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.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,147,181 times
Reputation: 3814
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGecko
You know, this could almost be funny, if it weren't so blatantly bigoted. According to this "logic", segregation laws should not have been applied to businesses that were in existence before the laws were changed.
Heck, for that matter, any person who was enslaved prior to the Emancipation Proclamation should have been "grandfathered in" and remained a slave to the end of his/her life - and any person who was a slaveholder prior to the EP would be "grandfathered in" and could keep his/her slaves, and keep any offspring enslaved, and continue to trade slaves with other "grandfathered in" slave holders.
I guarantee you that in 40 years, that woman has sold hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of flowers to gay people. So just when was she planning on refunding all that money and not ever selling so much as a boutonnière to a gay man ever again?
Religious belief is not an excuse to discriminate against people you don't like. Non-violent hate crime is still hate crime.
To you relgious belief is not an excuse to discriminate. To people with a religion, they arent discriminating, and just following their beliefs. You would have a point if she refused to sell them anything from the get go, but she didnt. Her religion became an issue when it came to a marriage.A word whose root refers to a 'young woman' and a process instituted for the point of procreation.
Which is why I put forth the question if she would have done the flowers for the ceremony IF a gay union used another word for the institution. Her issue clearly is not with who they chose to love.
I know, you dont care. You just want to pop a vein pretending things ARE only the way you see them. How are you any different from those you keep ranting about? You arent in my opinion.
You comment on what people believe, without even taking the facts of what they are doing, saying and believing into consideration.
Segregation is different from a bias regarding a sexual preference, but maybe not in your opinion. In many peoples opinion, you cant see someone is gay by simply looking at them - unless they are exceptionally flamboyant about their gayness.
How does someone hide they are red, yellow, black or white?
Since you want to call me names and oppress me unjustly - how could anyone be so stupid as to equate a sexual preference to a skin color? I guess you are the self-righteous bigot here. Anyone with half a brain would KNOW you cant. Even if you can cite your personal 'gaydar', that doesnt mean everyone is walking around with such a mental skill.
Im personally more interested in the points of law. Jjrose and others contribute points of law to the debate - you are just a troll trying to pass yourself off as opressed, and on the level of segregation, no less.
Hate on, Mr Soapbox. Get your blood pressure up. Breathe heavy. I dont care. Its nothing on me or to me. Im having a nice day!
I will tell you this - when the right to bare arms is affected by certain weapons suddenly becoming illegal - those weapons are not taken from the owners who already owned them. Their ownership is 'grandfathered in'. When HOAs decide they dont want sheds and garages, any existing sheds and garages in the community before the HOA changed the rules are 'grandfahtered in'. Its not unheard of.
.
Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 04-03-2015 at 04:59 AM..
To you relgious belief is not an excuse to discriminate. To people with a religion, they arent discriminating, and just following their beliefs. You would have a point if she refused to sell them anything from the get go, but she didnt. Her religion became an issue when it came to a marriage.A word whose root refers to a 'young woman' and a process instituted for the point of procreation.
Which is why I put forth the question if she would have done the flowers for the ceremony IF a gay union used another word for the institution. Her issue clearly is not with who they chose to love.
I know, you dont care. You just want to pop a vein pretending things ARE only the way you see them. How are you any different from those you keep ranting about? You arent in my opinion.
You comment on what people believe, without even taking the facts of what they are doing, saying and believing into consideration.
Segregation is different from a bias regarding a sexual preference, but maybe not in your opinion. In many peoples opinion, you cant see someone is gay by simply looking at them - unless they are exceptionally flamboyant about their gayness.
How does someone hide they are red, yellow, black or white?
Since you want to call me names and oppress me unjustly - how could anyone be so stupid as to equate a sexual preference to a skin color? I guess you are the self-righteous bigot here. Anyone with half a brain would KNOW you cant. Even if you can cite your personal 'gaydar', that doesnt mean everyone is walking around with such a mental skill.
Im personally more interested in the points of law. Jjrose and others contribute points of law to the debate - you are just a troll trying to pass yourself off as opressed, and on the level of segregation, no less.
Hate on, Mr Soapbox. Get your blood pressure up. Breathe heavy. I dont care. Its nothing on me or to me. Im having a nice day!
