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.
The 'slippery slope' coming from a gay rights supporter ? Where are all the segregated florists, bakers, restaurants, movie theaters, etc ? In states without laws against sexual orientation discrimination, where are the separate bathrooms or drinking fountains for gays, how about separate entrances, or gays in the balcony only ?
Every controversial case involves marriage, yet the gay/left propaganda machine and their media cohorts act like gays are being discriminated against faster than they can line up for service.
She's been in business for many years, so your business advice is obviously unnecessary. But for this single event, she'd still be doing fine. Her honesty and naivete did her in.
To the collection of misfits over in Left Field, the "non-standard" of Political Correctness can be twisted to subvert the cause of whatever element of their coalition is screaming the loudest at the moment.
This is precisely why I very seldom can give any consideration to the agenda of the so called "progressives". Too many people whose only "crime" is not being in synch with the radical cause du jour are too easily vilified and penalized. And the young and the naïve simply swallow this drivel whole,
The 1st Amendment doesn't say that. It says that congress shall make no law establishing a religion or make no law that would impede the free exercise of religion.
The difference is subtile, but that does not mean that you can do anything you want. The Bible for example, allows gives scripture where owning slaves is perfectly fine. It even says how they must be cared for. Obviously that religious practice was eliminated by law long ago.
Again, we are not talking about slavery, slavery was NEVER a religious practice. Slavery existed before Moses. The Torah set forth rules for treating a slave, it did not ADVOCATE enslaving humans as God's Law.
We are talking about forcing a person to participate in a ceremony celebrating homosexuality, by requiring this florist to engage her creativity and talents to create an integral part of this event. Homosexuality is in direct conflict with a foundational tenet of the florist's Christian faith which has always held the act of homosexual sex to be a sin.
If slavery is involved here, it is the enslaving of the florist to participate in an event against her faith or face the loss of her livelihood.
Of course. My religious belief is that fathers should have sex with their daughters once a year on their birthday until they reach puberty. Since it's my religious belief, the 1st Amendment protects my right to do so, and sexual assault statutes don't apply to me.
Arguing a ridiculous example does not invalidate the argument that religious freedom is a protected right under the 14th Amendment. Is that all you have to contribute to this discussion? Reductio ad absurdum?
You know, throwing out fallacies to support your argument is the hallmark of someone without a valid argument.
Fine, you seem to be missing the point. Don't take his money all those years knowing he is gay than.
A shame you wasted your money on her. Business 101 is keep your personal views to yourself. All she had to say was "sorry I can't accommodate you" if she didn't want to do it. But she couldn't keep her trap shut...oh well.
I know her type, the good ole Southern Christian(Baptist), they're only Christian to people who share their beliefs. Perhaps she should have stayed in the south in a small southern town. Kind of dumb to live in the more liberal PNW and have that attitude, or at least keep it to yourself.
Especially when you run what is really a "non-essential" business in a still shaky economy.
Flowers are nice, but not necessary to purchase.
The "bless your heart" types who have nothing but disdain for those who just aren't like them.
I would even have some respect for her if she didn't take his money for the last 10 years because he was gay, but she gladly took it.
It's called being a "hypocrite".
In addition to not being too bright.
WRONG - Her Christian faith does not hold that A homosexual is a sin. All humans are created in the image of the Creator. The ACT of homosexuality is a sin in the florist's Christian faith.
Serving a gay customer is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than participating in a ceremony in which homosexuality is celebrated. THAT is why she declined the customer. She never betrayed her faith by providing services to a homosexual person, but she would be betraying her faith if she participated in a celebration of homosexuality.
And don't try and argue that a gay "wedding" is not the celebration of homosexuality, because marriage requires consummation to be legitimate. That is why failure to consummate a marriage is grounds for an annulment.
A marriage celebrates a commitment of two people to one another and, in the US, provides certain legal rights, such as sharing property and other assets and treatment under the tax code. A wedding really says nothing about sexual practices at all.
Religions are free to decide whether they will perform weddings for LGBT couples. There are no laws that compel them to do so. In the jurisdictions that allow same sex marriage, the ceremony may be civil or religious. Same sex couples are just looking for the same benefits from marriage that straight couples enjoy.
