Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

FYI my mom and my aunt worked for Prudential in Dallas in the early 50s, there were not allowed into homes because they were Catholic and saw first hand of the way blacks were treated on the buses.

Here's more, Vince Lombardi was turned down to coach at Wake Forrest because of his last name. The guard Jerry Kramer of the Packers wrote a book, and in part told the story of the Packers after a scrimmage game in the south, went to a restaurant, told the black players had to enter from the rear door. Vince Lombardi had the whole team enter from the rear door.

One common theme in your replies, nary have you acknowledged the southern states treatment.

 

I have no idea what the word "Libertarian" means to you so there is no way for me to answer that question.

I believe in the principles of Republicanism/Classical Liberalism, the Golden Rule and the founding principles.

 

Because the alphabet people don't just want tolerance, they want validation from everyone. It will never happen.

Being against Christian bakers and florists is a logically untenable position. They argue that baking a cake is not expressive, and therefore not protected speech. At the same time, not baking a cake is obviously an expression. Is it one or the other?

Are they going to force Muslim printers to print Muhammed cartoons? Blacks or Jews to cater a KKK or Nazi function?

 

The West-coast branch of the Swamp, I see.

 

And I didn't SAY that it was a change.

 

Did they issue a complaint with the state?

 

Yes you did

 

Only to people who don't understand the first thing about religion.

I'm plenty fine with it as well. In fact, I wonder what sort of Christian would feel slighted at refusal of service from such an establishment.

 

OK how does that refute the fact that racism was rampant in northern state and especially northern cities? And I grew up in the deep South and witness separate drinking fountains, and separate counters and that whites rode up front and blacks rode in the back on buses and have never said anything otherwise, so stop with the specious claims for lack of rebuttal.

 

Most gay people do not care about validation, they care about legal equality — nothing more, nothing less.

I am perfectly fine with businesses refusing services as long as there are zero protections for them (ie a Christian employer should not be allowed to fire someone only because they are gay but a gay person cannot fire a Christian only because they are Christian). That is the law we have today, the people with the most protections — religious affiliated — are demanding that others not have the same protections.

Places that are open to the public should have to list in a conspicuous place all the population groups they refuse to service. Agree?

 

We disagree.

The baker wasn't refusing to serve gays, he was refusing to use his artistic talents to facilitate a gay wedding that violated his conscience.

 

Racism was everywhere. A little history lesson, 60 yrs and more, the inner cities were completely controlled by the mob, divisioned ethinically, yet with exceptions like the Hasidic Jews and Blacks lived side-by-side with little to no issues. Juxtposing the South's racism with their lnychings and the North's racism, is hardly comparable.

 

What is your disagreement based on? Mine is based on the tens of millions of gay people that are not in the news. There have only been a few cases of public accommodation suits.

The cause is irrelevant, change gay wedding to black wedding or Jewish wedding and most likely the issue dissolves — the people involved is why the refusal is occurring.

Second attempt: Places that are open to the public should have to list in a conspicuous place all the population groups they refuse to service. Do you agree or disagree?

 

OK, just see what happens when a public figure expresses doubts on gay marriage or the gay lifestyle. If gays don't tolerate differing opinions, then THEY are the intolerant ones.

There is no valid biblical Christian reason to oppose black or Jewish weddings, which is why such racial discrimination positions have rightly never stood up in court. It is ridiculous to compare gays with race, race is immutable, same-sex attraction is not.

No, because it would invite retaliation from violent gays and their allies, who as I said want more than toleration.

 

So when politicians and actors talk ill about Christians and Christians they organize boycotts and many complain quiet heavily, do you believe Christians are intolerant? Or does the metric only apply to gays?

Of course gay people are intolerant of people that want to take their rights away, imprison them, murder them — wouldn’t you be? Or would you sit quietly by?

Sorry, you don’t get to tell people what their beliefs entail. There are several verses that have been used to be against interracial marriage and pro slavery. Do you believe the courts get to rule what beliefs are valid? Your views are highly inconsistent.

So you prefer individuals that would be denied services should be allowed to waste their time considering a product they cannot purchase. Interesting. Your views seem more based on animosity than logic.

 

I'm looking forward to the day when Conservatives go to liberal bakeries and florists to get cakes and and banners that read, "Abortion Kills Babies", or something similar. Perhaps even "Make America Great Again" would be denied. Will the government then be as enthusiastic about prosecuting if anyone refuses?

 

I wasn't talking about boycotts, but violence.

Nobody is advocating murder or imprisonment, as far as their newly-minted rights by an activist court, I reject the notion that people with same-sex feelings are a protected class. We have a long-standing constitutional right to free exercise of religious beliefs.

Yes, they do it all the time. Not all religious claims are valid.

It would be a brief meeting, there are lots of other places they can go for their cake. Gays have specifically targeted Christian bakers they knew were opposed, which is why I say they want validation, not tolerance.

Are you going to force Muslim bakers to make gay wedding cakes?

 

The first sentence had me laughing. If that's a christian I'm glad I'm an atheist.

 

Thats not what you said, but ok. Care to list the numerous instances of gay people reacting violently with people that want them dead?

Thats simply not true, around 26% of the population believe homosexuality should be illegal [source] so you have no idea what you are speaking of. Not ironically that’s about the number that are against marriage equality leading to the assumption that just about everyone (not all but a majority) of people against same sex marriage are against gay people existing at all. aka hate

You have a constitutional right for congress not to make laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Gay people are protected under the 14th amendment.

Source?
No religion or religious belief can be proven or disproven — they should all be treated equally and is why we must tread carefully with allowing religious rule to overrule secular laws.

Unlike you, I believe all people should be treated equally. If we remove public accommodation laws then discriminate away. If not then yes, if they are in the business of producing wedding cakes and are open to the public they should be expected to follow the laws and regulations of their business licenses.

 

Pretty sure those would be denied to any customer not just a select few or a specific group. Messages have already been ruled as being an exception.

Tell me, how do you tell the difference between a same sex wedding cake vs a traditional wedding cake? If a heterosexual couple ordered the gay wedding cake does it change orientation mid way, maybe when it’s baked? When the frosting is applied?

 

That depends upon the specific nature of those laws which takes us back to the beginning. How should they be structured?

 

I’m not really sure to be honest, I understand that some businesses — especially single member small businesses with a religious owner — do not want their goods distributed to individuals they seem unworthy. I can also understand that people do not like being openly discriminated against and these business are “open to the public” by choice, have picked a specific industry by choice, and have agreed to the terms of their business licenses by choice.

While I think there should be exceptions there should absolutely be a requirement to disclose which groups these business want to deny service to. The exceptions should only apply to very small businesses however, once a business gains a regional presence they should have to serve all groups equally except with specific messaging deemed to incite violence.

 

Laughing out loud? Really slapping the knee?

I don't know why this is, but atheists often claim to be laughing, sometimes even rolling on the floor laughing, at things that aren't the slightest bit funny by any measure.

 

A different sense of the absurd?