Florist who refused to provide flowers for gay wedding rejects offer to settle discrimination case (Representatives, interstate)
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.
Why should she or anyone be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gays while operating their business. Turn this the other way, lets say someone wants to discriminate against jews or blacks claiming their beliefs or say turn away christians. One person requesting to be allowed to use their beliefs to discriminate, then everyone should be allowed the same privilage, a jew should be allowed to turn away christians and deny them service, blacks should have to seek business with those who will deal with them. Fair is fair and singling out gay people to discriminate using ones religion is just that. Why gays and not everyone else?
Let's say we stop arguing irrelevant issues. WA State enacted a law that is in conflict with the private business owners constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom.
The issue is whether the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the 1st Amendment are more important to society as a whole or if the Constitutional protections are outweighed by a law enacted to provide special protections to a select victim class that relates to a ceremony celebrating homosexuality - since it has already been clearly and factually demonstrated that the florist served the customer for nearly a decade before this incident and continues to serve this customer, that she has previously and continues to hire gays to work at her shop and the customer was not blocked from obtaining such services from another source without any punitive measures imposed.
Your prior post and your current question are as relevant to this discussion as asking whether the sky is blue or green.
These unrelated issues have nothing to do with the facts of this case, which are whether or not the law enacted by WA State that would force a person to exert their creative labor in an effort that would violate their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin (not stoning virgins or killing adulterers)is Constitutionally valid against 1st Amendment protections to freely exercise religious beliefs. The End
It is not the end. NO ONE, period, can use their religious beliefs to discriminate when doing business and where does it say in the 1st amendment that anyone can use their religion to discriminate against anyone? An athiest cannot turn away a customer for being christian, jew, black, hindu or what ever, make that any configuration and it does not change. This is not about a church or religious freedom, it is about people who want to use their religion to judge, condemn and deny service to people based on their sexual orientation, they can no more do that then deny service based on ones sex, age, race or religion or lack of religion.
Let's say we stop arguing irrelevant issues. WA State enacted a law that is in conflict with the private business owners constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom.
The issue is whether the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the 1st Amendment are more important to society as a whole or if the Constitutional protections are outweighed by a law enacted to provide special protections to a select victim class that relates to a ceremony celebrating homosexuality - since it has already been clearly and factually demonstrated that the florist served the customer for nearly a decade before this incident and continues to serve this customer, that she has previously and continues to hire gays to work at her shop and the customer was not blocked from obtaining such services from another source without any punitive measures imposed.
The problem here is that you're trying to throw around the first amendment as if it somehow overrides all business laws as long as religion is invoked.
We don't live in a Theocracy, get it through your head.
Let's say we stop arguing irrelevant issues. WA State enacted a law that is in conflict with the private business owners constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom.
To save some time.... let's say that you are right
Ok, what religious rights should a Christian person have?
Should it be what it says in the Bible that is acceptable?
Let's say we stop arguing irrelevant issues. WA State enacted a law that is in conflict with the private business owners constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom.
The issue is whether the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the 1st Amendment are more important to society as a whole or if the Constitutional protections are outweighed by a law enacted to provide special protections to a select victim class that relates to a ceremony celebrating homosexuality - since it has already been clearly and factually demonstrated that the florist served the customer for nearly a decade before this incident and continues to serve this customer, that she has previously and continues to hire gays to work at her shop and the customer was not blocked from obtaining such services from another source without any punitive measures imposed.
It is irrelevant because it disputes your reasoning. Where, Please, does it say that one can use their religious beliefs to discriminate against anyone, where is it in the 1st. If this baker wants to open a church, she can go right ahead and do so, but she is not a church, she is a business. Why must this be gone over and over and over with people who think the 1st allows one to use their bible to deny service when opening and operating a business to the public? Religious freedom does not trump law. She bakes wedding cakes, she bakes them for other people, there is no different recipe to bake for interracial couples, interfaith couples, disparate age couples or same sex couples. A cake is a cake, frosting is frosting. She does not go to the wedding, she does not participate in the wedding, she does not participate in the reception where the cake is generally consumed. All this is are Christians trying to use their bibles, their beliefs to do business as they please, even if it does not comply with the laws governing operating a business. Again, not you, not me, not some christian can use their religious beliefs to trump the laws governing operating a business or discriminating. She chose to discriminate, she is paying the consequences. She should have kept her bible out of her business of baking cakes. Should a business be allowed to deny a black person marrying a white person a cake based on their beliefs, should a christian be allowed to deny jews a wedding cake based on their beliefs? Should any person or minority have to seek business from another source because someone wants to use their religion to deny them service? If you start with gays, why should it stop there?
[quote=Washington State Law]
It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex...
Any business owner who says "it's my business, I can refuse whoever I want" is only partially correct. You can:
Refuse everyone
Refuse no one
Refuse everyone not wearing a shirt, health risk, drives away customers
Refuse everyone not wearing pants, health risk, drives away customers
Refuse customers who try to bring non-service dogs in, health risk, danger to customers
Refuse customers that stink. Could be a health risk and drives away customers in any case
Refuse customers with weapons, security risk
Refuse loiterers, security risk and drives away customers
In other words, you can refuse people - you just can't do it for a reason that doesn't make sense, i.e. "you're white, get out" or "you're gay, get out" or "you're a female, get out" or whatever.
They don't "think" they have special privileges to ignore the law, they have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to freely practice their religion, and that protected right PROHIBITS any laws that would infringe on those protected rights.
In turn, THE SAME RIGHTS are afforded to non-religious people under the 1ST Amendment that prohibits any legislation that establishes a religion.
But you know...haters (of the faithful) gonna hate
Question: if anti-discrimination laws, such as the one in WA and others across the U.S. infringe so completely on the 1st Amendment, how is it that they a) were passed and b) not contested prior to now in the courts?
Seems to me that people could easily argue that any number of the provisions in these laws thwart the free practice of religion.
It also seems to me that the legislative bodies that passed these laws have to have been made up of some practicing Christians who would have heard alarm bells going off left and right if they felt that their rights would be stepped on as a result.
Why would they themselves pass laws that restrict their own freedoms?
Could it be that they recognize that in order for everyone to be treated fairly, themselves included, these laws are necessary to serve the greater good?
Again, your bigotry and hatred of religion has blinded you from the facts of this case. The florist in question had served the GAY customers for nearly a decade before this issue and continues to serve them now. She also has hired GAYS in the past and continues to hire gays today.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your flaming hatred for those who think differently than you. God forbid others should have an opinion other than the gay coalition!!
FYI I have NO hatred for any religion.
so not only is this woman a bigot she is a hypocrite. she can take their money for years when they are only buying "everyday" type flowers but she won't sell them for a gay wedding. talk about someone who cherry picks.
If I didn't want gays in my business I would have a sign that a certain percentage of sales goes to anti gay groups.
Since I will accept money from any race, sex, creed, nationality, and sexual orientation I would never do that.
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.
