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

[Syriusly]

lol. she might as well just close up shop, she hasn't a leg to stand on.

And gays need to understand that yes....... they're not normal at all...

No- not really.

Bigots like you are becoming less and less relevant, and more and more socially an embarressment- you will soon be like old Uncle Frank who still talks about how happier the n*ggers were before they all got so uppity.

 

[bodecea]

If you have to lie to have your faith, don't bother. And if you believe lying is allowed, don't call yourself a Christian since you aren't one.

All Christians are sinners. They come to that faith with that as the requirement. That requirement never leaves them; or very rarely. You may have heard of saints? They are the uber-rare exception to the immense-rule.

The rest of them are sinners...ALL of them! Their sin however does not submit the Christian New Testament to democratic revision. There is no power of redaction via numbers. In the New Testament there are prescriptions of all types for this type of sinful behavior and that type of sinful behavior. Homosexuals are no different. Christians are urged to reach out to them with compassion "making a difference".

Venial sins vs mortal sins are what's being discussed particularly with respect to so-called "gay marriage". Being a homosexual is a venial sin; its mendable, forgivable, deserving of tolerance and compassion. HOWEVER, enabling a homosexual to call what he does "normal" or to spread that idea to others, particularly an entire culture or settlement of people is UNFORGIVABLE. The prescription for that is the eternal death in the pit of fire..

Both Venial sin and mortal sins are Catholic concepts- and the florist in question would be horrified at the idea of her promoting such Catholic concepts.

The bible never says that marriage between two people of the same gender is a sin. Jesus never said that homosexuality is a sin. But yes- the bible does say homosexuality between men is a sin- just like adultery.

And Jesus does condemn adultery- which Jesus says includes someone who remarries after a divorce- like Newt Gingrich.

A gay couple marrying is no more 'sinful' than Newt Gingrich marrying for the third time.

Should do some research to see if that florist has made wedding arrangements for previously divorced couples.

 

[Syriusly]

The lesbos sued my business too but that got dismissed in the first ten minutes.

Yeah....right after they had a threeway with you......

 

[Seawytch]

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

No American is obligated to follow unjust laws.

There is no end to the examples down though history where 'I was just following the law', turned out very, VERY bad for people who were disinclined to use the mind God gave 'em, to use their means to reason to reject subjective law.

But in their defense, they did so because they reason subjectively, thus reject the objectivity that is required to be a decent human being.

Not quite. You are obligated to follow the law whether you consider it just or not. You may choose to not follow the law, but that does not remove the consequences of that decision.

Obligated to follow the law even when it's unjust? I'm sure the Nazis would have loved to have you on the panel of judges during the Nuremberg trials. You might have prevented a few hangings.

Mmmmm, hyperbole flakes.

Public Accommodation laws (which have been "on the books" since 1964 and have withstood Constitutional challenge) are "just like Nazis".

Yes. The Civil Rights Act created a narrow field in which discrimination could not happen, but otherwise left intact the right for businesses to refuse service to anyone. Now that "lifestyle choice" has horned its way in, it's getting to the point in which businesses are slaves, having to serve ANYONE, which was NOT the intent of the CRA. And yes they are just like the Nazis that attempted to overtake Mercedes Benz to directly force them to make war implements when Mercedes wanted to opt out.

Yeah...race, religion, color and national origin...that's real narrow.

Godwin's law, drama queen.

 

[Syriusly]

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

No American is obligated to follow unjust laws.

There is no end to the examples down though history where 'I was just following the law', turned out very, VERY bad for people who were disinclined to use the mind God gave 'em, to use their means to reason to reject subjective law.

But in their defense, they did so because they reason subjectively, thus reject the objectivity that is required to be a decent human being.

Not quite. You are obligated to follow the law whether you consider it just or not. You may choose to not follow the law, but that does not remove the consequences of that decision.

Obligated to follow the law even when it's unjust? I'm sure the Nazis would have loved to have you on the panel of judges during the Nuremberg trials. You might have prevented a few hangings.

Mmmmm, hyperbole flakes.

Public Accommodation laws (which have been "on the books" since 1964 and have withstood Constitutional challenge) are "just like Nazis".

