Christian man forced to reproduce lesbian videos

[Man-Thing]

It all boils down to this...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is what it actually says...

Here are what a lot of people on the left wished it said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Man-Thing]

so basically what you're saying is that if we choose to disagree with you, then we hate liberty?

surely you see the irony in condeming anyone who happens to agree with the court order while arguing freedom of choice.

It all boils down to this...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is what it actually says...

Here are what a lot of people on the left wished it said...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

yep.

 

[Honey Vibe]

Quite the opposite. This man is clearly discriminating against a group of people, which is illegal according to the ordinance listed.

Why should he be forced to carry these tapes? Of course you'll argue that "it's like not allowing black people to sit at counters", but Vincenz's legal power comes from being identified as someone with a "sexual orientation", without amendment. Being born with certain biological features and taking a "sexual orientation" are two completely different things. This man's "ethical orientation" should not be forced to submit to another's sexual one.

What has happened to Mr. Bono's rights is unconstitutional beyond all question.

 

[Honey Vibe]

It all boils down to this...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

*sigh* Thomas Jefferson thought of everything

 

[logansoldcigar]

Why should he be forced to carry these tapes? Of course you'll argue that "it's like not allowing black people to sit at counters", but Vincenz's legal power comes from being identified as someone with a "sexual orientation", without amendment. Being born with certain biological features and taking a "sexual orientation" are two completely different things. This man's "ethical orientation" should not be forced to submit to another's sexual one.

What has happened to Mr. Bono's rights is unconstitutional beyond all question.

you make the wild assumption that her sexuality is a choice. she may have no more choice over her sexuality than she ever had over her gender, or the colour of her skin.

 

[logansoldcigar]

I'm atheist, and I've no problem if a company doesn't take every job offer from a client.

The lesbian has the responsibility to research the company. If she failed to do so, tough ****. Find another company that will duplicate her films.

the propblem beinbg , that they may offer the best deal in fainancial terms, so shes being a good american and a good little capitalist.the companies literature may also not carry any official statement that it wont compromise its "core values".
finally, and its the most important thing..replace the word lesbian with black. or asian. or white. or heterosexual (cos if the printers were a gay pride type firm refusing to take work off straight people on grounds of sexuality, it would be just as wrong)
Its wrong if its a company refuses to take work on any discriminatory grounds.

But , it also has to be said: if i were her, i would say to the copmpany
"fine, my moneys as good as anyone else's", take the work elsewhere, and unofficially try to persuade people to boycott the firm. I would lay good money after bad his core ethics and christian values would go out the window if the bailiffs came knocking.

 

[Addendum]

the propblem beinbg , that they may offer the best deal in fainancial terms, so shes being a good american and a good little capitalist.the companies literature may also not carry any official statement that it wont compromise its "core values".
finally, and its the most important thing..replace the word lesbian with black. or asian. or white. or heterosexual (cos if the printers were a gay pride type firm refusing to take work off straight people on grounds of sexuality, it would be just as wrong)
Its wrong if its a company refuses to take work on any discriminatory grounds.

But , it also has to be said: if i were her, i would say to the copmpany
"fine, my moneys as good as anyone else's", take the work elsewhere, and unofficially try to persuade people to boycott the firm. I would lay good money after bad his core ethics and christian values would go out the window if the bailiffs came knocking.

Having read the bible cover to cover twice, the only race that could be interpreted, from a certain point of view, as above the other races, are the hebrews, or israelites or jews, since that is the group of people the deity in the bible decided to talk to.

However, that certain point of view could be described as a racist view. Since I've never read the bible with that point of view, since racism goes against every fiber of my being, it's a moot point in regard to me.

Sexual orientation is not a racial profile

 

[logansoldcigar]

Having read the bible cover to cover twice, the only race that could be interpreted, from a certain point of view, as above the other races, are the hebrews, or israelites or jews, since that is the group of people the deity in the bible decided to talk to.

However, that certain point of view could be described as a racist view. Since I've never read the bible with that point of view, since racism goes against every fiber of my being, it's a moot point in regard to me.

Sexual orientation is not a racial profile

discrimination is discrimination, fella. Shouldnt matter if its racial or gender or sexuality. Its still wrong, and we should still fight it. after all, can we prove that people have any more choice over their sexuality than they do over their race or their gender?

 

[Addendum]

discrimination is discrimination, fella. Shouldnt matter if its racial or gender or sexuality. Its still wrong, and we should still fight it. after all, can we prove that people have any more choice over their sexuality than they do over their race or their gender?

Why should a person do something that goes against their religious beliefs?

 

[ScottyBBadd]

Why should a person do something that goes against their religious beliefs?

That person should not.

 

[logansoldcigar]

IOgnoring the flippant answer (about copying videos not being in the commandments), should we allow people to use faith as a cover to allow discriminatory behaviour?

