Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[Syriusly]

The reality is that Christians view marriage as a religious ceremony, and homo rituals as sacrilege.

The reality is that your religion doesn't trump generally applicable civil law.

And if your job is incompatible with your religion, get a different job.

No.

And the law is bad law.

Well like everyone else- you can attempt to change the law- you can either change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing that the law is unconsitutional.

Just like gay couples have done to change laws against same gender couples.

 

[Skylar]

The reality is that Christians view marriage as a religious ceremony, and homo rituals as sacrilege.

The reality is that your religion doesn't trump generally applicable civil law.

And if your job is incompatible with your religion, get a different job.

No.

And the law is bad law.

No, it isn't. The law is reasonable and fair. And you don't get a pass just because you disagree with it.

There isn't one law for Christians, and a harsher law for everyone else. Christians are treated just like everyone else.

You don't get special treatment. Get used to the idea.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the law isn't reasonable.

You know, we claimed that homos were treated just like everybody else in relation to MARRIAGE. They had the same right as everybody else to marry someone else. And you loons insisted that the law was wrong, and forced us to accept homo marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. You aren't going to force us to attend your fruity weddings. Get over it. We'll find a way around it.

 

[Skylar]

No, the law isn't reasonable.

Sure it is. Its completely reasonable to require those doing business with the public to treat their customers fairly and equally.

If your religion prevents you from doing that, then find a different job.

 

[Syriusly]

No, the law isn't reasonable.

You know, we claimed that homos were treated just like everybody else in relation to MARRIAGE. They had the same right as everybody else to marry someone else. And you loons insisted that the law was wrong, and forced us to accept homo marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. You aren't going to force us to attend your fruity weddings. Get over it. We'll find a way around it.

LOL.......

As I pointed out- you have exactly the same options to oppose any law you feel is unconstitutional as the same gender couples who challenge anti-gay marriage bans.

But apparently you prefer to whine about what victims you are rather than do anything about the law you think is wrong.

 

[dblack]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

 

[Silhouette]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

Lifestyles cannot be a protected class. Which lifestyles? Which not? If being repugnant to the majority is disqualified as a determinig factor, then surely you can see the problem of which lifestyles are protected and which aren't. It would all be arbitrary and whimsical.

 

[dblack]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

Lifestyles cannot be a protected class. Which lifestyles? Which not? If being repugnant to the majority is disqualified as a determinig factor, then surely you can see the problem of which lifestyles are protected and which aren't. It would all be arbitrary and whimsical.

Exactly. And of course the cruel irony of these laws is that the minorities most likely to be discriminated against will never make the list.

 

[LittleNipper]

No, the law isn't reasonable.

Sure it is. Its completely reasonable to require those doing business with the public to treat their customers fairly and equally.

If your religion prevents you from doing that, then find a different job.

A customer is whoever the businessman chooses to serve, and not who the government demands service for. Customers should be treated honestly and without malice but not equally. A businessman provides service for those that can afford to pay for his services or merchandise. A businessman can CHOOSE to donate to whomever he wishes; however, the government cannot dictate such an act. The government cannot dictate the style of merchandise a businessman decides to sell, only public demand can effect if an item is to remain in one's inventory.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

A sacrament isn't a sacrament because it takes place in a church. The queers are essentially trying to force us to renounce our faith, by attending non-religious *marriages* and in doing so, admitting marriage is not a sacrament.

Businesses aren't churches, Kosher. If such were the case, none of them would have to pay taxes.

Churches are exempt from PA laws. Businesses aren't. You may not be able to recognize a distinction, but a rational person could.

And the law certainly does.

Totally irrelevant. Nobody said a business was a church.

Then you acknowledge that a business isn't a church. Killing your 'foot in the door of churches' bullshit when businesses are held to public accommodation laws. .

Artists and business owners are first individuals, and as such have the right to their religious beliefs...and they have the right to endorse only those ceremonies they want to endorse.

Not when engaged in commerce they don't. A business is a business first. And the fines for violating PA laws are levied against the business. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with your job, find a different job.

Your religious beliefs don't make you immune to any law you don't like.

Where is the law that says that only churches are allowed to abstain from participating in what they consider sacrilege?

Your religious beliefs dont' make you immune to any law you don't like.

You can't refuse to hire blacks by claiming it would offend Jesus, you can't refuse to hire Jews by claiming that Jews killed Jesus....you can't refuse to sell pants to women because you believe the Bible says women can't wear pants.

And you can't refuse to sell a cake to a homosexual, that you would sell to anyone else.

Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?

 

[bodecea]

No, the law isn't reasonable.

You know, we claimed that homos were treated just like everybody else in relation to MARRIAGE. They had the same right as everybody else to marry someone else. And you loons insisted that the law was wrong, and forced us to accept homo marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. You aren't going to force us to attend your fruity weddings. Get over it. We'll find a way around it.

