Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

ETF​

LOL. Too many flaws there to address. Muslims flying planes into buildings isn't protected?

Who knew?

 

To illustrate that there are limitations on religious freedoms — they are in no way absolute. The people doing that thought there actions were just a warranted as someone refusing to treat a child because her parents are lesbians or a law enforcement officer calling for the government sanctioned execution of gay people.

Feel free to point out a flaw that made you unable to respond to a single point.
Hopefully you can find your integrity while looking.

 

Allow me to rephrase. It is not our religious freedoms that allows us to deny service or product to those we do not wish to do business with, in and of itself. And I say this, not to deny religious basis, but because the basis needs to be consistent. And there could be reasons outside of religion that motivates a person to not want to do business with another.

 

I guessed that you were referring to the second case because you said the bakery won. Phillips neither won nor lost that initial case. It was basically nulled and allowed for a new hearing altogether. The second case the baker actually won. In the third the baker lost.

 

You made the claim - back up that claim. I was talking to someone else and you butted in.

 

I’m still waiting for anyone to explain why a gay couple would want their wedding cake, church/registry office flower arrangments etc produced by someone who thought they belonged in Hell. I just don’t get it.

 

Pilgrim, that's not 1A.

It's not even a court ruling.

It's a wiki condensed version of a court ruling.

Which means it's worthless.

 

Them what do you think "become one flesh" means?

 

Do you mean before or after their request for service?

 

So you agree that they shouldn't have to, while at the same time thinking that government should compel them to? You agree with these laws don't you?

"Prior to gay people." I don't understand. Haven't gay people always existed?

What arguments being made against gay people?

What story was this?

What about discrimination on the basis of things which are not included in these laws? Out of 350 million people,
surely there must be more than a few people who discriminate in a manner that is not included in these laws.

 

Why "probably?"

So what is your point?

 

How is gay marriage as recognised by the state, a "delusion?" You may not like it, but it is actually law.

 

And what harm is caused by a baker or florist refusing to provide services for a same sex wedding?

 

I doubt Mr. Phillips wants anyone in hell, but the answer to your question is, I suspect, a desire to be seen as a victim, from which flows celebrity, fame, adulation, sympathy, media appearances, book deals, and hopefully money.

 

Okay,

Yes, Wiki made it all up.

Try Kusper since you're such a purist:

“There can no longer be any doubt that freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas is a form of ‘orderly group activity’ protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The right to associate with the political party of one’s choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom.”Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56–57 (1973)


I guess you can always argue with the Supreme Court. It's a free country, for the time being.

 

The point is that no one ever claimed that religious freedoms are limitless. Are you going to claim next that second amendment proponents claim they have an individual right to government paid assault rifles?

Thank you for granting me the "freedom" to point out the flaws in your arguments. It's a start.

 

I suppose it depends upon your definition of victory, but the commissioners were slapped down.

 

Doesn’t mean marriage.

 

If you have a business that is open to the public, then you serve the public. Pretty simple.

 

I am for equality, if there is any group with special treatment — for example public accommodation — then I am for it applying to all groups.

I meant prior to gay people seeking equal treatment

Pretty much the same ones made against black, interracial couples and to an extent women — religion demands it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/18/doctor-discrimination-baby/23642091/

I’m sure there are

 

The same harm caused by a lunch counter refusing to provide service to blacks.

 

You guys keep pursuing this equality nonsense and there will be laws to protect the merchants too, because we can't discriminate against merchants, who are people too, and then we'll spend 100% of our time litigating hurt feelings.

"I'm offended."

"Me too."

"I'm more offended."

"Are not."

"Am too."

"I'll sue."

"I'll sue you back!"

"Oh yeah??"

"YEAH!!!"

Insanity.

 

Nothing is simple when you have competing interests. That's why the Supreme Court doesn't issue one-sentence opinions in cases of alleged discrimination.

 

I already stated that I agreed with the ruling in the Baker case = no harm that I can discern.

 

did you have a point?