And yes they are just like the Nazis that attempted to overtake Mercedes Benz to directly force them to make war implements when Mercedes wanted to opt out.

Yeah....the poor oppressed Christians.....to them the United States is just like Nazi Germany.....

What poor babies.

 

[Seawytch]

The lesbos sued my business too but that got dismissed in the first ten minutes.

Yeah....right after they had a threeway with you......

It was a three way with Brian Williams and Bill O'Reilly.

 

[Ravi]

What about boycotts based on protected classes? Shouldn't those be outlawed as well?

How about an example?

Boycotts of gay owned businesses. Or, Muslim owned, or [name your protected class] owned. Should the same legal principle be applied?

You can boycott any business you like. Business isn't protected from boycotts under PA law.

I understand the current legal status. I'm asking if you think it should be prohibited on the same grounds. Why is it any different?

A business isn't a person. You could have a business run by gay people that caters to gay people but the business itself is not gay (or muslim, etc.).

 

[Syriusly]

If you have to lie to have your faith, don't bother. And if you believe lying is allowed, don't call yourself a Christian since you aren't one.

All Christians are sinners. They come to that faith with that as the requirement. That requirement never leaves them; or very rarely. You may have heard of saints? They are the uber-rare exception to the immense-rule.

The rest of them are sinners...ALL of them! Their sin however does not submit the Christian New Testament to democratic revision. There is no power of redaction via numbers. In the New Testament there are prescriptions of all types for this type of sinful behavior and that type of sinful behavior. Homosexuals are no different. Christians are urged to reach out to them with compassion "making a difference".

Venial sins vs mortal sins are what's being discussed particularly with respect to so-called "gay marriage". Being a homosexual is a venial sin; its mendable, forgivable, deserving of tolerance and compassion. HOWEVER, enabling a homosexual to call what he does "normal" or to spread that idea to others, particularly an entire culture or settlement of people is UNFORGIVABLE. The prescription for that is the eternal death in the pit of fire..

Both Venial sin and mortal sins are Catholic concepts- and the florist in question would be horrified at the idea of her promoting such Catholic concepts.

The bible never says that marriage between two people of the same gender is a sin. Jesus never said that homosexuality is a sin. But yes- the bible does say homosexuality between men is a sin- just like adultery.

And Jesus does condemn adultery- which Jesus says includes someone who remarries after a divorce- like Newt Gingrich.

A gay couple marrying is no more 'sinful' than Newt Gingrich marrying for the third time.

Should do some research to see if that florist has made wedding arrangements for previously divorced couples.

You can be certain that whatever florist did provide flowers to Newt Gingrich's wedding was a Christian- and knew this was Newt's third wedding- and didn't care.

And there are plenty of Christians that are more than willing to sell flowers that will end up at a gay wedding or a wedding cake for a gay couple- the point being is that this is all interpretation of what is okay and what is not okay by the person.

IF the law allows Christians to refuse to do business based upon anything that they claim is a violation of their faith, then they can use that to justify refusing business with anyone.

And the same applies to Jews and Muslims and members of any other faith.

IF people want to eliminate Public Accomodation laws- then work to overturn those state laws.

But so far all I am hearing is Christians complaining that the laws are being enforced against business owners who happen to be Christian.

 

[Syriusly]

What about boycotts based on protected classes? Shouldn't those be outlawed as well?

How about an example?

Boycotts of gay owned businesses. Or, Muslim owned, or [name your protected class] owned. Should the same legal principle be applied?

You can boycott any business you like. Business isn't protected from boycotts under PA law.

I understand the current legal status. I'm asking if you think it should be prohibited on the same grounds. Why is it any different?

A business isn't a person. You could have a business run by gay people that caters to gay people but the business itself is not gay (or muslim, etc.).

Hey if a corporation is a person, why can't a corporation be born again?

 

[PratchettFan]

True- but American's who dont' follow the law by calling them unjust can look forward to going to jail.

Just look at those who claim the income tax is 'unjust'.

So, are you implying someone who 'discriminates' against a gay couple based on their religious beliefs should be sent to jail?
\.