Do we allow rapists that are also highly religious to marry the girl and give her father 50 pieces of silver so he gets away with it?
Do we allow people of religion to stone adulterers to death?
we have changed many laws because we knew the beliefs and rules as printed and told in religious scripture were just wrong.

How can we pick and choose which ones we allow? is that right?

 

[Addendum]

IOgnoring the flippant answer (about copying videos not being in the commandments), should we allow people to use faith as a cover to allow discriminatory behaviour?

Do we allow rapists that are also highly religious to marry the girl and give her father 50 pieces of silver so he gets away with it?
Do we allow people of religion to stone adulterers to death?
we have changed many laws because we knew the beliefs and rules as printed and told in religious scripture were just wrong.

How can we pick and choose which ones we allow? is that right?

In the States, the government cannot tell religions what to believe. If the U.S. government allows same-sex marriages, it CANNOT tell churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship to perform same-sex marriages. That would be a violation of little thing in the first amendment called the free exercise clause.

If you take it down to the individual, the government cannot tell a person who has religious beliefs what to believe.

Buisnesses do not have to take every job offer from potential clients.

Until government documents list "gay/lesbian" alongside "Asian, Asian-American or Pacific Islander", "Hispanic", "Black (not Hispanic)", "North American Indian or Alaskan Native", or "White (not Hispanic)" then a sexual orientation is not the same as a racial group

 

[logansoldcigar]

In the States, the government cannot tell religions what to believe. If the U.S. government allows same-sex marriages, it CANNOT tell churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship to perform same-sex marriages. That would be a violation of little thing in the first amendment called the free exercise clause.

Im not saying the government should tell people what to believe. you can not force beliefs on people, cos it only entrenches them. but you can explain as to why I believe a viewpoint is wrong, and Ill do it for as long as i live.
BUT dont kid yourself..there is no such thing as Free exercise of religon.Laws are made that prevent certain elements of certain religions being exercised freely because we hold the rights of the invidual to be of greater importance.
Or in the USA, are druids allowed to sacrifice naked virgins on an altar to the horned God ?

If you take it down to the individual, the government cannot tell a person who has religious beliefs what to believe.

I fully agree. I would never try and force a person to believe something they didnt. But I'll argue with them till I'm blue in the face if I consider their belief, whether faith based or not, to be wrong.

Buisnesses do not have to take every job offer from potential clients.

No, they dont. but if a business acts in a discriminatory fashion, and freely admits that it does, should we not, as free thinking and intelligent beings, call them out on it?

Until government documents list "gay/lesbian" alongside "Asian, Asian-American or Pacific Islander", "Hispanic", "Black (not Hispanic)", "North American Indian or Alaskan Native", or "White (not Hispanic)" then a sexual orientation is not the same as a racial group

and once upon a time, we didnt have laws covering racial groups. didnt mean they were not discriminated against. Once upon a time black people had to ride on the back of a bus, or use a different water fountain. then we changed the law cos it was wrong. and this is what this whole thing is about.If something is wrong, we fight to change it. Just cos the government doesnt list homosexuals as a minority (and Im not so sure that anti discrimination legislation does not mention them as such), then we fight to get them to do so. i don't see how an intelligent, civilised being can do anything else.

 

[Addendum]

I'm not aware of any Stateside "druids".

If a business that is faith-based (be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Druid, Wiccan, Church of Satan, Adirondack, Delaware, Massachuset, Narranganset, Potomac, Illinois, Miami, Alabama, Ottawa, Waco, Wichita, Mohave, Shasta, Yuma, Erie, Huron, Susquehanna, Natchez, Mobile, Yakima, Wallawalla, Muskogee, Spokan, Iowa, Missouri, Omaha, Kansa, Biloxi, Dakota, Hatteras, Klamath, Caddo, Tillamook, Washoe, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Laguna, Santa Ana, Winnebago, Pecos, Cheyenne, Menominee, Yankton, Apalachee, Chinook, Catawba, Santa Clara, Taos, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Comanche, Shoshone, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, Chiricahua, Kiowa, Mescalero, Navajo, Nez Perce, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickahominy, Flathead, Santee, Assiniboin, Oglala, Miniconjou, Osage, Crow, Brule, Hunkpapa, Pima, Zuni, Hopi, Paiute, Creek, Kickapoo, Ojibwa, or Shinnicock) refuses to take the job offer of a client, because that client's material goes against the beliefs that that company supports, I don't see a reason why the government should step in and say "you must take that job offer".

The less government intervenes, the better. Hence my quote from Jefferson in my sig.

 

[logansoldcigar]

so, to put it bluntly, you think discrimation can be allowed as long as the perpetrators hide behind a faith?

