Florist sued again for refusing to provide flowers for gay wedding

Once again, she's breaking Washington state law, that's why she's being sued.

 

That's really the bottom line. We can all have opinions on whether or not it's "right", but it's the law. It's not like she's being forced to get down on her knees and worship the gays.

 

With the Gay Rape of hetrosexual boys royal commission into the largest gay and lesbian organisation in Australia ,the Catholic Church,the first person she asked for advice was the Cardinal of Sydney George Pell [known child rape coveruperer].

So she is covering up 'For the community' and think about it their is a division along gender lines ,its 'Gay marraige' not 'Gay and Lesbian marriage' as Lesbian Feminist radicals like Julia ,don't support any form of Marriage .

Penny Wong who is open about her Extreme Right wing Lesbian Feminism is on the front bench and a VERY close supporter of Gillard.

By lesbian I mean political terminology not sexual.

So it is consistant!

hey I don't like using the word gay but as this far Right political tendency chooses the title ,who am I to quibble.

BTW, yep they attempt to attack me everyday in everyway !

Nasty little Middle class proto fascists that they are ,lucky for my cadre of the Revolutionary Workers movement training and Political comrades hey!?

 

Other than looking slightly "lesbian", what proof do you have for that claim??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Mathieson

 

That's BS, there are others within the immediate area that can provide the service desired. This is simply an attack against this agenda.

Law equates to control, the real question is why do such laws even exist in a free society? There is nothing free about controlling people...

 

OK, idealistic BS aside, she still broke the law. Whether you agree with it or not, that's not really up for debate.

As a side note though, do you believe in scrapping ALL anti-discrimination laws, or just those that apply to gays?

 

We tried the "free market" approach for over 200 years.

It failed to minimize discrimination, and actually discrimination had spread like a noxious weed in a sewer.

One particular thing that occured is bigots not only have their OWN dea, they wany EVERYONE ELSE in a business community and neighborhood to obey THEIR hatred and bogotry.

Not only did we have whole areas of businesses discriminating against particular groups, but all the bigot businesses would get together to harass, assault (torches were common) and drive the un-bigoted businesses out of business because they were "bringing undesirables into the area".

Its simply obscene to allow this in PUBLIC businesses, and the courts have ruled if you advertise and are open to the =general public, you must SERVE the general public. Arbitrarily picking particular groups to discriminate against is simply false advertising and a way bigots (who often are people prone to hate) can get an opportunity to vent their disgusting hate on unsuspecting customers who come in the store.

Don't like it? Simply have a PRIVATE business privately soliciting to your bigotry group, and keep your sickness away from the unsuspecting public.

 

Which other florists in the area have been sued or refused to provide their services?

I'll be blunt, as I have many times in the past. I find this to be total trash, I personally believe that anyone in this country has the right to discriminate on any basis they see fit, its called the cost of freedom. There is a significant downside to that, if one is openly discriminatory they will likely lose business, but if they can succeed and are happy with their results, nobody should be trying to destroy them for some agenda...

My personal experience is that if you want to maximize your profits you take ALL the best talent available and do just that. That said, to do just that, everyone leaves their baggage at the door.

 

Should a pet shop be forced to sell me animals knowing I'm going to use them as sacrifice in a religious ceremony? Or perhaps for dinner.

 

Because the people of Washington wanted it in their laws. Let me ask you, are you also against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

- - - Updated - - -

It's not illegal to not sell things to people for illegal activities.

 

And if a single lunch counter in Birmingham had been willing to serve people of all races, they'd have got all the business. The economic incentives would seem to be decisive. But there were NONE. Bigotry is not for sale.

 

Thank you for injecting some sanity.

 

And it's their loss for not putting their bigotry aside.

 

So a black person who unknowingly relocates to a racist town where no one will serve him and he is forced to move, that scenario is ok with you?

 

Still not as bad as a lynching so I don't care.

 

They wanted it? Or was included or some other reason? I guess we'd have to see the laws that created it to be certain...

In truth, I've never examined the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was passed over a decade before I was born, and by the time I started to really look at concepts of law and such two decades had passed and newer laws were born. On the face of it I'd likely oppose such, I still have a strong belief that individual will supersedes government mandates...

 

[HR][/HR]

There was one law passed that included sexual orientation as a protected class.

What do you mean by your last line?

 

Can you post a link to that law?

What do I mean? What I mean is that YOU must want more than the station you are given. It would have been easy to simply follow the path, in such a case I'd likely be some fool working in a union just like good ole dad. I rejected that path and made my own. It comes down to individual desire and a bit of smarts to avoid the 'traps' that keep society the same. We are not an exceptional nation-state because we follow the given path, we are exception because everyone has the ability to succeed. There are countless examples in every race, creed, ethnicity, or what have you. Come on here, a vast majority of people simply follow whatever is 'expected' of them or in some ways 'forced' upon, by way of their circumstances, yet through all that you have all these exceptions, that rejected that. To me that individual fortitude is what makes us great, but it spans all spectrum's. To actually get there requires great sacrifice and the ability to avoid all the 'traps'...

 

IIRC, laws at the time explicitly forbade it!

 

Discrimination breeds hate toward each other and leads to civil strife and more crimes, why would any government allow such thing?

 

Economically, yes, it's their loss. But if the DID put their bigotry aside, they'd be ostracized by their neighbors, their freinds, their church, their customers. So you balance a small loss against a large loss.

 

I would give you a "like", but my like button is MIA...

 

Whats illegal about it. It isn't illegal to eat dog.

 

Such is the nature of freedom. Not everyone is going to like you. The converse is you don't have to like everyone... Given the alternative, I'll take it.

 

You fail to realize there were other providers for the service required. The potential loss is only for those being 'offended'... This is all about the witch hunt, nothing about freedom, nothing about discrimination, and nothing about what 'fair' means...