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

[PratchettFan]

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.

Of course. It is really good to see people so enthusiastic about the federal government stepping in to tell a state what laws it can or cannot have. I hadn't realized how many strident proponents of a strong central government we had.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And that's how it works. But, I will point out that the law has been challenged before.....and found to be Constitutional.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Of course. It is really good to see people so enthusiastic about the federal government stepping in to tell a state what laws it can or cannot have. I hadn't realized how many strident proponents of nationalism we had.

Nonsense. It's a bad law. Those who believe in liberty have ALWAYS fought against bad law, and have ALWAYS opted that there should be fewer, not more laws. That's not to say NO laws at all..we do need laws.

This bad law was signed in a few years ago, and it gave the state the authority to penalize people for practicing their religion (specifically, it deemed that Indians could be fired/prosecuted if they used peyote in religious ceremonies, and couldn't pass a drug test). It was a bad law, we objected at the time, and this is why.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Of course Christians were responsible for passing it- and for all of the opposition too- other than a few Jewish congressman, virtually every member of Congresss for and against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was Christian.

But please stop with the revisionist history- the 1964 Civil Rights Act could not have passed without Republican support- but it was a Democratic proposal- first by Kennedy, and then by Johnson- and it was pushed through Congress by Democrats- with Republican support.

To break it down more specifically-virtually every Democrat and Republican from the South voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- but the South was hugely Democratic then.

Virtually every Republican and Democrat not from the South voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

More Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans- but since Republicans were a fairly small majority- they voted for by a larger percentage.

Meanwhile-

All public accommodation 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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Of course. It is really good to see people so enthusiastic about the federal government stepping in to tell a state what laws it can or cannot have. I hadn't realized how many strident proponents of nationalism we had.

Nonsense. It's a bad law. .

Why specifically are you against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

 

[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.).

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.

No, I don't see the inconsistency. I understand that you believe anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone at all, and while I half-way sympathize with that view (though it is rather un-American to make people prove they are worthy of service) it doesn't equal forcing people to shop at a particular store.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Just like laws against gay marriage.

Thats what courts do.

And I support the right of Christians to fight State laws arguing that they are unconstitutional.

Just as I support the right of gay couples to the same thing.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

No, I don't see the inconsistency. I understand that you believe anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone at all, and while I half-way sympathize with that view (though it is rather un-American to make people prove they are worthy of service) it doesn't equal forcing people to shop at a particular store.

Nobody was discriminated against.

Except the Christians, who are being hounded and harassed, targeted and fined, for refusing to participate/celebrate a sacrilegious ceremony.

 

[Ravi]

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.

No, I don't see the inconsistency. I understand that you believe anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone at all, and while I half-way sympathize with that view (though it is rather un-American to make people prove they are worthy of service) it doesn't equal forcing people to shop at a particular store.

Nobody was discriminated against.

Except the Christians, who are being hounded and harassed, targeted and fined, for refusing to participate/celebrate a sacrilegious ceremony.

Did you fall out of the novel 1984?

 

[bodecea]

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.

No, I don't see the inconsistency. I understand that you believe anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone at all, and while I half-way sympathize with that view (though it is rather un-American to make people prove they are worthy of service) it doesn't equal forcing people to shop at a particular store.

Nobody was discriminated against.

Except the Christians, who are being hounded and harassed, targeted and fined, for refusing to participate/celebrate a sacrilegious ceremony.

The poor benighted christians...so disadvantaged here in the U.S. Affirmative Action to apply to them.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You don't think "heterosexuals" should have been added to the list?

 

[Syriusly]

I wonder what other laws that these poor oppressed Christians think that they should be exempt from also?

 

[JFK_USA]

Nobody was discriminated against.

Except the Christians, who are being hounded and harassed, targeted and fined, for refusing to participate/celebrate a sacrilegious ceremony.

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated"

No straight couple has ever been deny flowers or cakes for their wedding. Gay couples have. They were treated in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated. The florist clearly showed prejudice towards the gay couple.

This is clear discrimination. Period.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You don't think "heterosexuals" should have been added to the list?

Already on it.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody was discriminated against.

Except the Christians, who are being hounded and harassed, targeted and fined, for refusing to participate/celebrate a sacrilegious ceremony.

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated"

No straight couple has ever been deny flowers or cakes for their wedding. Gay couples have. They were treated in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated. The florist clearly showed prejudice towards the gay couple.

This is clear discrimination. Period.

So what were they denied participation in?

Did somebody prevent them from getting married?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

How does that not constitute not having homosexuals in your business. They refused service specifically because they were homosexuals!

 

[koshergrl]

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.

How does that not constitute not having homosexuals in your business. They refused service specifically because they were homosexuals!

Er, no, they didn't.

They served them for 9 YEARS. They didn't "refuse them service" because they were homosexual.

They refused to create celebratory art for an event they consider a depraved sacrilege.

Big difference. I know you don't get it. Which is why you do whatever it is you do (or don't do) instead of working in a job where comprehension is key.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Freedom?!? Where's the freedom for homosexuals? How dare you cite "freedom" while defending everything but.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Freedom?!? Where's the freedom for homosexuals? How dare you cite "freedom" while defending everything but.

Nobody prevented them from doing anything. They're free.

They just aren't free to force people to create art to celebrate their sex acts.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

But Conservatives dragged their heels kicking and screaming. What a legacy!