Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

[JoeB131]

And the florists were probably subject to the same type of threats by people supporting the couple, but you are OK with that, because you hate said florists.
And you keep accusing him of wifebeating with no backup, that is slander.

Are we talking about florists or bakers here? try to keep your argument straight, please.

I don't know if the florists were subjected to threats or not.. this is a discussion on whether or not they broke the laws of their state, which they clearly did.

The Court isn't supposed to reflect what the country is or was, its supposed to follow the constitution. If the country wants a radical change, the amendment process is the proper avenue, not getting 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to create some jiggery pokery.

Or we can just get 5 lawyers, and frankly, your side is just as fine when you overturn gun control or campaign finance laws that people wanted because of some 'jiggery-pokery".

The reasons why a person doesn't want to do something is irrelevant. What matters is government should only intervene when there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of those they are forcing, and only use the minimal force required to achieve their goal.

And clearly, fining the Wifebeaters was the only way to acheive that goal. A stern warning clearly wasn't getting the job done.

And the 'harm" you listed above, you were probably cheering on when Memories Pizza got the same treatment. That makes you a rank hypocrite.

The Memories Pizza people weren't outed by angry Gays. They chose to get on TV and Proudly announce they weren't serving no pizza to no dun der gays, Cleetus. You know, instead of saying, "What kind of dumb ass white trash would serve pizza at a wedding reception?"

 

[Damaged Eagle]

absolutely right. No one is going to make you gay marry. You are going to have to keep your latent homosexual tendencies to yourself.

You do realize that it's been scientifically proven that most homophobes are latent, self-hating homosexuals, right?

Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

.....

If that's the case then your post #53 indicates...

......And how come you Christian nuts can't talk about gay rights without throwing in pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia or some other thing no one was actually talking about? Is it because your arguments against gays boil down to.

1) I think it's icky.(when it's two dudes)

2) My imaginary friend in the sky says it's bad.

Neither hold much weight in the 21st century.

...you must have some have some unresolved issues.

******CHUCKLE*****

 

[martybegan]

And the florists were probably subject to the same type of threats by people supporting the couple, but you are OK with that, because you hate said florists.
And you keep accusing him of wifebeating with no backup, that is slander.

Are we talking about florists or bakers here? try to keep your argument straight, please.

I don't know if the florists were subjected to threats or not.. this is a discussion on whether or not they broke the laws of their state, which they clearly did.

The Court isn't supposed to reflect what the country is or was, its supposed to follow the constitution. If the country wants a radical change, the amendment process is the proper avenue, not getting 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to create some jiggery pokery.

Or we can just get 5 lawyers, and frankly, your side is just as fine when you overturn gun control or campaign finance laws that people wanted because of some 'jiggery-pokery".

The reasons why a person doesn't want to do something is irrelevant. What matters is government should only intervene when there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of those they are forcing, and only use the minimal force required to achieve their goal.

And clearly, fining the Wifebeaters was the only way to acheive that goal. A stern warning clearly wasn't getting the job done.

And the 'harm" you listed above, you were probably cheering on when Memories Pizza got the same treatment. That makes you a rank hypocrite.

The Memories Pizza people weren't outed by angry Gays. They chose to get on TV and Proudly announce they weren't serving no pizza to no dun der gays, Cleetus. You know, instead of saying, "What kind of dumb ass white trash would serve pizza at a wedding reception?"

We are talking about the general concept of government getting involved in deciding who's butthurt is more equal than someone else's butt hurt. Its the same argument.

I have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. You want to infringe on it. When courts stop that, they are actually fulfilling their role, not creating new law.
People have a right to speech, even if they are part of a corporation.

Again with the slander. and it wasn't "fining". fining is $50, $143k is the fine equivalent of a death sentence.

They were asked a set up question by a reporter, they didn't go looking to make a statement. and your justification of what happened to them, because you don't like them, speaks of both your hackery and your hypocrisy.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

How hard is it to say you're going on vacation that week?

View attachment 113492

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The Court isn't supposed to reflect what the country is or was, its supposed to follow the constitution. If the country wants a radical change, the amendment process is the proper avenue, not getting 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to create some jiggery pokery.

