Georgia Religious Liberty Bill

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Yes anyone hired to actually stand there and take pictures or serve food or preside over a wedding are physically present and part of the event. Why are we even arguing this? It's retarded.

 

Now if you want to argue doing so is not a violation of the 1st Amendment fine, that can be argued. But you're going down some dumb rabbit hole trying to say a person who is in attendance of a ceremony is the EXACT SAME THING as a person who sells a product in their own store. It's not the same thing, there is an obvious difference. The most glaring is the fact they are actually physically in attendance.

 

Sheesh.

 

Being present at the event and being part of the event are two different things. Its stupid to argue...but you keep putting it in every focking post (like you did with the dead horse of radical islamic terrorism...then complained that it was still being talked about).

 

Im arguing that being at an event is not a violation of anyone's Christian religion at this point.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

Because, to this point, Christians are the people bringing up such things and laws...or getting arrested for not issuing marriage licenses.

 

There have been plenty of 1st Amendment and Religious Liberty court cases in the past in multiple states in relation to all sorts of religions.

[crackattack 513]

 

Yes anyone hired to actually stand there and take pictures or serve food or preside over a wedding are physically present and part of the event. Why are we even arguing this? It's retarded.

 

Now if you want to argue doing so is not a violation of the 1st Amendment fine, that can be argued. But you're going down some dumb rabbit hole trying to say a person who is in attendance of a ceremony is the EXACT SAME THING as a person who sells a product in their own store. It's not the same thing, there is an obvious difference. The most glaring is the fact they are actually physically in attendance.

 

Sheesh.

Being in attendance as a employee is completely different then being in attendance as a party member. One chooses to be there in support of the marriage and couple, the other is there as a non biased employee hired to provide a service and nothing more.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

Being in attendance as a employee is completely different then being in attendance as a party member. One chooses to be there in support of the marriage and couple, the other is there as a non biased employee hired to provide a service and nothing more.

 

Nope, you are part of the event and will be going to hell like all the rest of them. KSB has spoketh!

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

There have been plenty of 1st Amendment and Religious Liberty court cases in the past in multiple states in relation to all sorts of religions.

 

The majority by Christians though...correct? At least recently when it comes to people complaining about the gheys.

And it would be fairto say that this current law is most likely brought about by Christians?

[crackattack 513]

 

Nope, you are part of the event and will be going to hell like all the rest of them. KSB has spoketh!

I just don't get it. Being religious and attending these events don't make you gay. It doesn't mean you support their decision. It doesn't change their faith. It doesn't stop them from praying. It doesn't stop them from attending church. It does nothing to the persons individual faith. I just don't get it.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

Nope, you are part of the event and will be going to hell like all the rest of them. KSB has spoketh!

 

I am not a religious person. I am looking at this of how I think the Bill of Rights would and should be applied and how a court would probably rule.

 

We are trying to balance the rights of one person (religion) with the rights of another person. It's interesting to me where and how they draw that line and at what point one right supersedes the other and in what instance that happens.

 

Being tolerant means you are tolerant of all people, not just the one's you personally agree with. Just because some of you think religion is a hoax doesn't mean the 1st Amendment does not apply.

[crackattack 513]

 

I am not a religious person. I am looking at this of how I think the Bill of Rights would and should be applied and how a court would probably rule.

 

We are trying to balance the rights one person (religion) with the rights of another person. It's interesting to me where and how they draw that line and at what point one right supersedes the other and in what instance that happens.

 

Being tolerant means you are tolerant of all people, not just the one's you personally agree with. Just because some of you think religion is a hoax doesn't mean the 1st Amendment does not apply.

But allowing religious folks to play by a different set of rules is divisive and extremely intolerant. Then the whole slippery slope argument starts. If allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs, what sin is next in the bible? Or Islamic beliefs, or Catholic etc etc.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I just don't get it. Being religious and attending these events don't make you gay.

 

Of course not, but its not about that. It's.....should a government (the state) force a person to attend an event that can be argued is a ceremony that is against their religion?

 

It's a good question, one that I find interesting and is no where near as cut and dry as I think some think it is.

 

It shouldn't matter your personal opinions on religion or ghey marriage. It's a question of how the bill of rights should be applied in this scenario and who's 'rights' take precedent.

[crackattack 513]

 

Of course not, but its not about that. It's.....should a government (the state) force a person to attend an event that can be argued is a ceremony that is against their religion?

 

It's a good question, one that I find interesting and is no where near as cut and dry as I think some think it is.

 

It shouldn't matter your personal opinions on religion or ghey marriage. It's a question of how the bill of rights should be applied in this scenario.

Yes. If they provide a service to the public, then it should be applied to the entire public. If said event is deemed legal, then yes.

[cyclone24 1,814]

 

 

Yes anyone hired to actually stand there and take pictures or serve food or preside over a wedding are physically present and part of the event. Why are we even arguing this? It's retarded.

 

Now if you want to argue doing so is not a violation of the 1st Amendment fine, that can be argued. But you're going down some dumb rabbit hole trying to say a person who is in attendance of a ceremony is the EXACT SAME THING as a person who sells a product in their own store. It's not the same thing, there is an obvious difference. The most glaring is the fact they are actually physically in attendance.

 

Sheesh. [/quote

 

Exactly. It's pretty simple if you offer a public service to the public you have to serve everyone.. I'm not sure how much easier it can get them that. And are they ending serving people who get a divorce? I don't think so

[rholio 339]

One problem with the first amendment argument is that pastors perform legal, government sanctioned marriages. The religious ceremony is a separate thing. Signing the marriage license is the legal part, and would likely not be protected.