No.

Then why is it so hard for you to accept that there are religious business owners who would much rather not serve people who engage in practices they deem sacrilegious?

There are all kinds of things I would rather or rather not do, but it would be against the law. If the citizens of the state don't like the law, they should petition their government to change it. But it is still the law.

Or do like gay couples and gun owners have done- go to court to argue that the law is unconstitutional.

Both are perfectly acceptable ways to respond to any law that any American feels is unjust.

Certainly. That is what the courts are there for, to interpret and apply the law. But once that is done, the citizen is obligated by that. Whether they would rather or not. They then have the choice of obeying or not obeying, and accepting the consequences of that choice.

 

[Syriusly]

Lol. Follow the law or go to jail Fatty. I can't believe that I had to tell you that

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

You have the right to keep Homosexual's out of your church, but not your business.

Nobody kept homosexuals out of any business. They just refused to create artwork and place it for a ceremony they consider sacrilegious.

They refused to provide the same exact product to a gay couple they would provide a straight couple. (Which is where the law breaking occurred)

We're going to see how constitutional this nazi law is. .

All public accomodation laws are based upon the groundbreaking 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I look forward to Conservatives arguing that Nazi's were responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I will bring the popcorn.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

You have the right to keep Homosexual's out of your church, but not your business.

Nobody kept homosexuals out of any business. They just refused to create artwork and place it for a ceremony they consider sacrilegious.

They refused to provide the same exact product to a gay couple they would provide a straight couple. (Which is where the law breaking occurred)

We're going to see how constitutional this nazi law is. Hobby Lobby is going to continue to haunt the demonic Left as a harbinger for how the Supreme Court is going to handle issues of religious conviction in business.

And that's ok....because the Hobby Lobby ruling will also help businesses with other than christian rules to live by.

Good. It's you on the statist Left that are terrified of freedom, not us.

 

[PratchettFan]

There are a lot of very bigoted Leftist attorneys general across the country, the Duke Lacrosse scandal being a good example. Most attorneys general use prosecutorial discretion to avoid witch hunts and the application of the law where no real harm was done. But then there is a special kind of asshole who uses every power of their office to crucify people they consider to be ideological foes. This is one of them.

No real harm? The gay couple was humiliated and degraded because of the relationship they engage in. Harm does not have to be physical.

Right. They were immediately seen by someone else. They are real martyrs alright.

They still were discriminated by the Florist and they suffered damages from that interaction. That's the law buddy.

What damage did they suffer? They had to go to another florist? They targeted this florist intentionally. Only on the immoral Lefts is the aggressor turned into a "victim".

They "targeted this florist intentionally" by going to her for 9 years. Listen to yourself lie.

Actually, the lawsuit by the couple isn't really an issue. I believe they sued for something like $3, the cost of traveling to another shop. The shop owner is being fined for violating the law, not because of a lawsuit.

 

[koshergrl]

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

You have the right to keep Homosexual's out of your church, but not your business.

Nobody kept homosexuals out of any business. They just refused to create artwork and place it for a ceremony they consider sacrilegious.

They refused to provide the same exact product to a gay couple they would provide a straight couple. (Which is where the law breaking occurred)

We're going to see how constitutional this nazi law is. .

All public accomodation laws are based upon the groundbreaking 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I look forward to Conservatives arguing that Nazi's were responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I will bring the popcorn.

Christians and Republicans were responsible for passing it. The Dems fought us for years, but we finally pushed it through.

 

[koshergrl]

No real harm? The gay couple was humiliated and degraded because of the relationship they engage in. Harm does not have to be physical.

Right. They were immediately seen by someone else. They are real martyrs alright.

They still were discriminated by the Florist and they suffered damages from that interaction. That's the law buddy.

What damage did they suffer? They had to go to another florist? They targeted this florist intentionally. Only on the immoral Lefts is the aggressor turned into a "victim".

They "targeted this florist intentionally" by going to her for 9 years. Listen to yourself lie.

Actually, the lawsuit by the couple isn't really an issue. I believe they sued for something like $3, the cost of traveling to another shop. The shop owner is being fined for violating the law, not because of a lawsuit.