Or we can just get 5 lawyers, and frankly, your side is just as fine when you overturn gun control or campaign finance laws that people wanted because of some 'jiggery-pokery".

Or progressives can just organize a riot and destroy a campus to violate someone's 1st Amendment rights when the lawyers aren't enough.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Marianne]

In the case of the florist it's their Constitutional right so it's not even a question of PA law. The Constitution clearly says that no law can be made that prohibits freedom of Religion. As for Moochelles designer that said she wouldn't design for Melania, she has no excuse.

Except your business doesn't have a first amendment rights.

Businesses aren't people. Businesses have to comply with laws. Thankfully. Otherwise you'd get some nut who won't exterminate the rats in his restaurant because "it's against his religion".

So what you are saying is if a Neo Nazi Group asks a Jewish baker to make them a swastika cake they's have to make it. Or if a black owed business was asked to cater to an Antebellum wedding complete with confederate flags, gray uniforms,hoop skirts and plantation house with a cake that says "the south will rise again" written on it, Dixie and The Bonnie Blue Flag blaring from the DJ'd Play list, he should have to? How about if a black owned bakery should have to make a noose or flaming cross cake? By your thinking they should have to do it. How about a gay caterer having to do an anti gay's organization's Christmas party? You know some asshole will do just that to prove a point.

You might say they are symbols of hate but not all people view it that way. The Hakenkreuz, gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, croix gammée, fylfot, or tetraskelion have been around a lot longer than the Third Reich. Many in the South don't consider the various items of pre war and Civil War racist but more of a cultural Identity thing. Matter of fact there seems to be quite a thriving industry built around Antebellum weddings. Nooses have been Halloween decor for years and I'm sure tattoo parlors have flaming cross designs because they look cool. It could be argued that these are not symbols of hate but personal preference and self expression and even free speech. It goes both ways so my question to you is now what does the business do? Do they provide the distasteful service?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So what you are saying is if a Neo Nazi Group asks a Jewish baker to make them a swastika cake they's have to make it. Or if a black owed business was asked to cater to an Antebellum wedding complete with confederate flags, gray uniforms,hoop skirts and plantation house with a cake that says "the south will rise again" written on it, Dixie and The Bonnie Blue Flag blaring from the DJ'd Play list, he should have to? How about if a black owned bakery should have to make a noose or flaming cross cake? By your thinking they should have to do it. How about a gay caterer having to do an anti gay's organization's Christmas party? You know some asshole will do just that to prove a point.

You might say they are symbols of hate but not all people view it that way. The Hakenkreuz, gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, croix gammée, fylfot, or tetraskelion have been around a lot longer than the Third Reich. Many in the South don't consider the various items of pre war and Civil War racist but more of a cultural Identity thing. Matter of fact there seems to be quite a thriving industry built around Antebellum weddings. Nooses have been Halloween decor for years and I'm sure tattoo parlors have flaming cross designs because they look cool. It could be argued that these are not symbols of hate but personal preference and self expression and even free speech. It goes both ways so my question to you is now what does the business do? Do they provide the distasteful service?

I'm sorry, you don't appear in that long post to understand what Public Accommodation laws do include and don't include.

Nazi's and bigots are not protected under PA laws.

Now let's say that a baker did make cakes with swastika's on them. But refused to sell them to blacks. THAT would be a PA law violation because it is a product the business provided but refused based on who the customer was.

Now the above wedding cake is one from the catalog of cakes offered to the public by Masterpiece Cakes (the Colorado bakery). If the bakery doesn't want to supply wedding cakes, they are not required to under PA laws. Just don't sell wedding cakes, if a customer comes in and askes for one - sorry we don't do wedding cakes. Now, Masterpiece Cakes DID offer wedding cakes, they are even part of their catalog. When they refused sale to gay people it wasn't because they didn't do wedding cakes, it was because of who the customer was.

That is the difference post misses (along with nazi's and bigots not being covered under PA laws).


