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

[WorldWatcher]

I don't agree that a business has an obligation to sell to "anyone who walks in the door".

Public Accommodation laws don't do that.

Does a restaurant have an obligation to serve a person who comes in the door smelling like a sewer and tracking shit across the floor?

No, this has nothing to do with Public Accommodation laws.

Does a baker have an obligation to sell to a person who comes in cursing and threatening the other customers?

No, this has nothing to do with Public Accommodation laws.

Does a convenience store have an obligation to sell to a guy who pushes the owner and calls him insulting names?

No, this has nothing to do with Public Accommodation laws.

AND, does a muslim grocery store have an obligation to sell kosher food to jews?

:sigh:

No, Public Accommodation laws do not required that business stock certain items. A Muslim grocery store isn't required to stock kosher items. However if they do stock kosher items they cannot refuse to sell them to someone that is Jewish.

this discussion always centers on gays, but it has much more far reaching implications.

And none of the strawman examples above have anything to do with "far reaching implications".


>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.

b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals

See reply to a)

c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

See reply to a)

d) think that public accommodation laws are fine, but religious people should be exempt if they claim a religious exemption?

Yes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to interracial couples?

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Muslims?

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Mexicans?



Or now you will say there are to be tests so that the government must approve or disapprove that beliefs are closely held or qualify as a valid religious objection. In other words the government gets to decide what religious tenants are valid or invalid. You really want to go down that road with the government making those decisions?


>>>>

 

[bendog]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to interracial couples?

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Muslims?

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Mexicans?



Or now you will say there are to be tests so that the government must approve or disapprove that beliefs are closely held or qualify as a valid religious objection. In other words the government gets to decide what religious tenants are valid or invalid. You really want to go down that road with the government making those decisions?


>>>>

I see where you're going but EP tests for govt disparate treatment already provide for more scrutiny where distinctions are made on race, religion .... and less so on gender. So, I'm not sure TK is on such slippery ground. I'm not standing on it with him though. LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to interracial couples?

The whole idea of religious freedom is just that, religious freedom. It's your business, all your blood sweat and tears went into making it, do with it as you please. So yes.

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Muslims?

If Muslims can do the same, yes. This doesn't strictly apply to Christians.

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Mexicans?

That is absurd. The only instance where that might be the case is with a Muslim serving a Jew, and that's stretching it. A lot.

In other words the government gets to decide what religious tenants are valid or invalid.

Isn't that what they already do?

You really want to go down that road with the government making those decisions?

They already do.

 

[Seawytch]

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to interracial couples?

The whole idea of religious freedom is just that, religious freedom. It's your business, all your blood sweat and tears went into making it, do with it as you please. So yes.

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Muslims?

If Muslims can do the same, yes. This doesn't strictly apply to Christians.

So I can claim a closely held religious belief or personal belief and not have to sell to Mexicans?

That is absurd. The only instance where that might be the case is with a Muslim serving a Jew, and that's stretching it. A lot.

In other words the government gets to decide what religious tenants are valid or invalid.

Isn't that what they already do?

You really want to go down that road with the government making those decisions?

They already do.

So you need to get rid of Title II of the CRA. Call your congressman.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Always, huh? So if Christian belief 'always' trumps civil law, does Sharia 'always' trump it too?

This is your 'always' test.

That's not what she was saying. But keep twisting people's words, makes for GREAT conversation.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Always, huh? So if Christian belief 'always' trumps civil law, does Sharia 'always' trump it too?

This is your 'always' test.

That's not what she was saying. But keep twisting people's words, makes for GREAT conversation.

This is how they "debate". They randomly attack your religion.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Always, huh? So if Christian belief 'always' trumps civil law, does Sharia 'always' trump it too?

This is your 'always' test.

That's not what she was saying. But keep twisting people's words, makes for GREAT conversation.

This is how they "debate". They randomly attack your religion.

How was your religion "attacked" Ms. Victim?

 

[dblack]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

 

[deltex1]

The world is going to hell and the *** thread gets 10000 views in four days...go figure.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The world is going to hell and the *** thread gets 10000 views in four days...go figure.

It's a worthy fight, that you lost.

 

[deltex1]

The world is going to hell and the *** thread gets 10000 views in four days...go figure.

It's a worthy fight, that you lost.

I didn't lose anything...you're the one that chopped his dick off.

 

[Seawytch]

The world is going to hell and the *** thread gets 10000 views in four days...go figure.

The whole world is going to hell? I need to cancel my cable.

 

[deltex1]

The world is going to hell and the *** thread gets 10000 views in four days...go figure.

The whole world is going to hell? I need to cancel my cable.

Can't do that now...obama say no......

 

[dblack]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

 

[dblack]

The world is going to hell and the *** thread gets 10000 views in four days...go figure.

The whole world is going to hell? I need to cancel my cable.

Can't do that now...obama say no......

That can be taken as a joke..... for now.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

 

[Syriusly]

I will pose the question again:

The issue here is in regards to public accommodation laws- the best known of which is the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

For those of you who believe this woman to be wronged do you:
a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?
b) think all public accommodation laws are fine, except for homosexuals
c) think that Christians should be exempt from public accommodation laws?

a

Rights aren't special privileges. If any of us have the right to not be discriminated against, all of us do.

Bullshit. People are discriminated against all the time and for good reasons. Lifestyle choice is a worthy means for discrimination, something I keep well in mind before hiring a pedophile to watch my kids.

Why would you be hiring a pedophile to watch your kids? Or for that matter a murderer or a convicted conman?

You are right that we do discriminate against people all of the time. In 1964 Congress passed a law making it illegal for certain kinds of business's to discriminate in providing service because of a customers race, creed, gender or national origin.

Was that law wrong?

 

[Syriusly]

a) think all public accommodation laws should be revoked?

I think her religious beliefs should be held in consideration as it relates to public accommodation law. Add a provision where it explains "No for profit business or institution shall discriminate on the basis of (insert all applicable demographics here) in providing services to the general public, that is, where it does not come into conflict with the closely held religious or personal beliefs of the proprietor." Or something to that effect.
.

Thank you for the reply.

With that provision in mind- why not just do away with public accommodation laws entirely?