In the state of Washington they are.
By purchasing a license, which usually has to be renewed each year, a business owner is entering a contract with the jurisdiction issuing the license in which the owner agrees to abide by the laws of that jurisdiction.
The florist in Washington broke the law by refusing service to a protected class.
Providing that service in no way interferes with her religious beliefs. No one will prevent her from holding the belief that homosexuality is sinful. No one will make her attend the wedding itself. No one will chain the doors to her church. All she has to do is provide services of her business to every customer willing to pay for them. That is the way it should be in this country.
I disagree with the court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, too.
Of course it is a celebration of homosexuality. A marriage is invalid unless it is consummated. How does a homosexual consummate their "marriage"?
Again, we are not talking about slavery, slavery was NEVER a religious practice. Slavery existed before Moses. The Torah set forth rules for treating a slave, it did not ADVOCATE enslaving humans as God's Law.
We are talking about forcing a person to participate in a ceremony celebrating homosexuality, by requiring this florist to engage her creativity and talents to create an integral part of this event. Homosexuality is in direct conflict with a foundational tenet of the florist's Christian faith which has always held the act of homosexual sex to be a sin.
If slavery is involved here, it is the enslaving of the florist to participate in an event against her faith or face the loss of her livelihood.
Yet she sold them flowers for years. Flowers for dates, that may have ended in sex. Flowers to apologize, which may have ended is sex. Flowers for engagement, which may have ended in sex. Why not flowers for a wedding, which may end in sex. It's not like they are going to have sex during the wedding, or in the flower shop, or in public at all.
If she is against gay sex, then she should not have sold them flowers for years that probably set the mood for them to have sex.
You're very late to the party. These guys were long time customers for several years, so she took their money for a decade.
This isn't a case of a radical gay couple who wanted to stir the pot and sought out some very religious bible thumper on purpose to make a statement or file a lawsuit.
She is a moron, all she had to say was "sorry guys I know you're long time customers, but I am already doing a wedding that weekend", yes lie, they could have gone somewhere else and she wouldn't be the center of this controversy.
It was the STATE that brought the action, not the customers. Also, if the woman is a devout Christian, I am sure that lying would be in conflict with her faith as well. So lying to her long time customer would be way more hypocritical than honestly expressing her reason for not being able to participate in their event.
I love how progressives are more than happy to urge people to lie, instead of supporting people's right to be honest without the fear of their livelihood being destroyed by force of the STATE.
WRONG - Her Christian faith does not hold that A homosexual is a sin. All humans are created in the image of the Creator. The ACT of homosexuality is a sin in the florist's Christian faith.
Serving a gay customer is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than participating in a ceremony in which homosexuality is celebrated. THAT is why she declined the customer. She never betrayed her faith by providing services to a homosexual person, but she would be betraying her faith if she participated in a celebration of homosexuality.
And don't try and argue that a gay "wedding" is not the celebration of homosexuality, because marriage requires consummation to be legitimate. That is why failure to consummate a marriage is grounds for an annulment.
Not one state requires proof of consummation for a marriage to be valid. The state will not come in a annul a marriage if it is not consummated. In fact the state has no idea if the marriage is consummated or not. They do not ask for proof of consummation for the marriage to be valid.
Yet she sold them flowers for years. Flowers for dates, that may have ended in sex. Flowers to apologize, which may have ended is sex. Flowers for engagement, which may have ended in sex. Why not flowers for a wedding, which may end in sex. It's not like they are going to have sex during the wedding, or in the flower shop, or in public at all.
If she is against gay sex, then she should not have sold them flowers for years that probably set the mood for them to have sex.
Why should she not have sold the gay customer flowers? Her faith doesn't tell her to treat a gay person badly. She didn't have to be concerned with what goes on in a customer's bedroom...isn't that what the LGBTQQ+++ coalition is always saying? Posters on this forum have stated that gays can be in relationships that don't involve sex....are you calling them liars? Selling flowers to a customer is different than participating in an event that celebrates a sin (according to her Christian faith).
It was the ceremony that openly celebrates homosexuality that she declined to participate in by creating an integral component (flower arrangements).
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.
