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.
I'm trying to figure out why you would even want to business to somebody who clearly want nothing to do with you. Let people or store owners have a choice and make sure customers knows of their opinions before they waste their time entering their store/business. If I walked by a bakery and it was posted on the door " we do not bake cakes for gay weddings" I would just keep on going. I wouldn't give a dime to people like that. In a way it's a good thing because it gives everybody a choice.
I think I would feel that way too. But some feel differently.
Where is she suing then, and who? Surely there would be an article to support this wild claim.
An appeal is not the initiating of an action, but a response to the outcome of one brought against her. Everyone has a right to appeal - all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. You cant say the initial action is fine, but any reply to it is specious, can you?
Im sure NeonGecko could, lol. You are allowed to feel I am nitpicking if you like. I have no control over how you choose to feel.
She doesnt have to get emmotional and crazy to follow her beliefs, neither do I or you.
The A/G sued her, she sues back, then a whole snowball effect of suits has followed.
And here we have the meat of the case, so to speak:
Thirteen Republicans in the state Senate have introduced broadly worded legislation to allow businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Sharon Brown, R-Kennewick, would exempt from the state’s anti-discrimination laws businesses that deny goods or services to gay customers because of “sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs or matters of conscience.â€
The Senate bill is directed squarely at the LGBT community. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion or physical disability. Its sponsors include Republican lawmakers from Eastern and Southwest Washington, but only one Puget Sound-area legislator, Sen. Barbara Bailey, R-Oak Harbor.
After reading the article you posted, and a couple others, I'd have to say Washington State has some pretty good politicians, in that the A/G and Reps are all doing their jobs, and seem to be seeking a fair outcome for everyone in the state.
Im sort of impressed with their stance on 'green' initiatives, liscensing to bring manufacturing back to the state, and other Bills that have indeed passed.
It will be interesting to see the conclusions they come to. Its great that they can have discussions and seem to come to meaningful conclusions (as best as is possible) for everyone in that state.
It has already been decided that discrimination based on gender in hiring, education, and the ability to own property is unequal treatment. Denying the right to marry the person you love based solely on gender is ALSO unequal treatment.
Human beings in this country have decided to include gay couples and afford them the same rights.....
No, unequal treatment would be to say you could not marry a black man, but you could marry a white man, if you are a man would be unequal treatment. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not on its face unequal. If you remove a state's ability to define marriage it is short leap to polygamy and other non-traditional marriages.
There are two problems with the "Human beings have decided" argument, 1) it is not true. Human beings in CA said marriage is between a man and a woman and a gay judge decided, no it isn't. One man's opinion overrode 8 million Californian's opinion. 2) If the right comes from human beings then human beings can revoke that right later. Either the right is a natural right or it isn't really a right at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
You may want to check your facts.
The STATE filed the original suit. The couple filed later. They didn't walk out and get on the phone with the ACLU.
They were told no, the florist wouldn't do their wedding in mid March and by mid-April the ACLU was filing the suit.
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?
If it is a sexual preference then they were not born with it. You can not choose your skin color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
Do you acknowledge that marriage is also a legal contract, the only way possible for two people to enjoy certain legal benefits? Do you acknowledge that many people do not view marriage as a unique sacramental or covenant relationship, an institution established by God?
Not in California. There were no differences in CA between the legal rights of a couple in a domestic partnership and a couple that was married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGecko
Selling flowers is a commercial, not a religious, endeavor. She still has religious freedom - what she does not, and must not ever, have is the right to impose her religious beliefs on other people. And refusing to sell flowers to someone because you think you have a god-given right to hate them is imposing her religious beliefs on other people. She can believe whatever she chooses - she just can't act on that against another individual.
Law and human decency trumps "religion" every time. And neither the law nor human decency are supportive of discriminating against other human beings for the color of their skin, their accents, the shape of their eyes, the color of their hair, or who they prefer to kiss.
Time for CLE I believe.
And are you given to hyperbole much? Choosing to not participate in a ceremony you object to is not "hate", it is an exercise of freedom.
No, laws do not trump religion and certainly not every time. Why do you think this discussion is being held? It is because there are religious practices that trump the law. The limits of what those rights are is what is being worked out now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
That's because the LBGT coalition are not pedophiles who want to abuse children.
No, they just want to change the age at which "child" is defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGecko
The question HAS been answered - her "religious beliefs" are NOT an excuse for refusing service to a gay couple. Period paragraph.
