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 just pointed to you the quotes in the bible that you asked for. This is exactly the same book that she uses to invoke her religion. No what the punishment is for gay sex? Same stuff!
Where in the bible does it say that she can't sell flowers to them for a wedding?
Answer: no where!
She is not selling them because homosexual weddings are an abomination of the god of the bible. Well, so are non-virgin females getting married. So is divorce, etc etc.
You can attempt to say that I provided nothing, but I provided exactly what you asked for and am using 1:1 logic applying exactly the same standards that she uses to determine why selling flowers to homosexuals for a gay wedding is against her beliefs.
The bible is not an authority, and her religious beliefs do not trump law. If they did, then we would have a theocracy. The 1st amendment doesn't override anti-discrimination laws.
Again you are arguing that she somehow cherry picked her beliefs and you have failed to prove that is true.
You fail to understand how the law works in relation to Constitutional protections and you are apparently too dense to understand that it is about LAWS that are incompatible with Constitutionally protected rights and the Constitution trumps laws that infringe people's rights.
I'm done trying to educate you. Please remain steeped in your bigotry and hatred.
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
Then why do you believe that this particular law (anti discrimination laws regarding public accommodations) are unconstitutional?
Do you believe that ALL anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations are unconstitutional, or is only the inclusion of sexual orientation that you find unconstitutional?
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
Where does that religious belief come from?
Does each person make it up (could be anything, such as segregation)
or do people get those beliefs from a holy book (Bible, Koran, etc?)
Last I checked, the Bible is Christian's holy book and it supports slavery and stoning people .... I forgot, also children sacrifices (Abraham)
Regardless of your opinion, courts for decades, and recently in all the florist, baker, hotel cases re ssm don't agree with you.
I don't know if 'honesty is the best policy' is a sacred motto to business owners with moral objections to ssm. If it is, they're going to keep losing. They really need to come up with more creative ways to stop serving those events.
STATE courts. The Supreme Court is the arbiter of Constitutionality.
Right, you are advocating that people should find creative ways to break laws instead of standing by their values.
Hey everyone, forget morality and right and wrong, just figure out how to pull an OJ on all those laws you don't like.
It is not a right to free speech she is defending, it is her right to the free exercise of her religion. I guess her honesty is seen as stupidity to some people, but then again, honesty is a virtue and those who oppose her rights seem not to hold virtues in any esteem.
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?
Where does that religious belief come from?
Does each person make it up (could be anything, such as segregation)
or do people get those beliefs from a holy book (Bible, Koran, etc?)
Last I checked, the Bible is Christian's holy book and it supports slavery and stoning people .... I forgot, also children sacrifices (Abraham)
She has not been accused of stoning anyone, enslaving anyone, or sacrificing a child or anyone else (in the contrary, the WA law enslaves her and forces her to sacrifice her 1st Amendment rights), so none of those issues are relevant to this argument.
Too bad you are too dense to understand the basic issues of what you are trying to discuss.
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
All 3 are in the bible, all 3 are abominations from god, all 3 would qualify as "deeply held religious beliefs" and since you are for the free exercise of religion under any and all circumstances, you are for allowing any and all exercises provided religion is being invoked.
This is what we call logical deduction. It seems you have trouble with this concept. You are either for free exercise with no exceptions despite law, or you're not. You cannot hold both positions.
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.
