Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

As usual, this shouldn't be difficult to understand. The business has to serve everyone (see the 1960's and earlier if you don't know why this is the case). People are religious, businesses aren't. The florist herself doesn't necessarily have to do the arrangement, but her business does. If that means she needs to hire someone else to put the flowers into vases, then she should do that rather than pour thousands into defending her bigotry. Or she's welcome to not do wedding arrangements. Seriously, this isn't that hard of a problem to solve.

 

All that's reasonable except for "bigotry. " Just 10 years ago even Obama, Clinton and Elton John would have stopped with civil unions, then all of a sudden everyone is a bigot. Why? 5 of 9 lawyers in black robes say so.

Ugly word thrown around too casually the left.

"Get in line you bigot/racist etcetera-ist."

But actually, I doubt her hiring another florist would have worked. This plaintiff demanded that SHE "work her magic."

 

It's "absurd" that some people don't want to help you celebrate your gay marriage? When she starts demonstrating, locking herself to the White House gates, screaming at gay people, refusing to associate with them, hounding them out of restaurants in the style of the Left, you might possibly have a point.

 

I don't know what else to call it. Whether it's backed by religion or straight up hatred, it's still mistreatment of someone who should be dealt with like anyone else. Where folks would have stopped in the political climate at the time is irrelevant. The reality is that separate but equal isn't good enough for LGBTQ folks, just like it wasn't good enough for racial minorities in the '60s. So if you're serving the public, you serve all of the public. If any business owner has a problem with that, well, no one forced them to open a business in the first place.

 

Religion overriding the law certainly isn't a funding principle of America and certainly isn't the practice in America. If it was, 9/11 wouldn't have been a crime because it had a religious motive (in the minds of the terrorist at least).

The founding principle is that government doesn't legislate on the basis of religion an this includes either laws against or laws in favour of any specific religious beliefs. It is essentially a secularist principle.

 

Must be you that's laughing "out loud" and "knee slapping". It's pathetic and funny at the same time that someone so prejudiced would call themselves a christian.

 

It is idiotic to compare the two, race is immutable, same-sex attraction is not. We have constitutional protection of free exercise of religion, and clear religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. There is no such Christian teaching against races, which is why courts have rightly never accepted those arguments.

 

What are you talking about? I'm not laughing at all. I'm not even smiling. Someone up above said he was "laughing" at the unfunny OP. What else is funny to you? Crescent wrenches? Anvils?

Say something funny and I might laugh. Political jokes are never funny, just fyi, whether directed against the left or the right, if the purpose of the joke is to make a political point. There are reasons for this but it's off topic, though interesting. I don't say funny.

 

Is that supposed to be a religious Vegas chapel owner?

 

They do serve everyone, they just don't want to use their artistic talents to facilitate a gay marriage that violates their conscience.

You don't suspend your constitutional religious freedom rights when you start a business.

Nonsense, she's still facilitating a gay marriage in that case.

Bigot, huh? Pot, meet kettle.

Or the gays can go elsewhere. Want to make Muslim printers produce Muhammed cartoons? Jews and blacks cater to Nazi or KKK functions?

 

Excellent analysis. But it will be rejected as bigotry in this madhouse. Any disagreement with the left, on abortion, taxes, immigration, or firearms, is ultimately traceable to bigotry in their minds.

It's particularly strange to hear the left's opposition to limits on abortion when based on "racism," since abortion disproportionately kills black babies.

 

Courts make such distinctions all the time, for instance in denying racial discrimination using bogus religious reasons.

Bunk, as far as possible, the government needs to accommodate religious freedom. As far as possible without imposing on others, the Founders wanted to foster Christianity.

 

Yes, it's a very faithful rendition of the Pope in Notre Dame de Paris.

 

Same sex attraction is not a choice. Religion is. You have s right to practice your religion, just not allowed to break the law. Baking a cake, or arranging a floral arrangement does not violate any religion on earth, or prevent the owner from practicing their religion in any way.