The Bible is not an authoritative source. Not even for so-called Christians, who don't follow it, they pick and choose what they want to believe out of it. If they DID actually follow it, life would be a whole lot more brutal.
We would stone......
Cutting the entire Old Testament out actually cuts out the Ten Commandments - and the whole thing about gay-hating is one line in Leviticus. You can't have it both ways. Oh, except its RELIGION, and you (think) you can. Is that a clear enough answer for you?
The answer was quite clear, but it leads one to conclude that your Christian theology is as rusty as your legal knowledge.
Before the coming of Christ Jews were under The Law and the law was in what Christians now call the Old Testament. Christ came to be the fulfillment of The Law and man would be under Grace and no longer the law. As several authors explained in the New Testament grace was not an excuse to sin all the more, but it did remove the legalism that was stifling the relationship between man and God.
That is a very abbreviated explanation of a concept that fills volumes, but the important part to understand is the difference between The Law and Grace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
We don't base our laws on Biblically determined requirements. We are not a theocracy.
Of course we do. Over the course of the nation's history we've had laws against divorce, adultery, theft, assault, lying, murder, parental control over children, swearing and many more that are directly biblical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot
I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt children.
Way, way, WAY off topic. If you want to discuss gay adoption, start a new thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
Really? Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
Since we are not under The Law, but Grace, I'd pick a new passage to present your views on homosexuality from a biblical perspective. I've beat up the left pretty good on that point, so we should be consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
Yet again, she is being asked to not discriminate.
No, she is not being asked, she is being compelled under threat by the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGecko
Sorry, but the fact that there is no violation of one's religious rights in this case is not a tangent. Its the very crux of the matter. Its not going to hit the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court doesn't hear specious cases.
She is in error if she thinks her religious beliefs trump the law, and so are you.
Sooner or later religious conscious cases will hit the Supreme Court as they have in the past, but it will not happen until there is a substantial body of conflicting rulings.
She may be in error, but then again she may not be. There are a great many exceptions to laws based on religious objections. Perhaps you should pull down the laws books and brush up on Gillette v U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You keep trying to move the goalposts. Pedophiles are not a protected class.
Not yet. While it may be a stretch for some, if the argument for homosexuality to be a protected class is that it is innate, something you are born with, what happens when research discovers that so is pedophilia or ephebophilia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
A person requesting a service for a party for a child rapist or is not in a protected class. Comparing a homosexual person to such parties is, frankly, disgusting and your need to do so just demonstrates that you understand your argument is losing traction here.
Changing one requirement has absolutely no implication for changing others.
Of course changing one requirement has implications for changing others. How many people here have discussed Loving v. Virginia as a controlling authority as to why gay marriage should be legal. How many have equated gay rights with rights for blacks?
If a person has been selling deli food to a person for years and then declines to cater a party at their house because they discover he was a registered sex offender? Felons are not currently a protected class, but if you are paying attention you know that there is a movement afoot to make them a protected class.
Again, your juxtaposition of homosexuality with pedophilia, incest, and bestiality is noted for the cheap shot it is and rejected as an irrelevant deflection.
Still trying to equate the gay community and NAMBLA. It's not working. Same sex adults who want to marry are not pedophiles.
Bestiality may not be relevant, but polygamy and incest probably are since those are short steps in changing the definition of marriage. If the overarching reason is that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they love, why do you get to define who that person is for others?
I don't think pedophilia is the appropriate comparison, but ephebophilia might be. There is a push in many states to lower the age of consent and Los Angeles has had cases where a 22 year man was allowed to marry his 14 year old victim, because both families consented to it, even though the minor was already pregnant and there is no exception in CA law where a 14 year old may consent to sex with anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Fifty nine percent of Americans favor same sex marriage:
The florist does not have to participate in the ceremony itself. That is the whole point of separation of church and state in this country. You may choose any religion - or none. All the florist has to do is sell flowers. She does not have to change her belief about same sex marriage. She does not have to toast the newlyweds. She may continue to consider them not to be married at all, since her belief about that has no impact on whether they are legally married or not. What she may not do is refuse to sell them a product or service she would sell someone else.
There are two questions in this thread and they've been hopelessly conflated. One is what this florist actually did and two, what people think about a business being able to decline being part of a wedding ceremony, even if it only means arranging flowers at the venue or decorating a cake with two grooms.
If I fault the owner of the flower shop for anything it is not listening to what the customer wanted. I think she could have provided what was being asked without violating her conscious since it was really no more than she had done in the past for them.