 

[Addendum]

I don't think a business that is faith-based should be forced to take a job whose material would go against that faith to which it subscribes to, nor should the government tell a privately owned business to take job offers from potential clients.

Call it discrimination if you prefer. I call it "the free exercise clause" which is still part of the first amendment.

And no, I subscribe to no faith.

 

[logansoldcigar]

I don't think a business that is faith-based should be forced to take a job whose material would go against that faith to which it subscribes to, nor should the government tell a privately owned business to take job offers from potential clients.

Call it discrimination if you prefer. I call it "the free exercise clause" which is still part of the first amendment.

And no, I subscribe to no faith.

as i said earlier, if you think there is truly free exercise of religion, you are kidding yourself, cos there aint.
Its free exercise of religion within the limits we allow.

edit: i use these examples because, whilst the point is still valid, human sacrifice could be seen as extreme

for example:

In 1993, the US Supreme court threw out a law banning animal sacrifice.
in 2002, some men in florida were arrested on charges of animal cruelty due to animal sacrfice. basically, to put it simply, the supreme court ruling can be summed up, in this case, as thus:

Four Florida men were charged this month with three counts of animal cruelty after police discovered dead chickens, pigeons and doves that the men had killed apparently as part of a Santeria sacrifice. A 17-year-old minor was also arrested.

Santeria is a combination of Roman Catholicism and west African beliefs. The religion first took hold in Caribbean nations and has hundreds of thousands of followers in the United States.

In reporting on the arrest, both the Tampa Tribune and the Associated Press wrongly claimed that a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling held animal sacrifices as protected under the Constitution. But that is not at all what the U.S. Supreme Court held.

Instead, what the Court said was that cities and states could not single out ritual animal sacrifice and make it illegal. So a city that allowed people to kill chickens within the city limits, could not pass a law making it illegal to kill chickens as part of a religious ceremony.

But the upshot of that ruling is that if a municipality or state has an existing animal cruelty statute that is applied across the board and the religious sacrifice of an animal violates that statute, then the city or state can prosecute that act. If the animals in this case were killed in a way that violates Florida or Miami's existing anti-cruelty statutes, then the defendants will not be able to fall back on the First Amendment as a defense.

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2002/000286.html

more:

The Houston Chronicle
June 24, 1993
Supreme Court did not OK animal sacrifices
By Gary L. Francione


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On the day following the issuance of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye last week, most major newspapers carried headlines proclaiming that the court held that animal sacrifice is protected by the First Amendment freedom of religion clause. Typical of these proclamations was the one carried across the cover of New York Newsday: "Top Court OKs Animal Sacrifice."

I respectfully dissent from this reading of the Lukumi case.

The court did not hold animal sacrifices to be "protected"; rather the court held that these practices alone could not be "prohibited" by legislation that was specifically intended to target religious practices alone. A municipality may still ban animal sacrifices as long as these prohibitions are in accordance with neutral and generally applicable rules, such as a state anti-cruelty statute. Moreover, a municipality may still ban all slaughter outside of licensed packing houses or prohibit completely the keeping of certain types of animals.

At issue in the Lukumi case were six Hialeah, Fla., ordinances that collectively banned animal sacrifice, slaughter and the keeping of animals for sacrifice or slaughter. The ordinances provided an exception for slaughter of animals in properly zoned and licensed packing plants, and for slaughter by small farmers of limited numbers of hogs or cows.

In deciding the constitutionality of the Hialeah ordinances, the court applied the test articulated in Employment Division vs. Smith, a 1990 Supreme Court case which held that a law that burdens a religion need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability. In applying Smith to the Lukumi case, the court examined the specifics of the ordinances and found that "[t]he record in this case compels the conclusion that suppression of the central element of the Santeria worship was the object of the ordinances" and that the city council "gerrymandered" the ordinances so that they would apply to Santeria and nothing else. The ordinance failed the Smith test, but that certainly does not mean that animal sacrifices cannot be regulated or banned.

The problem of interpretations occurs because in deciding whether the ordinances were neutral, the court noted that Hialeah did not seek to prohibit forms of animal killing other than Santeria sacrifices. Some humane societies may think that they cannot use neutral and generally applicable anti-cruelty statues to prohibit Santeria sacrifices unless they also prohibit all other forms of animal killing. This is incorrect for three reasons.

First, the court focused on the underinclusiveness of the Hialeah ordinances (i.e., that they did not cover other forms of animal killing), as proof that the object of the ordinances was not neutral, but was aimed instead at religious practices alone. The court recognized explicitly that the case involved other concerns "unrelated to religious animosity [such as] the suffering or mistreatment visited upon the sacrificed animals, and health hazards from improper disposal. But the ordinances considered together disclose an object remote from these legitimate concerns" (emphasis added).

