Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, so she never said that in this instance the gay men were requesting that level of service. In fact, she didn't ever make the statement you said she made - the statement about what floral services "would" entail came from Alliance Defending Freedom, which is an evangelical Christian activist group.
That's a pretty dishonest and misleading statement from Alliance Defending Freedom considering her under oath statements indicate pretty much the exact opposite in this particular circumstance.
Okay here is my question then what if they were requesting that level of service? What if they did require her to show and set up the flowers and be there to handle any problems would that change her legal religious rights in this instance? Would she then be legally able to refuse on the grounds that she would be forced to participate? Or if she normally does deliver this type of high level of service for other wedding customers but declined to do so for the gay couple and only just sold them the flowers would that also be a form of discrimination ?
Okay here is my question then what if they were requesting that level of service? What if they did require her to show and set up the flowers and be there to handle any problems would that change her legal religious rights in this instance? Would she then be legally able to refuse on the grounds that she would be forced to participate? Or if she normally does deliver this type of high level of service for most other customers but declined to do so for the gay couple and only just gave them the flowers would that also be a form of discrimination ?
Not if it was a service that she offered.
The law says that businesses can not refuse goods, merchandise, or services to anyone based on sexual orientation. If she OFFERS wedding services, or goods, then she has to sell them to anyone.
The ADF was explaining on behalf of the florist, the services SHE provided for weddings. It was NOT a random list of what any florist does. AFD is representing the florist, so those words are clearly from the client. But keep trying to find reasons to ignore the facts about her services.
Please, there's nothing wrong with you just saying you're wrong on this point.
The florist may have Assumed the guy would ask her for the full array of services she can provide. The Fact is she ended the conversation before he could explain the very limited service he wanted.
Had the conversation gone differently --- him beginning with 'we'd like stems and branches' or her asking 'what is it you want' --- there's a good chance we'd never have heard about this, unless a different gay couple showed up asking for more than that.
But your article isn't even claiming those were comments she made. The article simply quoted the Alliance Defending Freedom's characterization of what it says florists do when they sell to wedding parties. I'm not ignoring any "facts" about this case - the Alliance Defending Freedom's statement doesn't contain any facts.
The conversation never got into the details of what the men wanted for their wedding. The owner, knowing what she normally did for weddings told them she wasn't comfortable providing service for the wedding. The Alliance Defending Freedom's goes to what her state of mind was when the request was made. That would be a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
She did flowers for them for Valentines day, and anniversaries for 9 years. Those events "celebrate" homosexual love, just as much as their wedding would.
I have repeated time and again that marriage is a sacrament. If you do not understand what that means you should research what it means. It is very different than just providing flowers for Valentine's Day since dating isn't a sacrament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And she wasn't asked to. She wasn't even asked to deliver or set up at the wedding. She refused them any flowers before they got to the part of only wanting some twigs in vases that they were going to add candles to, and some boutonnieres.
Selling someone flowers for a wedding is no more participating than selling them flowers for an anniversary is.
If I buy a dozen roses, they could be to put on a gravestone for a relative, or for a first date, or for a tryst with a lover, or for my wife, or to get out of the dog house, or for a new mother, or for a wedding. IT is still the same dozen of roses.
She told them she wasn't comfortable with the flowers for the wedding. Maybe if they had explained what they wanted she might have felt differently, but she still has the right to object based on her conscious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Please point out in the court documents where she was asked to deliver, or do anything specific regarding the flowers for the couple.
She wasn't, but she doesn't have to be. It goes to her state of mind when the request was made to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She knows what she does for weddings so she acted under the notion that this would be similar.
Since the gay couple had no trouble in getting what they wanted it seems to be the proper remedy would have been to take their business elsewhere and let their friends know that the florist wasn't willing to provide services to gay weddings.
But you are welcome to donate your funds to her as well. Do you need the link?
Money for religious nuts who open business to deal with "general" public? I am sorry I do not have any. You will have to fund it yourself and find people alike. Good luck.
The conversation never got into the details of what the men wanted for their wedding. The owner, knowing what she normally did for weddings told them she wasn't comfortable providing service for the wedding. The Alliance Defending Freedom's goes to what her state of mind was when the request was made. That would be a fact.
I have repeated time and again that marriage is a sacrament. If you do not understand what that means you should research what it means. It is very different than just providing flowers for Valentine's Day since dating isn't a sacrament.
She told them she wasn't comfortable with the flowers for the wedding. Maybe if they had explained what they wanted she might have felt differently, but she still has the right to object based on her conscious.
She wasn't, but she doesn't have to be. It goes to her state of mind when the request was made to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She knows what she does for weddings so she acted under the notion that this would be similar.
Since the gay couple had no trouble in getting what they wanted it seems to be the proper remedy would have been to take their business elsewhere and let their friends know that the florist wasn't willing to provide services to gay weddings.
Taking their business elsewhere (and not seeking out a Christian establishment, which is what they did) mitigates their status as victims.
The conversation never got into the details of what the men wanted for their wedding. The owner, knowing what she normally did for weddings told them she wasn't comfortable providing service for the wedding. The Alliance Defending Freedom's goes to what her state of mind was when the request was made. That would be a fact.
I have repeated time and again that marriage is a sacrament. If you do not understand what that means you should research what it means. It is very different than just providing flowers for Valentine's Day since dating isn't a sacrament.
She told them she wasn't comfortable with the flowers for the wedding. Maybe if they had explained what they wanted she might have felt differently, but she still has the right to object based on her conscious.
She wasn't, but she doesn't have to be. It goes to her state of mind when the request was made to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She knows what she does for weddings so she acted under the notion that this would be similar.
Since the gay couple had no trouble in getting what they wanted it seems to be the proper remedy would have been to take their business elsewhere and let their friends know that the florist wasn't willing to provide services to gay weddings.
That is exactly what the couple did. they told friends, who told others, eventually it went viral and the state contacted them about the event. They didn't run out to get a lawyer. It was the AG that brought up charges.
Taking their business elsewhere (and not seeking out a Christian establishment, which is what they did) mitigates their status as victims.
You're suggesting they strategically planned this? They chose her deliberately, patronized her business for 9 years, patiently waited for gay marriage to become legal so they could entrap her?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