(The above is how the law works, not defending such laws. As a matter of fact I personally think PA laws as applied to private business should be repealed and the rights of property restored to the business owner and so they can refuse service to Nazi's, Bigots if they choose but also based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, sex, or sexual orientation.)


>>>>

 

[pinqy]

In the case of the florist it's their Constitutional right so it's not even a question of PA law. The Constitution clearly says that no law can be made that prohibits freedom of Religion. As for Moochelles designer that said she wouldn't design for Melania, she has no excuse.

Except your business doesn't have a first amendment rights.

Businesses aren't people. Businesses have to comply with laws. Thankfully. Otherwise you'd get some nut who won't exterminate the rats in his restaurant because "it's against his religion".

So what you are saying is if a Neo Nazi Group asks a Jewish baker to make them a swastika cake they's have to make it. Or if a black owed business was asked to cater to an Antebellum wedding complete with confederate flags, gray uniforms,hoop skirts and plantation house with a cake that says "the south will rise again" written on it, Dixie and The Bonnie Blue Flag blaring from the DJ'd Play list, he should have to? How about if a black owned bakery should have to make a noose or flaming cross cake? By your thinking they should have to do it. How about a gay caterer having to do an anti gay's organization's Christmas party? You know some asshole will do just that to prove a point.

Nobody's saying anything of the sort. And if a gay couple wanted a cake in the shape of a penis, or if an atheist wanted something sacrilegious...then the baker would be under no obligation to accommodate.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I'm sorry, you don't appear in that long post to understand what Public Accommodation laws do include and don't include.

Nazi's and bigots are not protected under PA laws.

Now let's say that a baker did make cakes with swastika's on them. But refused to sell them to blacks. THAT would be a PA law violation because it is a product the business provided but refused based on who the customer was.

Now the above wedding cake is one from the catalog of cakes offered to the public by Masterpiece Cakes (the Colorado bakery). If the bakery doesn't want to supply wedding cakes, they are not required to under PA laws. Just don't sell wedding cakes, if a customer comes in and askes for one - sorry we don't do wedding cakes. Now, Masterpiece Cakes DID offer wedding cakes, they are even part of their catalog. When they refused sale to gay people it wasn't because they didn't do wedding cakes, it was because of who the customer was.

That is the difference post misses (along with nazi's and bigots not being covered under PA laws).


(The above is how the law works, not defending such laws. As a matter of fact I personally think PA laws as applied to private business should be repealed and the rights of property restored to the business owner and so they can refuse service to Nazi's, Bigots if they choose but also based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, sex, or sexual orientation.)


>>>>

The Civil Rights Act states "All persons" have the right to public accomodations.

It does not single out any specific minority group to receive special privileges.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Civil Rights Act states "All persons" have the right to public accomodations.

These cases were not brought under Civil Rights Act which lists the protected classes.

There cases were brought under State Public Accommodation laws which specifically listed sexual orientation under the list of protected classes.


>>>>

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The Civil Rights Act states "All persons" have the right to public accomodations.

These cases were not brought under Civil Rights Act which lists the protected classes.

There cases were brought under State Public Accommodation laws which specifically listed sexual orientation under the list of protected classes.


>>>>

There should be no "protected classes".

The establishment of "protected classes" in itself should be considered a abomination to any free thinking citizen in that it suggests that special privileges are being granted to a select few.

The law either applies to ALL citizens or it should not exist.

*****SMILE*****

 

[JoeB131]

We are talking about the general concept of government getting involved in deciding who's butthurt is more equal than someone else's butt hurt. Its the same argument.

No, we are talking about what constitutes a public accommedation. The courts have ruled for a very long time that any busines that sells goods or services is a PA and can't refuse service. This isn't complicated.

I have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. You want to infringe on it. When courts stop that, they are actually fulfilling their role, not creating new law.
People have a right to speech, even if they are part of a corporation.

The Second Amendment is about militias, and if you don't want to live in a city wit sensible gun control laws, you can always move. Money isn't speech, and corproations aren't people. So again, you are all for the courts making rules, when they are results you like.

Again with the slander. and it wasn't "fining". fining is $50, $143k is the fine equivalent of a death sentence.