Elsewhere, the court focused on the trial court's finding that Santeria slaughter was less humane than that used in licensed and inspected premises, and stated that if the state decided that the Santeria method of killing is not humane, "the subject of regulation should be the method itself, not a religious classification that is said to bear some relationship to it. " These statements reinforce that the holding of the court was only that animal sacrifices could not be prohibited by ordinances aimed specifically at religious conduct.

Second, Justices Harry A. Blackmun and Sandra Day O'Connor concurred in the judgment because they did not think that Smith is sufficiently protective of religions. Despite their desire for a test more vigorous than that used by the majority, both justices stated: (1) that a different case would be presented should those who practice Santeria (or any other religion) seek an exemption from a generally applicable anti-cruelty law; and (2) that the Lukumi case did not necessarily reflect the court's view of the state's interest in preventing cruelty to animals.

Third, a reading of Lukumi that all animal killing would have to be prohibited if Santeria sacrifices are prohibited would, in effect, overrule Smith. In Smith, the issue before the court was whether the petitioner was exempt from generally applicable drug laws and could use peyote for religious reasons. The court refused the exemption and refused to apply the rigorous compelling state interest/strict scrutiny analysis, holding that the prohibition on drug use was neutral and generally applicable, and had only an incidental effect on religion.

Surely the court in Smith did not mean to hold that if the state permitted the use of other Schedule 1 drugs for medicinal reasons, that would require an entirely different analysis. My having to observe a red traffic light might have an impact on my ability to get to remain part of a funeral procession as required by my religion. Is strict scrutiny/compelling state interest required if the police allow others to go through red lights in medical emergencies? I think not. Indeed, the court in Smith cited an anti-cruelty statute as an example of a neutral and generally applicable statute that might permissibly affect religious practice.

There are completely legitimate reasons to be concerned about Santeria sacrifices, which are far more brutal than most other methods of slaughter.

In 1987, I successfully represented the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in state court when it was sued by a Santeria group, which claimed that the New York anti-cruelty law violated the free exercise clause. During my litigation of that case, I learned that Santeria practitioners often completely saw the heads off larger animals, such as goats and sheep, and place the heads of birds and smaller animals under foot and then pull the animals until dismemberment occurs. Animals are allowed to bleed to death very slowly and do not lose consciousness for extended periods of time. They are often kept in filthy and inhumane conditions, and are deprived of food or water, for several days before the ceremony. Decomposing animal bodies are disposed of in public places.

Moreover, Santeria practitioners insist on the absolute secrecy of their sacrificial practices. Every use of animals in our society is regulated, and although such regulation is imperfect in many ways, there is at least an acceptance in principle that the taking of animal life is something that must be regulated. Santeria practitioners wish to be the only group in our society that can kill animals without any supervision whatsoever. Surely, neither the First Amendment nor common sense requires such a result.

http://www.animal-law.org/news/scac.htm



so, to apply the same principle: if a business turns down a customer for reasons that violates the county/state/national anti discrimination statutes, then surely they also should not be able to fall back on the first amendment as a defense?
whats sauce ofr the goose is sauce for the gander, after all

 

[Addendum]

But the law in Arlington, Virginia doesn't include sexual orientation.

So disagree with it all you want, all the client had to do was take her business elsewhere

 

[Kritish]

The lesbian has the responsibility to research the company. If she failed to do so, tough ****. Find another company that will duplicate her films.

That's easier said then done.

 

[Addendum]

That's easier said then done.

Yellow pages (i.e. phonebook)

 

[Kritish]

Yellow pages (i.e. phonebook)

If they refused to service her just because she's a lesbian that's discrimination and the Federal Government prohibits it.

If it was porn or something, that's different.

 

[Emrys]

well, the constitution says that mankind has a right to life, so good luck.

Obviously religious believes are more important than man made law so what should I as a a ****shipper of anztec deities who demand humand blood care about your silly little man made constitution? I'm just freely exercising my religion when I stab a virging with a dagger!

 

[Addendum]

If they refused to service her just because she's a lesbian that's discrimination and the Federal Government prohibits it.

If it was porn or something, that's different.

It wasn't because of who she likes to ****. The film or videos she wanted duplicated were something that went against the beliefs that the company was founded on.

A business is under NO obligation to take all the job offers that come it's way

 

[Kritish]

well, the constitution says that mankind has a right to life, so good luck.

This has nothing to do with life, that has to do with the discrimination issue.
Or I suppose lesbians don't have the right to life.
But don't listen to me, I disagree with you. I'm obviously an unamerican freedom hater.

 

[logansoldcigar]

But the law in Arlington, Virginia doesn't include sexual orientation.

So disagree with it all you want, all the client had to do was take her business elsewhere

so we, as civilised individuals, fight to get the law changed . someone has to be the first. whether its Rosa Parks sitting on a bus, or this woman (and its more than possible that this is the exact reason she has gone to this particular company), some one has to take a stand.