Arizona Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech and Religious Freedom - LOL
Sep 17, 2019 07:57:57 #
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-free-speech-religious-freedom/
A recent court decision in Arizona is being celebrated as a lofty victory for freedom. You would think a national holiday is in order. Of course I agree completely with the opinion that a business should NOT be forced to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs but what I find more compelling about this story in particular is how it exhibits the absurdity of the right-wing culture war. In this case, the fact that the victory is against an enemy that doesn't even exist.
I read about this in the National Review, probably the most famous source of right-wing propaganda. The article emphasizes the righteous victory of the ruling that the two artists and owners of a business "Brush & Nib Studios" should not be forced to provide services that conflict with their believes, such as designing wedding invitations for same-sex weddings. You can almost hear the celebratory fireworks as you read the article. But I also noticed a complete omission of any detail about the case itself other than the odd reference to the business owners as plaintiffs, not defendants.
As far as we know, the business owners were not forced the provide any such service to anyone and from a constitutional standpoint, no such offense is legally permissible anyway. It appears that this is a case where a business and/or it's legal representation was attacking a city ordinance that prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against people of protected status -- which includes sexual orientation.
Well, designing wedding invitations is NOT a public accommodation. This is what so many people fail to realize. Constitutional law only applies to government, hence the term "public accommodation". So even if a same-sex couple WAS to demand service from "Brush & Nib Studios", which apparently never happened, preexisting laws against discrimination wouldn't apply and and it would be a simple open and shut case. The fact is private business has every right to refuse service and they always have.
But that isn't what this is really about. This is about the process of gathering legal precedence to help support the future defenders of discriminatory behavior. In this case, the Alliance for Freedom, representing the plaintiff, created such a precedence literally out of thin air. They saw an anti-discriminatory law that no one was accused of breaking and a couple of up-tight Christian business owners that were not being forced to do anything they didn't want to do, implied a non-existent conflict and made a case out of it.
Fascinating what these little weasels do.
A recent court decision in Arizona is being celebrated as a lofty victory for freedom. You would think a national holiday is in order. Of course I agree completely with the opinion that a business should NOT be forced to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs but what I find more compelling about this story in particular is how it exhibits the absurdity of the right-wing culture war. In this case, the fact that the victory is against an enemy that doesn't even exist.
I read about this in the National Review, probably the most famous source of right-wing propaganda. The article emphasizes the righteous victory of the ruling that the two artists and owners of a business "Brush & Nib Studios" should not be forced to provide services that conflict with their believes, such as designing wedding invitations for same-sex weddings. You can almost hear the celebratory fireworks as you read the article. But I also noticed a complete omission of any detail about the case itself other than the odd reference to the business owners as plaintiffs, not defendants.
As far as we know, the business owners were not forced the provide any such service to anyone and from a constitutional standpoint, no such offense is legally permissible anyway. It appears that this is a case where a business and/or it's legal representation was attacking a city ordinance that prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against people of protected status -- which includes sexual orientation.
Well, designing wedding invitations is NOT a public accommodation. This is what so many people fail to realize. Constitutional law only applies to government, hence the term "public accommodation". So even if a same-sex couple WAS to demand service from "Brush & Nib Studios", which apparently never happened, preexisting laws against discrimination wouldn't apply and and it would be a simple open and shut case. The fact is private business has every right to refuse service and they always have.
But that isn't what this is really about. This is about the process of gathering legal precedence to help support the future defenders of discriminatory behavior. In this case, the Alliance for Freedom, representing the plaintiff, created such a precedence literally out of thin air. They saw an anti-discriminatory law that no one was accused of breaking and a couple of up-tight Christian business owners that were not being forced to do anything they didn't want to do, implied a non-existent conflict and made a case out of it.
Fascinating what these little weasels do.
Sep 17, 2019 09:08:09 #
padremike
Loc: Phenix City, Al
straightUp wrote:
Interesting how you've set yourself and your opinion above the courts. Riddle me this - which came first the Freedom of Religion or discrimination law? In your opinion which of the two carries the most weight? I do not know hardly anything regarding this case but for the court to give an opinion it would obviously have to have a "legitimate" complaint. Lest we not forget the militant, force feeding behavior of the LGBT etc agenda. It is allowed, as you presented, to disassociate oneself from acceptance of that agenda.
Sep 17, 2019 10:44:56 #
Sep 17, 2019 11:53:43 #
padremike wrote:
Interesting how you've set yourself and your opini... (show quote)
This is what happens when one holds God in contempt.
Sep 17, 2019 22:36:33 #
padremike wrote:
Interesting how you've set yourself and your opinion above the courts.
Hello... mike. ;)
So first off, I'm not even sure HOW anyone would set himself above the courts. As for my opinion, that's on even ground. My argument is mostly a matter of logical deduction.
padremike wrote:
Riddle me this - which came first the Freedom of Religion or discrimination law?
Riddle me this - which came first the Freedom of Religion or discrimination law?
Is that a rhetorical question or do you seriously think anyone would know that?
padremike wrote:
In your opinion which of the two carries the most weight?
In your opinion which of the two carries the most weight?
In my opinion, that's a vague question. Many of the laws against discrimination are passed in order to protect the freedoms of the First Amendment, the freedom of religion being one of them.
...So, I'm getting a sense that you didn't actually read my post... Or maybe you just forgot where I this... "Of course I agree completely with the opinion that a business should NOT be forced to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs..."