Um, not really. They aren't out of business because of the fine. They are out of business because they lost all their customers. Probably shouldn't have opened a bakery with all those hippies living there.

They were asked a set up question by a reporter, they didn't go looking to make a statement. and your justification of what happened to them, because you don't like them, speaks of both your hackery and your hypocrisy.

It wasn't a setup question. They knew what they were saying, and they decided to say it on TV. Unlike the Cryer-Bowman's, who had their identities broadcast nationwide by Mr. Wifebeater.

 

[JoeB131]

So what you are saying is if a Neo Nazi Group asks a Jewish baker to make them a swastika cake they's have to make it. Or if a black owed business was asked to cater to an Antebellum wedding complete with confederate flags, gray uniforms,hoop skirts and plantation house with a cake that says "the south will rise again" written on it, Dixie and The Bonnie Blue Flag blaring from the DJ'd Play list, he should have to?

Not really comparable, as these services are not offered to just select people. Now, if they were making Swastika cakes all the time, but refusing to sell them togroup X, they might have an argument. If NOBODY gets a Nazi cake, it's not a refusal.

 

[danielpalos]

The best solution would be if homosexuality will be prohibited again. Otherwise faggots are getting more and more impudent.



Lawyers for a Christian florist vow a vigorous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a state supreme court ruled unanimously Thursday that their client violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

All nine justices ruled for the state of Washington and plaintiffs Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed and against Baronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion.

The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Stutzman, begs to differ.

“They’re wrong,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued Stutzman’s case before the Washington state Supreme Court.

“We’re deeply disappointed with today’s court decision,” Waggoner told WND and Radio America. “The First Amendment protects Baronelle’s rights as a small business owner and a creative professional. She has loved and respected everyone who has walked into her store. She served this gentleman (Ingersoll) for nearly 10 years and simply declined an event, one ceremony that was a religious ceremony because of her religious convictions.”


Read more at Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

I have a question. When Moochelle Obama's designer said she wouldn't work for Melania Trump why doesn't the left consider that the same? Actually the Christian Florist has even more right because they have a constitutional right to practice their religion whereas the Designer doesn't and just did it out of spite.

Show us the part of the PA law that covers that.

In the case of the florist it's their Constitutional right so it's not even a question of PA law. The Constitution clearly says that no law can be made that prohibits freedom of Religion. As for Moochelles designer that said she wouldn't design for Melania, she has no excuse.

First amendment of the Constitution
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

PA laws require a profit when engaged in public accommodation, not morals.

 

[martybegan]

We are talking about the general concept of government getting involved in deciding who's butthurt is more equal than someone else's butt hurt. Its the same argument.

No, we are talking about what constitutes a public accommedation. The courts have ruled for a very long time that any busines that sells goods or services is a PA and can't refuse service. This isn't complicated.

I have a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. You want to infringe on it. When courts stop that, they are actually fulfilling their role, not creating new law.
People have a right to speech, even if they are part of a corporation.

The Second Amendment is about militias, and if you don't want to live in a city wit sensible gun control laws, you can always move. Money isn't speech, and corproations aren't people. So again, you are all for the courts making rules, when they are results you like.

Again with the slander. and it wasn't "fining". fining is $50, $143k is the fine equivalent of a death sentence.

Um, not really. They aren't out of business because of the fine. They are out of business because they lost all their customers. Probably shouldn't have opened a bakery with all those hippies living there.

They were asked a set up question by a reporter, they didn't go looking to make a statement. and your justification of what happened to them, because you don't like them, speaks of both your hackery and your hypocrisy.

It wasn't a setup question. They knew what they were saying, and they decided to say it on TV. Unlike the Cryer-Bowman's, who had their identities broadcast nationwide by Mr. Wifebeater.

Appeal to authority. The courts are wrong.

The 2nd is about the right of States to call on the militia AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And speech is speech, having to pay for it is the result of modern communications. Corporations have people in them, you don't give up your rights just because you sell something.

Again with the slander! And it was a setup question, you don't get to ignore reality and the truth.

Fucktard.