The couple didn't sue, or file a complaint.

 

[Ravi]

How about an example?

Boycotts of gay owned businesses. Or, Muslim owned, or [name your protected class] owned. Should the same legal principle be applied?

You can boycott any business you like. Business isn't protected from boycotts under PA law.

I understand the current legal status. I'm asking if you think it should be prohibited on the same grounds. Why is it any different?

A business isn't a person. You could have a business run by gay people that caters to gay people but the business itself is not gay (or muslim, etc.).

Hey if a corporation is a person, why can't a corporation be born again?

That is the aim of the RWNJs I fear.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No real harm? The gay couple was humiliated and degraded because of the relationship they engage in. Harm does not have to be physical.

Right. They were immediately seen by someone else. They are real martyrs alright.

They still were discriminated by the Florist and they suffered damages from that interaction. That's the law buddy.

What damage did they suffer? They had to go to another florist? They targeted this florist intentionally. Only on the immoral Lefts is the aggressor turned into a "victim".

They "targeted this florist intentionally" by going to her for 9 years. Listen to yourself lie.

Actually, the lawsuit by the couple isn't really an issue. I believe they sued for something like $3, the cost of traveling to another shop. The shop owner is being fined for violating the law, not because of a lawsuit.

And now the law itself will be put on trial.

 

[bodecea]

No American is obligated to follow unjust laws.

There is no end to the examples down though history where 'I was just following the law', turned out very, VERY bad for people who were disinclined to use the mind God gave 'em, to use their means to reason to reject subjective law.

But in their defense, they did so because they reason subjectively, thus reject the objectivity that is required to be a decent human being.

Not quite. You are obligated to follow the law whether you consider it just or not. You may choose to not follow the law, but that does not remove the consequences of that decision.

Obligated to follow the law even when it's unjust? I'm sure the Nazis would have loved to have you on the panel of judges during the Nuremberg trials. You might have prevented a few hangings.

Mmmmm, hyperbole flakes.

Public Accommodation laws (which have been "on the books" since 1964 and have withstood Constitutional challenge) are "just like Nazis".

Yes. The Civil Rights Act created a narrow field in which discrimination could not happen, but otherwise left intact the right for businesses to refuse service to anyone. Now that "lifestyle choice" has horned its way in, it's getting to the point in which businesses are slaves, having to serve ANYONE, which was NOT the intent of the CRA. And yes they are just like the Nazis that attempted to overtake Mercedes Benz to directly force them to make war implements when Mercedes wanted to opt out.

Yeah...race, religion, color and national origin...that's real narrow.

Godwin's law, drama queen.

There should be one of those "Hitler hears about...." videos ready to go in June after the Supreme Court decision.

 

[koshergrl]

Right. They were immediately seen by someone else. They are real martyrs alright.

They still were discriminated by the Florist and they suffered damages from that interaction. That's the law buddy.

What damage did they suffer? They had to go to another florist? They targeted this florist intentionally. Only on the immoral Lefts is the aggressor turned into a "victim".

They "targeted this florist intentionally" by going to her for 9 years. Listen to yourself lie.

Actually, the lawsuit by the couple isn't really an issue. I believe they sued for something like $3, the cost of traveling to another shop. The shop owner is being fined for violating the law, not because of a lawsuit.

And now the law itself will be put on trial.

As it should be.

 

[dblack]

What about boycotts based on protected classes? Shouldn't those be outlawed as well?

How about an example?

Boycotts of gay owned businesses. Or, Muslim owned, or [name your protected class] owned. Should the same legal principle be applied?

You can boycott any business you like. Business isn't protected from boycotts under PA law.

I understand the current legal status. I'm asking if you think it should be prohibited on the same grounds. Why is it any different?

A business isn't a person. You could have a business run by gay people that caters to gay people but the business itself is not gay (or muslim, etc.).

We're talking about the people working at the business. You really don't see the inconsistency here?

The principles at the core of these kinds of laws are corrosive, and as they are applied more generally will become ever more problematic. Every time a new "protected class" is added to the list it's going to get worse.