That sounds pretty rude to me, not something I'd expect from the "love thy neighbor" crowd. And I find it very easy to equate sexual preference to skin color since they're both things a person is born with.
What is the severe burden on one's religious beliefs to be incurred by selling someone a product they've sold them dozens of times before?
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,147,181 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
That sounds pretty rude to me, not something I'd expect from the "love thy neighbor" crowd. And I find it very easy to equate sexual preference to skin color since they're both things a person is born with.
What is the severe burden on one's religious beliefs to be incurred by selling someone a product they've sold them dozens of times before?
I know. Its okay for Mr Soapbox to be rude to me. His rant doesnt matter, my percieved response to it does. Good point!
As to your question - see my reply to Mr Soapbox. The answer is there - for her at least. No one can speak for everyone that follows a religion.
Can 1 person speak for everyone that is LGBT? I dont know - maybe they can. *shrugs*
Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 04-03-2015 at 05:36 AM..
Reason: spelling & to elaborate
Ya can't fight the gay wave, just bend over and take it in the arse!
I really try to not let any of this nonsense bother me any more. It used to, not so much any more. To me, it's the same as those dope smokers here in WA. It used to be illegal, it's not any more. Just don't blow your smoke in my face or hit on me and we should be able to coexist in this world. Don't ever expect me to agree with your choice, not going to happen!
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,147,181 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkFromSea
Ya can't fight the gay wave, just bend over and take it in the arse!
I really try to not let any of this nonsense bother me any more. It used to, not so much any more. To me, it's the same as those dope smokers here in WA. It used to be illegal, it's not any more. Just don't blow your smoke in my face or hit on me and we should be able to coexist in this world. Don't ever expect me to agree with your choice, not going to happen!
I basicly agree with you - I would think it would be optimal to be able to coexist. We are supposed to be a country about freedoms; but every day, we watch the role of 'the oppressor' change faces instead.
That sounds pretty rude to me, not something I'd expect from the "love thy neighbor" crowd. And I find it very easy to equate sexual preference to skin color since they're both things a person is born with.
What is the severe burden on one's religious beliefs to be incurred by selling someone a product they've sold them dozens of times before?
You don't accept the view of many religious people that marriage is a unique sacramental or covenant relationship, an institution established by God. To those people, it is a burden on their beliefs to acknowledge, participate with, assist, a relationship that by definition conflicts with what they believe is God's command that marriage is exclusively between a woman and man.
You can mock that belief, argue that a state law matters more, whatever. But as to your specific question, even if a florist or baker provided services for St. Valentine's Day or birthdays, marriage might be on a different level altogether.
That is another red herring. I don't have to show you anything. Court documents don't contain the entire testimony given under oath. Deposition transcripts are no longer filed with the courts. If you want to proved copies to me, I would be happy to review them for you.
The testimony that was repeated in court was that she was not asked to deliver anything, she was not asked to set up anything, heck, they didn't even discuss what it was the couple wanted.
You don't accept the view of many religious people that marriage is a unique sacramental or covenant relationship, an institution established by God. To those people, it is a burden on their beliefs to acknowledge, participate with, assist, a relationship that by definition conflicts with what they believe is God's command that marriage is exclusively between a woman and man.
You can mock that belief, argue that a state law matters more, whatever. But as to your specific question, even if a florist or baker provided services for St. Valentine's Day or birthdays, marriage might be on a different level altogether.
Then they should either get out of that business or set up a nominational, invitations-only flower club... if such thing is even legal.
While I respect their beliefs, they have a number of certain obligations under the law while running a business. If the law gets to the point where their obligations interfere with their beliefs, they need to close the business. This is very simple.
How about a big but not crippling fine like 5% of annual income with the stipulation that all future advertising must inform potential customers of refusal to do gay marriages?
I will tell you this - when the right to bare arms is affected by certain weapons suddenly becoming illegal - those weapons are not taken from the owners who already owned them. Their ownership is 'grandfathered in'. When HOAs decide they dont want sheds and garages, any existing sheds and garages in the community before the HOA changed the rules are 'grandfahtered in'. Its not unheard of.
.
It's not unheard of in matters of property. It is completely unheard of in matters of civil rights.
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.
Im having a nice day!