 

[JoeB131]

The 2nd is about the right of States to call on the militia AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And speech is speech, having to pay for it is the result of modern communications. Corporations have people in them, you don't give up your rights just because you sell something.

again, until the current bunch of nuts got into the court, that's not what people actually believed for most of our 200 years.

It also doesn't make a lick of common sense. Billionaires buying our government and our cities becoming free fire zones is just plain stupid.

And it was a setup question, you don't get to ignore reality and the truth.

It wasn't a setup question. A law was passed they called around and asked if any businesses wanted to talk about the new law.

These dopes did. Probably because they sucked at making Pizza and thought they could make a quick buck off the bible thumpers on a go-fund me account.

 

[martybegan]

The 2nd is about the right of States to call on the militia AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And speech is speech, having to pay for it is the result of modern communications. Corporations have people in them, you don't give up your rights just because you sell something.

again, until the current bunch of nuts got into the court, that's not what people actually believed for most of our 200 years.

It also doesn't make a lick of common sense. Billionaires buying our government and our cities becoming free fire zones is just plain stupid.

And it was a setup question, you don't get to ignore reality and the truth.

It wasn't a setup question. A law was passed they called around and asked if any businesses wanted to talk about the new law.

These dopes did. Probably because they sucked at making Pizza and thought they could make a quick buck off the bible thumpers on a go-fund me account.

Actually it is. The idea that law abiding citizens can be prevented from owning firearms is a new concept.

The cities with the worst violence have the strongest gun control laws, isn't that weird?

It was a setup question. and you have no idea about their pizza, you just like to lie.

 

[hazlnut]

The best solution would be if homosexuality will be prohibited again. Otherwise faggots are getting more and more impudent.



Lawyers for a Christian florist vow a vigorous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a state supreme court ruled unanimously Thursday that their client violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

All nine justices ruled for the state of Washington and plaintiffs Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed and against Baronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion.

The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Stutzman, begs to differ.

“They’re wrong,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued Stutzman’s case before the Washington state Supreme Court.

“We’re deeply disappointed with today’s court decision,” Waggoner told WND and Radio America. “The First Amendment protects Baronelle’s rights as a small business owner and a creative professional. She has loved and respected everyone who has walked into her store. She served this gentleman (Ingersoll) for nearly 10 years and simply declined an event, one ceremony that was a religious ceremony because of her religious convictions.”


Read more at Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

Why don't you sick homophobes got start your own hate board and stop trolling here?

 

[JoeB131]

Actually it is. The idea that law abiding citizens can be prevented from owning firearms is a new concept.

The cities with the worst violence have the strongest gun control laws, isn't that weird?

Not at all. You can't have city gun control laws. They have to be national. Which we DID have in the 1930's when gangs were shooting eachother in the street with Tommy Guns. and no one, not even the NRA, thought htat was a bad idea.

That was before the gun industry realized they had to cater to the 2% of nuts who want to arm themselves like the Zombies are coming.

It was a setup question. and you have no idea about their pizza, you just like to lie.

My very first job in 1978. Making Pizza. No one ever ordered Pizza for a wedding. Ever. These homophobes just wanted to get attention. And they got attention, just not the attention they wanted.

 

[martybegan]

Actually it is. The idea that law abiding citizens can be prevented from owning firearms is a new concept.

The cities with the worst violence have the strongest gun control laws, isn't that weird?

Not at all. You can't have city gun control laws. They have to be national. Which we DID have in the 1930's when gangs were shooting eachother in the street with Tommy Guns. and no one, not even the NRA, thought htat was a bad idea.

That was before the gun industry realized they had to cater to the 2% of nuts who want to arm themselves like the Zombies are coming.

It was a setup question. and you have no idea about their pizza, you just like to lie.

My very first job in 1978. Making Pizza. No one ever ordered Pizza for a wedding. Ever. These homophobes just wanted to get attention. And they got attention, just not the attention they wanted.

Making machine guns harder to get does not equate me having to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a fucking revolver. That is infringement.

Give me back my rights to something as simple as a revolver, then we can talk about pray and spray weapons. Until then, not one step back.

THE REPORTER CAME TO THEM