Well, if the law is unreasonable, get your Representatives to repeal it or file a lawsuit to have it declared unConstitutional.

 

[bodecea]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

Lifestyles cannot be a protected class. Which lifestyles? Which not? If being repugnant to the majority is disqualified as a determinig factor, then surely you can see the problem of which lifestyles are protected and which aren't. It would all be arbitrary and whimsical.

Religion is a lifestyle and the Founders made it a protected class.

 

[bodecea]

Businesses aren't churches, Kosher. If such were the case, none of them would have to pay taxes.

Churches are exempt from PA laws. Businesses aren't. You may not be able to recognize a distinction, but a rational person could.

And the law certainly does.

Totally irrelevant. Nobody said a business was a church.

Then you acknowledge that a business isn't a church. Killing your 'foot in the door of churches' bullshit when businesses are held to public accommodation laws. .

Artists and business owners are first individuals, and as such have the right to their religious beliefs...and they have the right to endorse only those ceremonies they want to endorse.

Not when engaged in commerce they don't. A business is a business first. And the fines for violating PA laws are levied against the business. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with your job, find a different job.

Your religious beliefs don't make you immune to any law you don't like.

Where is the law that says that only churches are allowed to abstain from participating in what they consider sacrilege?

Your religious beliefs dont' make you immune to any law you don't like.

You can't refuse to hire blacks by claiming it would offend Jesus, you can't refuse to hire Jews by claiming that Jews killed Jesus....you can't refuse to sell pants to women because you believe the Bible says women can't wear pants.

And you can't refuse to sell a cake to a homosexual, that you would sell to anyone else.

Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?

Race is in the Constitution in what way? In regard to what?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the law isn't reasonable.

Sure it is. Its completely reasonable to require those doing business with the public to treat their customers fairly and equally.

If your religion prevents you from doing that, then find a different job.

A customer is whoever the businessman chooses to serve, and not who the government demands service for. Customers should be treated honestly and without malice but not equally. A businessman provides service for those that can afford to pay for his services or merchandise. A businessman can CHOOSE to donate to whomever he wishes; however, the government cannot dictate such an act. The government cannot dictate the style of merchandise a businessman decides to sell, only public demand can effect if an item is to remain in one's inventory.

And no one ever said government could.

But government is authorized to regulate commerce, markets, and businesses, including requiring those who sell goods and services to the general public to accommodate all participants in the local market, where to seek to deny services to patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market – and all other interrelated markets – and is prohibited accordingly and appropriately.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

 

[Skylar]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

Lifestyles cannot be a protected class. Which lifestyles? Which not? If being repugnant to the majority is disqualified as a determinig factor, then surely you can see the problem of which lifestyles are protected and which aren't. It would all be arbitrary and whimsical.

Gays and lesbians are protected. And have been for nearly 20 years since the Romer V. Evans decision. You can imagine this can't be so. The reality is that gays and lesbians have rights. They are subject to historic discrimination. And the court has and will protect those rights against such discrimination.

As it should be.

And remember, gay marriage is supported by the majority. So your 'repugnant to the majority' claims just don't hold water.

 

[Skylar]

@koshergirl , would you agree that protected classes and PA laws should be repealed across the board? In other words, would you be OK with legalizing discrimination against Christians?

Lifestyles cannot be a protected class. Which lifestyles? Which not? If being repugnant to the majority is disqualified as a determinig factor, then surely you can see the problem of which lifestyles are protected and which aren't. It would all be arbitrary and whimsical.

Exactly. And of course the cruel irony of these laws is that the minorities most likely to be discriminated against will never make the list.

Such as? By all means, be specific of the minorities you're referring to.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Managed to slip that one in too, huh? The Commerce Clause has become very ubiquitous to you statists. There's simply nothing it can't justify.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But government is authorized to regulate commerce, markets, and businesses, including requiring those who sell goods and services to the general public to accommodate all participants in the local market, where to seek to deny services to patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market – and all other interrelated markets – and is prohibited accordingly and appropriately.

There is no POTENTIAL legitimate purpose of government, which forces an innocent person to promote perversion... .

What's more, any government which does so, renders itself through that act: Illegitimate?

 

[Skylar]

SAINTMICHAELDEFENDTHEM SAID:

“Race religion and lifestyle choice neatly subsumed together. Two of them are in the US Constitution and federal law. Can you guess which one is not?”

This doesn't make any sense.

This issue concerns regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, where public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Managed to slip that one in too, huh? The Commerce Clause has become very ubiquitous to you statists. There's simply nothing it can't justify.

The regulation of commerce is immediately relevant a code of conduct for those who engage in commerce. And a state requiring that those who engage in business with the public treat their customers fairly and equally is both reasonable and well within the power of the State.