 

Nice analogy. Declining to arrange flowers and mass murder ... exactly the same thing.

Actually I thank you for helping me notice something that's under-noticed in the thread. This woman is being fined and sued for NOT doing something. Everybody good with that?

"Make a nice flower arrangement tor this gay couple whose marriage you have valid and historically based reasons to oppose, or you will be fined and, if necessary, hounded out of business."

I guess if she refuses to pay the fine she goes to jail. Madness.

 

First show me who wants them dead. Millions more gays have died of self-inflicted AIDS than have been killed by others.

That isn't a serious movement, but sodomy was illegal for most of our history. The Founders believed in Natural Law, i.e. whatever is not contrary to God's law.

LOL, so because a position is opposed, that means you secretly wish those holding the opinion not exist? Do you with Christian bakers didn't exist? As even the majority opinion that legalized gay marriage said, people have every right to continue to oppose and work against gay marriage.

So anyone else can violate the constitution?

Again, I reject the notion that people with same sex feelings are a protected class. What next, a class of guys who like blonds?

It isn't the government's business to prove or disprove religions, but to judge the validity of religious claims. Christian views on sodomy have a 2,000 year history, with clear biblical backup from beginning to end. Even today the vast majority of Christians globally aren't buying the gay agenda, which I define as the attempt to normalize perversion.

We disagree, and IMHO so will the SCOTUS. Trump's recent picks believe in religious freedom.

 

Probably Rikers Island, that seems to be the designated LW re-education camp.

 

Same sex marriage is a choice.

Religion is a right.

We'll never agree on that, of course, but tell me something: exactly what harm has this couple suffered? The woman explained her reasons (as opposed to locking the doors against them) and even gave them a list of her competitors who could do the job.

Where is the harm? Why is she being fined? Why should she put in a jail cell if she refused to pay the fine?

 

Acting on it is, the same with those with a bent towards alcoholism or pedophilia.

 

I think Kavanaugh and possibly Roberts may surprise you ... in a bad way.

 

So is opposite sex marriage. That’s irrelevant.

.
So is marriage.

The same harm a black person suffers when they are turned away from a restaurant because they’re black.

That she broke the law while being nice, doesn’t change the fact it’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of orientation.

Because she broke the law.

 

Irrelevant. The owner is not permitted by law, to refuse service to the couple based on their orientation. No matter how badly you wish otherwise, religion does not permit you to break the law.

 

That isn't what the SCOTUS said in their 7-2 opinion. They condemned your side for endorsing the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, in their exact words. In other words, accommodation must be made for sincerely-held religious beliefs. To do otherwise IS breaking the law.

See https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/freedom-does-not-stop-at-the-bakery-door/

“The fact that Jack’s media are icing and chocolate rather than ink or paint does nothing to diminish the artistic content of his work.” He no more should be coerced into creating something that contradicts his vision than Rembrandt should have been squeezed into yielding a Jackson Pollack. More concretely, Jack Phillips’s pen is filled with icing, just as mine is filled with ink. Forcing Phillips to write “Happy Wedding Day, Charlie & David” detonates his rights to free expression no less than if government made me write “Hillary Clinton is a paragon of virtue and a font of truth. May all power flow to her forever.”

"Crucial point: Freedom of association applies to the private sector, not the government. Equal justice under law requires the public sector to treat all Americans the same way. A government bakery, perhaps at a military PX store or VA hospital, must bake whatever kinds of cakes people request — to commemorate gay weddings, straight nuptials, shacking up, or even a really good one-night stand.

Thus, the Founding Fathers’ constitutional structure correctly bequeathed us two spheres of human affairs: one in which Americans privately may choose those with whom we wish to associate, and one in which we publicly are treated as equals by a government that serves us all."

 

Roberts, yes, but Kavanaugh is known for his defense of religious liberty.

 

We shall see ....