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 Supreme Court vacated a Washington State ruling against a florist today and told them to try again in with deference towards the recent Masterpiece Cake Shop decision that the court handed down a few weeks ago.
The Supreme Court vacated a 2017 Washington state court ruling Monday that a Christian florist violated an anti-discrimination measure when she declined to make flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding.
In an unsigned order, the high court sent the case back to the Washington State Supreme Court asking them to revisit their ruling in light of the court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in which they ruled 7-2 in favor of a Christian baker who declined to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.
I wonder how the anti-Christian bigot Democrat left is going to try to spin this one.
No doubt you and others associated with the Democrat left don't.
But this florist and previously the baker both do. If you want cookies or bread, brownies or tarts, lillies or roses, tulips or mums, these two are happy to sell them to you. Just not in connection with a certain ceremony that is and always will be highly offensive and odious to them for religious reasons.
So, as you know very well, it is only a specific activity that these merchants are refusing to engage in. You and everyone you know are welcome to be served by these merchants, just not in connection with this particular ceremony.
No doubt you and others associated with the Democrat left don't.
But this florist and previously the baker both do. If you want cookies or bread, brownies or tarts, lillies or roses, tulips or mums, these two are happy to sell them to you. Just not in connection with a certain ceremony that is and always will be highly offensive and odious to them for religious reasons.
So, as you know very well, it is only a specific activity that these merchants are refusing to engage in. You and everyone you know are welcome to be served by these merchants, just not in connection with this particular ceremony.
But you already knew all of this.
And exactly where in the bible says that? I will save you the time it doesnt. The mistake that the Supreme Court made was claiming Religous beliefs, In reality it was one mans interpetation of the bible. IF that is how low the bar is then any belief based on personal morals or ethics needs to be be given the same weigth, And i that vein refusing to serve a republican is ethically and morally the same.
And exactly where in the bible says that? I will save you the time it doesnt. The mistake that the Supreme Court made was claiming Religous beliefs, In reality it was one mans interpetation of the bible. IF that is how low the bar is then any belief based on personal morals or ethics needs to be be given the same weigth, And i that vein refusing to serve a republican is ethically and morally the same.
If refusing service based on political beliefs is how someone wants to operate, I wish them good luck but won't be surprised when the free market does its thing. I don't think comparing political alignment with religious beliefs are the same.
Religious believers have rights too that need to be, and are in fact being, defended and protected from those seeking to force them to relinquish, forfeit or make exception to their constitutionally protected religious rights.
The perpetually angry activists are not always going to have things go their way and in the case of attacking and bullying the religious perhaps it’s high time overdue that they move on and realize that they will never achieve 100% agreement and/or unconditional compliance.
And exactly where in the bible says that? I will save you the time it doesnt. The mistake that the Supreme Court made was claiming Religous beliefs, In reality it was one mans interpetation of the bible. IF that is how low the bar is then any belief based on personal morals or ethics needs to be be given the same weigth, And i that vein refusing to serve a republican is ethically and morally the same.
Your bizarre "interpretation" is incorrect. For reference:
Just wondering as a Christian where I am authorized in the Bible to condone anyones elses lifestyle again ? Maybe I missed that at Bible Study. Where am I authorized to judge others again ?
Just wondering as a Christian where I am authorized in the Bible to condone anyones elses lifestyle again ? Maybe I missed that at Bible Study. Where am I authorized to judge others again ?
Declining to participate in an activity/practice/event that violates one's religion isn't judging others, it's opting oneself out to preserve one's own religious beliefs which is very clearly a First Amendment Right.
Just wondering as a Christian where I am authorized in the Bible to condone anyones elses lifestyle again ? Maybe I missed that at Bible Study. Where am I authorized to judge others again ?
Your interpretation of the Bible doesn’t matter, nor does mine, it is the interpretation of the person involved. Beliefs are a personal thing, and yes, the person gets to pick and choose what they believe or agree with and ignore what they don’t - that was part of the explanation in the Colorado ruling.
The problem in these cases is that two individual’s rights are clashing, the Supreme Court ruling in the baker’s case ended the practice of the de facto absolute supremacy of rights of one group. It said both party’s rights must be taken into consideration. That means the commissions and panels must consider things like sincerity of the beliefs of the individual, needs compared to wants, and ease of redress when deciding whose rights should prevail. It’s a wedding, for Heaven’s sake, not a medical procedure, and it’s not like there aren’t plenty of other vendors in a 10 mile radius who wouldn’t be thrilled with the business.
Just like I think the Red Hen owner had a right to throw Sarah Sanders out, this lady should have the right to refuse to make flowers for a particular event or refuse to make a particular type of flower arrangement. Truthfully, the Red Hen case was more about discriminating against the person themselves. However, bottom line, in both cases it is a dumb business decision, and not one I’d make, but they should have that right. I still can’t figure out why anyone would insist on enriching someone with their business who has made their disdain for them so clear.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-26-2018 at 02:47 AM..
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.