So, obviously I am not defending an agenda to force people to violate their own religion, but thanks for the comic strip idea. lol
The point I was actually making starts with the charges being (as far as I know) entirely baseless. If there WAS some basis to the charges it wasn't mentioned in the article, which is kind of odd when you think about it... unless the point is to direct attention to the surrounding culture war - which is right where YOU went.
I only suggested the entire lawsuit was a scam for legal precedence because I couldn't think of any other logical reason for taking a baseless charge all the way to the states supreme court. The fact is, legal decisions become legal precedence even if such decisions are unnecessary. And the more precedence for allowing discrimination there is, the easier it will be for legal teams in the future to defend acts of discrimination.
padremike wrote:
I do not know hardly anything regarding this case but for the court to give an opinion it would obviously have to have a "legitimate" complaint.
I do not know hardly anything regarding this case but for the court to give an opinion it would obviously have to have a "legitimate" complaint.
So then you never heard of politics.
padremike wrote:
Lest we not forget the militant, force feeding behavior of the LGBT etc agenda.
Lest we not forget the militant, force feeding behavior of the LGBT etc agenda.
huh... I guess I don't see much challenge there... Then again, I've never been force-fed anything by a militant lesbian before, what was it like?
padremike wrote:
It is allowed, as you presented, to disassociate oneself from acceptance of that agenda.
It is allowed, as you presented, to disassociate oneself from acceptance of that agenda.
Yeah, I tried but I just can't understand what you're trying to say here. sorry.
Sep 17, 2019 22:43:26 #
Rose42 wrote:
This is what happens when one holds God in contempt.
Wow... holding God in contempt... seriously, where do you guys come up with this crap? You seem to have a much lower opinion of God than I do... I can't imagine God being so submissive.
So I can pretty much guess no one is going to challenge my suggestion. Good - that's another one I can pass on to my op-ed bucket. ;)
Sep 17, 2019 23:11:03 #
straightUp wrote:
Wow... holding God in contempt... seriously, where do you guys come up with this crap? You seem to have a much lower opinion of God than I do... I can't imagine God being so submissive.
Who said anything about God being submissive? Far from it. And it is your contempt I was remarking on.
Quote:
So I can pretty much guess no one is going to challenge my suggestion. Good - that's another one I can pass on to my op-ed bucket. ;)
I don’t think anyone bothered to read up on the case. Lol.
Sep 18, 2019 07:06:54 #
straightUp wrote:
I saw this earlier and it's very good.
Sep 18, 2019 07:07:50 #
Rose42 wrote:
Who said anything about God being submissive? Far from it. And it is your contempt I was remarking on.
Oh, so when you say "when one holds God in contempt." what you REALLY mean is "when one IS in contempt". Sorry, I have a habit of reading the words rather than guessing what people really mean.
Rose42 wrote:
I don’t think anyone bothered to read up on the case. Lol.
Yeah - "ha, ha, ha."
So, I guess you're saying the evidence I presented can't be disputed on logic alone and that one would have to study up on the case if there is any hope of finding a counter-argument. That's seem fair enough.
Of course that didn't stop some folks from reacting with irrelevant opinions and unsubstantiated claims about my relationship with God. I'm guessing for them, it's more important to attack people than it is to understand what they are saying.
Sep 18, 2019 07:08:54 #
Sep 18, 2019 07:28:59 #
Sep 18, 2019 08:26:56 #
straightUp wrote:
Yeah - "ha, ha, ha."
So, I guess you're saying the evidence I presented can't be disputed on logic alone and that one would have to study up on the case if there is any hope of finding a counter-argument. That's seem fair enough.
Of course that didn't stop some folks from reacting with irrelevant opinions and unsubstantiated claims about my relationship with God. I'm guessing for them, it's more important to attack people than it is to understand what they are saying.
So, I guess you're saying the evidence I presented can't be disputed on logic alone and that one would have to study up on the case if there is any hope of finding a counter-argument. That's seem fair enough.
Of course that didn't stop some folks from reacting with irrelevant opinions and unsubstantiated claims about my relationship with God. I'm guessing for them, it's more important to attack people than it is to understand what they are saying.
No thats not what I said. And you have a habit of making veiled insults in your posts.
Your relationship with God is relevent because it colors your opinions and worldview.
Sep 18, 2019 15:37:43 #
straightUp wrote:
U are in denial! There are a lot of people being harassed and sued by the gay lobby!! We will overcome!!
Sep 18, 2019 21:33:09 #
Rose42 wrote:
No thats not what I said. And you have a habit of making veiled insults in your posts.
If your insulted that's on you. I am critical of specific social patterns into which some people here on OPP fit but I don't make undue assumptions about any of them. Yes, they are often offended and no, I don't care.
Rose42 wrote:
Your relationship with God is relevent because it colors your opinions and worldview.
Your relationship with God is relevent because it colors your opinions and worldview.
Yes, it does.
Sep 18, 2019 21:38:43 #
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
U are in denial! There are a lot of people being harassed and sued by the gay lobby!! We will overcome!!
I wasn't talking about them - I was talking about myself. I'm not going to speak for people I don't even know. I have not personally been bitch-slapped by a lesbian, or anything similar, that's honesty, not denial.
As for all those other cry-babies, shaking their fists and swearing that they will overcome the gay people... man the hell up.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.