former, service is still provided for anything from birthday cakes to general celebrations, etc. I'm not at all convinced that this is directly equal to a total refusal to do business with a given community across the board.

Though I personally disagree, getting a vastly diverse population to thrive and prosper together is a tricky thing.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



I'm just reading the title that suggests a gay couple wanted gay associated material created for their cards and you are suggesting the cards were just pretty things on the generic side.


Right. Titles can be deceiving. Byrd explained it, on page 5:


originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: DBCowboy

Two Female Christian Artists Could Be JAILED For Not Creating Art For Same-Sex Weddings

Two female Christian artists in Arizona who refuse to make custom-art for same sex weddings could actually be jailed for sticking to their religious beliefs.

Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski , who own Brush & Nib Studio, make custom artwork using painting, calligraphy and handlettering. They filed suit against the city of Phoenix, as a Phoenix city ordinance threatens them with up to six months and/or a fine of $2,500 each day they refuse to make the artwork. First the women filed in state court to overturn the ordinance, but lost in a court of appeals, prompting them to appeal to the state’s Supreme Court, which said on November 20 it would hear the case.

www.dailywire.com...

Tch. Five pages and nobody looked up additional information?

The statue was there BEFORE the two set up their business. They have not actually been approached to do anything by any gay person.


The lawsuit claimed that the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity, was a theoretical violation of the business owner's’ religious freedom.

Nobody's threatening them with jail time.

Lawsuits like this are unique, because the plaintiffs did not deny service to a same-sex couple, but instead sought the legal protection to theoretically do so in the future.

So they haven't been sued, but they want to sue others so they can discriminate in case someone who they consider to be Very Icky wants some art.

The judge denied their claim. But it's not like they couldn't run their business from elsewhere. They have pages on both Facebook and Etsy -- and those of you into heavy bits of irony will notice that both of these websites have anti-discrimination polices that Brush & Nib HAD to agree to in order to put their pages on those sites.

So that inconsistency indicates that they've got another motive with this lawsuit and that they don't actually have a problem with "no discrimination" policies.

Source: (one of many sources)





I don't think that if the gay couple walked in and picked out some cards with flowers or some other generic thing no one would give it a second thought. If though they demanded something long the line depleting homosexuality that might be crossing the lines for a person who doesn't agree with it.


If a gay couple walked into their shop and saw signs promoting Christian marriage as sacred, and there were obvious religious symbols depicted in their work, the gay couple might not feel so blindsided and insulted by the shop owner's rejection.
edit on 23-12-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

If a gay couple walked into their shop and saw signs promoting Christian marriage as sacred, and there were obvious religious symbols depicted in their work, the gay couple might not feel so blindsided and insulted by the show owner's rejection.


So at the end of the day there is nothing here and it isn't just a about gays. The two women do not want to be forced by law to create something that they see as inappropriate.

Damn there are so many IFs in it I had to read it twice.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Does the taxi driver work for himself? Or does he work for someone else?

Do those women work for themselves? Or do they work for someone else?

If I own the business (or taxi) in question, then it's my business and should be my rules to a certain extent. Let the market decide if I sink or swim.

If I put my own capital into a bar and decide my only clientele is going to be nude transgender dwarves, then it should be my prerogative to turn down the Pope himself ... unless he is a nude transgender dwarf, and then it could be said I might actually be discriminating on the basis of his religion.

And if people think that if a valid business model, I will be rewarded with a thriving business. All the nude transgender dwarves will come and fill out my clientele ... and my cash drawer. I will stay in business.

But if I don't happen to be either a nudist, or transgender, or a dwarf, or some combination of the above, what does it profit me to get angry at the above business owner for making the decision to serve a clientele I don't fit in with? Why do I think it's incumbent upon me to force that business owner to serve people who don't fit his or her business model? If I'm not a dwarf, nothing in that place will fit my body frame. If I'm not a nudist, the comfort level of everyone involved drops. If I'm not trans, we have the same issue.

No one wins and no one is happy. The business my lose customers because one person cannot accept that perhaps sometimes, it's best to find somewhere else rather than forcing your way where you aren't wanted.

Look at what happened at a gym facility that was female only ... they got complaints from a transperson and had to admit that person because of the corporate policy. The problem was that because of the female only policy, they were a popular place for members of the Orthodox Jewish, fundamental Christian, and Muslim communities because those modest women could feel safe. The owner of the gym in question tried to point that out to the overall corporate, but because of employer mandate that I site above, they lost, so the transperson was in, and that facility lost well over half its clientele ... for one paying customer.

This is why I say in your original post I replied to that you started out spot on, but you rode off the rails when you placed all the onus on religion. Respect is a two way street.
edit on 23-12-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DBCowboy

Normally I agree with ya but not here man.

And here is why. If a company in any industry decides to not serve a certain type of customer for whatever reason. Then that is a right they have. Just like if a restaurant doesn’t want to serve someone of any color then go for it. Let them lose business idc. It is not a good business strategy and I won’t use said business from now on. Just like how I don’t use Facebook or shop at Walmart.
But that is obviously just my opinion.


I may have misread, but I believe that's what DB said...

As it should be.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

If a gay couple walked into their shop and saw signs promoting Christian marriage as sacred, and there were obvious religious symbols depicted in their work, the gay couple might not feel so blindsided and insulted by the show owner's rejection.


So at the end of the day there is nothing here and it isn't just a about gays. The two women do not want to be forced by law to create something that they see as inappropriate.

Damn there are so many IFs in it I had to read it twice.


Yup. They haven't had any gay customers show up and ask for anything. And on their ETSY shop and Facebook page they don't ask for verification that customers are straight, etc (although those two places also have anti-discrimination policies.)

You'd think that if they were firm in their beliefs that they wouldn't open shops on sites like that and would instead do business from their own website and promote their business in church bulletins and the like.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


A person is a Christian 24/7 and yes, even at work or in running a business. This prohibits the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

You are opposed to the First Amendment? All of it, or just part of it? I seem to remember you standing quite strongly for freedom of speech, so why the disconnect?



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

You'd think that if they were firm in their beliefs that they wouldn't open shops on sites like that and would instead do business from their own website and promote their business in church bulletins and the like.



I agree, if you want to limit yourself, then you should limit access too.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: DBCowboy




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


A person is a Christian 24/7 and yes, even at work or in running a business. This prohibits the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

You are opposed to the First Amendment? All of it, or just part of it? I seem to remember you standing quite strongly for freedom of speech, so why the disconnect?


Not at all!

I am a very adamant defender of the 1st.


What bothers me in the incongruity we see it society.

It's triggers my OCD when I see it.
edit on 23-12-2018 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)







 
27
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join