Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

Cut it out, victim. She didn't refuse to sell them flowers!

 

Yes, yes, but she is not refusing to sell them "flowers". She is refusing to do their bidding.
I'm glad.

 

Another dishonest post."Selling a product"? Uh, no, not what happened.

I'm getting sick of gay activists to be honest.

 

Oh, you know, because I hate homosexuals or something.

Look, I've explained that she didn't refuse to sell them flowers. She refused to give a particular service they wanted. Same as if she refused to bake a cake or design a flower arrangement celebrating Kwaanza, as opposed to selling a flowers or cakes to blacks.

I'll admit that I think government should not mandate the sale of non essential services like this to any particular class of people. Discrimination, bad as it may appear, is no worse than government compulsion.

 

With friends like that, there's no need for enemies.

 

If the Supreme Court doesn't take on this case, then it is officially NOT a conservative majority.

 

How is she using her business to "PUSH" religion?

 

Yeah, OR appeal it like anyone would whose freedoms are being infringed upon by authoritarian state laws.

 

Because they are bitter and spiteful and want to be seen as being heroic or something.

They aren't fighting this so that they can purchase the flowers off this lady. The wedding was presumably years ago. This case started years ago.

 

"I'm allergic to flowers" would be a hard sell for a florist.

 

So you'd be perfectly okay if every liberal/progressive person or group was banned from Facebook and Twitter?

 

So I suppose you think that Facebook should sell too considering they don't want to provide their service to certain people.

 

I wasn’t commenting on whether the policy is right or wrong, only correcting your misrepresentation of the underlying principle behind it. That is a necessary prerequisite if we’re going to have a sensible discussion of the topic. If.

That’s a perfectly valid proposal but it’s somewhat different to the demand being made in this case (and others like it). They’re not saying the discrimination laws should be scrapped, only that they should receive a special exemption because of their religion. You are essentially arguing for all discrimination laws (at least relating to business) to be scrapped, including the ones prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion. I’m not convinced the business owners in this case would support you on that.

Flower arrangements for a wedding is a product. You could call it selling a service if you like (probably a fuzzy line between the two in this kind of context) but it doesn’t change the point I was making anyway. The customer didn’t necessarily know the business owner would object to this extent.

Well I’m neither but if I spot any, I’ll be sure to let them know.

 

Do you mean according to law or according to the opinion of leftists? I would be surprised if you didn't know according to the law considering your legal interests.

 

They can interpret a law so that it's almost like a change.

 

Does floral arrangement involve no creative expression and customisation?

If you knew about this case, you would know the person who wanted the flowers was a so called 'friend' of the florist who had been a customer for years. If it was about the sexual orientation, then why did the florist serve her friend for years?

 

This controversy erupted because the gay couple were refused service on the basis of their sexuality. How could they therefore not know they were being regarded as less than human? Why would the want to fight to gain service from such people? I still don’t get it.

 

On the basis of what? Presumably these people CAN be refused service in certain situations.

 

How do you know that the gay couple still wanted the service from the florist after being refused?

 

Leftists get very uncomfortable when they're hit with the question: does your "Facebook is a private company, it can do what it wants" argument also apply to all businesses?" Presumably they would scrap the Public Accommodation section of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts!

 

Some of the cons do not understand how PA law works.

Chris155au is obviously very uncomfortable with how the 1964 CRA applies to cons as well as everybody else.

 

Why do you say that?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't prevent anyone's freedom anymore because black people aren't discriminated against anymore. It prevented people's freedom to discriminate back in the bad old days, but I would argue that it was justified for the greater good.

 

liberals are all high and mighty against discrimination a business refusing to perform a task that goes against their deeply hard moral beliefs unless of course its a conservative and or Trump supporter then they are like its their business they can serve or not serve who ever they like
that blatant unadulterated hypocacy and double standard makes liberals lose all credibility in the debate and needs to sit down and shut the hell up

 

Based on the OP article, the couple in this case posted a general rant about the incident on social media but didn’t make a formal complaint and it was the state that independently chose to peruse the legal action.

In more general terms, action against this kind of discrimination isn’t about specifically wanting service from individuals who disapprove of you but about standing against the social acceptance and support of such discrimination in general. This applies to a whole range of anti-discrimination cases in all sorts of different contexts. Some people bring cases against employers for wrongful dismissal, not necessarily because they want to work for that employer again but to challenge the discrimination.

Obviously there can be less positive motives too, seeking compensation or for personal attention but that can apply across the board too, potentially including the vocal defences made by defendants in some cases.

 

If that were true, you would have a point but you don't.