[MDC 5,892]

Yes. If they provide a service to the public, then it should be applied to the entire public. If said event is deemed legal, then yes.

 

Some states don't specifically identify sexual orientation under their equal protection laws or whatever they're called, so there is some wiggle room to discriminate / refuse service to gays in some places. But you're right: In general if you operate a public business you are not allowed to decline service on the basis of the potential customer's minority status. The law in some states treats refusing service to gay people on religious grounds the same way it would treat refusing service to Jews or blacks because you just don't like them.

 

I still don't see why people who do not want to support a gay wedding can't just say they're busy if it offends their sensibilities so much? Can anyone point me to a single case where the photographer or baker said "I'm booked," the client guessed it was because he or she was gay and then successfully sued that person? This just seems to me like people who are not content to politely decline business and want to be very vocal about it.

 

Mostly it's just about riling up the mouthbreathers is my guess.

[drobeski 3,061]

If you are not a religious organization, and provide a service to the general public, then you can not discriminate based on race, age, etc etc. A mom and pop photography shop or cake shop are not religious institutes. This isn't difficult. Joe Schmo's bakery open to the public can't discriminate based on religion. A photographer at a gay wedding can take pictures and then say a prayer for the "sinners" after their work is done, just the same as a cake maker.

that argument hasn't a leg to stand on in a court of law

[MDC 5,892]

that argument hasn't a leg to stand on in a court of law

 

Depends on where the court is.

 

Under the federal Civil Rights Act, businesses can't refuse service on the basis of age, gender, race, etc. In more than 20 states and a lot of individual municipalities they also can't refuse service based on sexual orientation.

 

HTH.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Depends on where the court is.

 

Under the federal Civil Rights Act, businesses can't refuse service on the basis of age, gender, race, etc. In more than 20 states and a lot of individual municipalities they also can't refuse service based on sexual orientation.

 

HTH.

whoosh

[MDC 5,892]

whoosh

 

Is that the sound of the point blowing over your pointed head?

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

 

Is that the sound of the point blowing over your pointed head?

or through his ears.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Is that the sound of the point blowing over your pointed head?

 

I guess the lack of a neck makes a lot of things go right over his head.

[drobeski 3,061]

Triple retard woosh

[crackattack 513]

Triple retard woosh

I got it.

[drobeski 3,061]

I got it.

[crackattack 513]

I laughed.

[wiffleball 4,642]

I can't imagine The Walking Dead supporting this

[Hardcore troubadour 12,653]

Triple retard woosh

They have probably read it 20x each by now and still don't get it.

[jerryskids 5,206]

I just don't get it. Being religious and attending these events don't make you gay. It doesn't mean you support their decision. It doesn't change their faith. It doesn't stop them from praying. It doesn't stop them from attending church. It does nothing to the persons individual faith. I just don't get it.

Because they find the gheys, as Sho Nuff so eloquently put it, "icky." At the end of the day it has nothing to do with religion.

[drobeski 3,061]

They have probably read it 20x each by now and still don't get it.

maybe they should have take up something other than blowing the professor and poetry in college.

[wiffleball 4,642]

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement among all of us for once. Logically, I could form a religion that considered blacks anti-christian, or gingers being atheist. Hey ya respect all religions no matter how stupid huh?

[hoytdwow 202]

Vetoed

[wiffleball 4,642]

Georgia has a pretty booming film and television business these days. I think the governor realizedThat That entire business would dry up in a heartbeat if he signed the bill.

[BiPolarBear 476]

Did anybody point out that the Liberty Bell is in Philadelphia?

[Reality 2,710]

Triple retard woosh

 

Definitely the dipsh1t trifecta.

[Greedo 13]

Religious Freedom is the conservative code phrase for discrimination.

 

All these bills will go bye-bye when SCOTUS, reformed after Scalia is replaced, knocks them out as unconstitutional.

[cyclone24 1,814]

Vetoed.....sorry bigots.

[gocolts 300]

 

The photographer is not "part" of the ceremony.

They are at the ceremony and take pictures. They do not take part in the freaking ceremony...so before you whine about what is retarded...stop saying such stupid things.

WRONG again buddy.

 

Weddings are public recognition of a holy union. Their mere presence is implying support. HTH

[Sho Nuff 719]

WRONG again buddy.

 

Weddings are public recognition of a holy union. Their mere presence is implying support. HTH

WTF?

This is the dumbest logic ever. Seriously worse than ksb's schtick.

 

But you just called a gay wedding a holy union...that's interesting.

 

And taking pictures at a wedding isn't a sign of support...its called the job of a photigrapher...its a sign they are earning a paycheck.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Religious Freedom is the conservative code phrase for discrimination.

 

All these bills will go bye-bye when SCOTUS, reformed after Scalia is replaced, knocks them out as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is going to rewrite the 1st Amendment? Nice.

 

You could be right. Which is why conservatives are a being "proactive" in their mind.

 

I find it a bit much personally but your post personifies their fears.

[gocolts 300]

WTF?

This is the dumbest logic ever. Seriously worse than ksb's schtick.

 

But you just called a gay wedding a holy union...that's interesting.

 

And taking pictures at a wedding isn't a sign of support...its called the job of a photigrapher...its a sign they are earning a paycheck.

Do you go to Church??? Are you religious??? Do you even believe in God???

[Sho Nuff 719]

Do you go to Church??? Are you religious??? Do you even believe in God???

Yes, yes, and yes.

 

Tell me again how a photographer taking a job at a gay wedding is approval of a holy event.

[cbfalcon 824]

I haven't supported any weddings I've attended, or even any that I've been part of.