SCOTUS Tosses Ruling Against Christian Florist Who Refused to Do Arrangements for Gay Wedding

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by JobZombie

Exactly. Nor is there any requirement or stipulation that the participants of a so-called same sex “wedding” be homosexual or that this "SSM" situation is reserved exclusively for the homosexual.

That is a good point actually. To take that further, if someone wanted to marry their cat, or their car, or their life insurance contract, these Christian Merchants would refuse to offer those services also. It is not even specifically about "homosexuals," it is about the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

[Spartacus713]

Originally Posted by Delahanty

Actually, they'd already gotten their appetizers. And the business owners refusing to bake and decorate (not sell) cakes which conflict with their religuous beliefs, or particpate in a same-sex wedding by placing (not selling) floral arrangements, didn't follow them to another establishment and lead a group of hecklers to hound them there.

The baker and the floral arranger also offered to sell them other products and services, just not the ones being requested that were offensive to their religious beliefs. So they were not refusing to serve them at all. They were only refusing to provide certain services which conflicted with their religious beliefs, as the plaintiffs in these cases surely knew very well before they went in to knowingly and intentionally instigate this trouble with these Christian merchants.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by spankys bbq

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.

You're kind of missing the poster's point.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by PatDJohns

Oh how cute, using a fictional book of myths to defend bigotry.

Do you advocate the murder of gay men for loving each other?

so you decided to read that one post, and then think you know anything about me. you dont. perhaps you might go back through my posts on this subject, and read up on what i have said in the past.


as for using the bible, and you calling tt a fictional book, that is YOUR opinion, especially since you have no facts to back up that opinion. so you go ahead an consider it a work of fiction all you want, it doesnt make it true.

Originally Posted by Uncle Bully

Although I agree with this decision I do wonder how it is going to effect how we handle radical islam in this country.

criminal activity is still criminal activity, even when done in the name of religion.


i will also note that the first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise there of. that means no laws can be made to force the courts to consider sharia law no matter how much muslims fuss.