The florists rights are the same as any other business owners rights. Christians rights are the same as any others rights. Businesses have laws that regulate them, all businesses have to follow the same laws. Why should business owners get to violate generally applicable laws because of their "religious beliefs"?
It is not true that all businesses have to follow the same laws. There are a number of exceptions and plenty of case law for religious exemptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
What made these particular things protected? Social changes followed by legal changes. There was a time in this country when only male landowners had any rights at all. I seriously doubt the day will come when sexually abusing children becomes a protected class.
As someone noted, the same could have been said about homosexuals as a protected class and not 100 years ago, but as recently as 30 years ago, maybe even shorter. Sexual Orientation was not a protected class by the federal government for federal employees until 1998, just 17 years ago. I believe only 20 states include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
Why? There are laws against discriminating based on race and disability. There are no laws against discriminating based on KKK membership.
Pretty sure the KKK or any group could argue based on "creed" for protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGecko
BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance The group being treated with hatred and intolerance is gay people. She certainly IS a bigot, LOL!
No wanting to provide flowers for an event that goes against your conscious is not hated and doesn't even rise to intolerance in my mind.
Why is the gay couple wanting her to violate her conscious not intolerant of her beliefs?
In fact, can you be accused of bigotry because of your intolerance and hated of Christians?
You're right about one thing - you are no legal expert, LOL!
There is no test for discrimination that involves whether or not anything was ultimately prevented. The woman sells flowers. She sells flowers for weddings. She sold flowers to these particular people in the past for other events. She REFUSED to sell flowers for their wedding, expressly stating the refusal being based on her belief that being gay is an Abomination. Discrimination.
Said the pot to the kettle.
Can you show me where the florist said "being gay is an Abomination"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
Before sexually abusing children could become a protected class, it would have to become legal.
Or just change the definition of what a "child" is. We have many conflicting laws on that currently.
You're right about one thing - you are no legal expert, LOL!
There is no test for discrimination that involves whether or not anything was ultimately prevented. The woman sells flowers. She sells flowers for weddings. She sold flowers to these particular people in the past for other events. She REFUSED to sell flowers for their wedding, expressly stating the refusal being based on her belief that being gay is an Abomination.
Discrimination.
You did a great job paraphrasing what she actually told the guy : 'because of my relationship with Jesus Christ, I can't do your wedding.'
Not in California. There were no differences in CA between the legal rights of a couple in a domestic partnership and a couple that was married.
There are many differences. A California registered domestic partnership does not bestow any federal legal rights. (Can partners in an RDP apply for SS benefits based on one another's work record? No. Can partners in an RDP inherit one another's IRA as a spouse? No.) Move out of state and your RDP is not recognized in your new state. You marriage would be, but not your RDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
No, they just want to change the age at which "child" is defined.
Please provide your source for this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Of course we do. Over the course of the nation's history we've had laws against divorce, adultery, theft, assault, lying, murder, parental control over children, swearing and many more that are directly biblical.
Has the Bible changed? The laws have. If the laws are based on the Bible, why have they changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
No, she is not being asked, she is being compelled under threat by the state.
There are many differences. A California registered domestic partnership does not bestow any federal legal rights. (Can partners in an RDP apply for SS benefits based on one another's work record? No. Can partners in an RDP inherit one another's IRA as a spouse? No.) Move out of state and your RDP is not recognized in your new state. You marriage would be, but not your RDP.
I said very specifically IN CA. California can not encumber the federal government. Can they inherit their partner's IRA, of course they can. The taxability issues are again federal.
I said very specifically IN CA. California can not encumber the federal government. Can they inherit their partner's IRA, of course they can. The taxability issues are again federal.
That is correct, California can not encumber the federal government. This is why a California RDP does not offer people the same legal status and protections which marriage offers. Even IN California.
And no, only a spouse can inherit as a spouse. A spouse may treat an inherited IRA as their own, even rolling it into their own if they wish. No other inheritor may do so; it remains an inherited IRA and RMDs begin immediately.
None of these are stories about the LGBT coalition attempting to change the age of a "child". The last one is actually a critique of the polygamist cult lead by Warren Jeffs. It does not name the cult or Jeffs, but does name their ranch in Texas and their prophet Willie Jessops. I'm not certain by what stretch of the imagination you believe this has anything to do with the LGBT coalition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Because people are more licentious now.
Oh. So laws can change as society changes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
The are many laws that have religious exemptions to them.
Yes, but this is not one of them.
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.
