Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

Those organizations are blocking individuals who violate their ToS, not saying conservatives can’t post here or no Asians aloud. They are not similar.

The business owner has numerous methods to achieve what you say the easiest is they can be a members only club and select members. But they don’t want to do that, they want to be open to the public. Again, do you think someone can post on their door no blacks allowed or Christians use the other store down the road that welcomes your kind with no legal repercussions?

Gays are the only group y’all want to be able to be disenfranchised.

Weren’t you the one saying everyone needs to be treated equally?

 

Well first what is the service and federal or state and if state which state?

Under federal law "places of public accommodation" are very limited. And state laws vary. In this case Washington's definition of "places of public accommodation" is very broad. But then SCOTUS has ruled that one person's rights cannot be violated by another person's rights. And with freedom of religion being an EXPLICIT constitutionally quarantined right. These cases haven't been standing up in court but the real question is why does the left believe they can violate the rights of others.

 

The end goal for me is to get the government out of people's lives. We are descending into utter madness.

 

Hold it ... the flower shop is not refusing to sell flowers to gay people, just as the Colorado Baker was not refusing to sell cakes to homosexuals.

That's really a cheap and dishonest shot you took there.

 

I don’t know what you mean. Please rephrase

First: Freedom of religion only applies to laws created by congress. It does not apply to the states.
Second: The only cases I am aware of that have gone to SCOTUS regarding public accommodation is Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) in which the court sided with public accommodation and the other is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2017) in which the public accommodation issue wasn’t addressed.

Do you believe it is a violation of others rights for places to be handicap accessible?
What about a bank that doesn’t want to allow blacks in their facilities?
Or a hospital that refuses services to a Christian?

 

Why is it that gays are the red line? I’m sure business owners felt the same way when the courts ruled they had to serve blacks as well...

 

Or course it’s their orientation that is the issue. If it was a heterosexual union they would be fine with it. A Jewish union, Chinese union or any other union.

 

I say go for it. Let the free market economy sort it out.

 

So ban the ADA?

 

Your business wouldnt survive the backlash if you didnt give a **** about disabled people but...

If you think you can handle it, by all means.

Government shouldnt force anyone to do business with anyone else.

 

Do you know how many business are sued every year by not being ada compliant? Over 10,000 in 2018 alone.

Most people would never even notice. I have worked several places that were not ada compliant. Still are not and zero people care — besides the handicap people that cannot get into them.

You would really be shocked how many people don’t care if it doesn’t directly effect you.
You seem to be one of them

 

If there were businesses that said "no white people allowed", I'd know exactly where I wouldnt be spending my money.

Makes it easier that way.

If your businesses doesnt want to be ADA compliant, so be it. You lose out on potential customers and possibly face public backlash but, if that's what you want to do, go for it.

I'm sure I have spent my money in places who may not have appreciated my business. I'd rather have not, but there was no way of knowing.

This will fix that.

 

Yes Chef - a Gay person is entitled to buy flowers just like everyone else.

 

The above is a senseless argument.

 

It's not if you believe in a free market economy.

Or if you believe that less government is better government.

I happen to believe in both.

 

So screw handicap people pretty much (most facilitates would not go through the expense for such a low percent of the population)
Asians in California
Blacks and gays in the south

Such a wonderful world y’all imagine, it’s almost like you are part of the majority and never have to really worry about any real discrimination. Funny how that works isn’t it?

 

But that’s the issue, zero people are really arguing to get rid of ADA protections or allowing restaurants to refuse service to blacks — y’all are only worried about gays getting equal service. I had never heard of anyone wanting open discrimination (except racists) until gay people stopped being arrested and beaten for being gay.

 

My mother was born in the Philippines, and I am half Filipino. I could pull the race card if youd like... that'd change your tone, and your argument, real quick, I'm sure.

Why did you not mention whites in the ghettos? Whites in Compton? Whites in Chinatown? Only minorities, like whites cant be discriminated against? Weird.

Anywho... if a store wants to hang a big ol "no blacks allowed" sign in their window, have at it. Not only do they lose the business but non-white customers would know they weren't helping an establishment who doesn't appreciate their business. Win for everyone. That and pretty much everyone except super racists wouldnt bother doing business there anymore, in which case, they would close down and the free market would have done its job yet again.

Maybe you'd rather cover your eyes and plug your ears and are willing to buy from whoever is selling ****, but I'd like to know. .

 

I'm worried about government intervention. I dont like the government, or the way they do business, or how they infringe on civilian liberties.

This story just happens to be the topic of discussion.

 

No. We’re all entitled to equal treatment regardless of race, gender, religion and, in many jurisdictions, sexual orientation.

Note that the equal treatment works both ways; you shouldn’t be discriminated against because of your religious beliefs but nor should you receive special consideration because of your religious beliefs either. You could make an argument against having any discrimination laws at all but the argument that there should be special rules for people with specific religious beliefs is indefensible (and in the USA, unconstitutional). If you want the freedom to discriminate against other people, you must accept the freedom of others to discriminate against you.

The only way illiterate hicks know how to deal with a dispute is violence?

 

I’ve bought this up before and I’m still looking for an answer. Basically I can’t get my head around why anyone would want their wedding cake, floral decorations of whatever to be supplied by someone who thought them the work of the devil or just plain perverted. Why would you tolerate having anything at your wedding coming from such a source. I don’t get it.

 

Those with an agenda.

 

I would assume you have the right to treat so to answer your question, yes.

 

You presume the customer had any idea the owner would have such an extreme reaction to the idea of selling a product that was to be used at a same-sex wedding. Even if they were previous customers (arguably because they were previous customers), they could have been caught entirely by surprise by the unconditional refusal. How confident are you that you know the opinions of the owners and managers of every specialist store you might do business with?

 

Nice sentiment, but government controlling these things is not what the framers had in mind ... it has us watching over our shoulders all the time.

It'd be better on balance to let communities work out these things, and businesses will be boycotted if it's really harmful. But these guys were not really harmed by this. Just looking to be victims if something, anything.

Flower arrangements? For your gay "wedding"?