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

[PratchettFan]

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.

Exactly. You can't apply discrimination protection to everyone. Which is why it can't be considered a universal right. It's a privilege extend by government to select people in select circumstances. That's not what equal protection is about.

How is providing discrimination protection to some and not others equal protection?

 

[koshergrl]

Pratchett, arguing a false premise is like pissing in the wind. Behaviors aren't equal to race. There is ZERO protection for behaviors in the US Constitution. Remember that..

But there is the First Amendment which protects a person's right to exercise (daily, every day, everywhere) of their faith. You cannot force them to commit grave blasphemy as a matter of secular law. Hobby Lobby will be the guide for this.

The ultimate sin of blasphemy would be submitting the Bible to redaction by the hand of man. The ultimate sin with regard to this topic would be to force Christians (or Christians submitting actively or passively to that force) to rewrite the terms of Jude 1 and instead incorporate a sin into "a held value". THAT is the abstract core of Jude 1 that gets you eternity in the slammer. The ultimate blasphemy: redacting the Holy Words without Permission (and that's a capital "P").

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.

You cannot ask a Christian to do that. You cannot mandate a Christian to do that. There is no mitigation for that transgression. And that is because a homosexual cultural value replaces normal values and from there the bastardization of the New Testament Teachings becomes indelible. It would be like saying "lying is the new vogue, incorporate lying into the fabric, the hub (marriage=equivalent) of human society" instead of "lying is a sin, extend compassion to the liars and bring them to the fold".

See this is the thing that is the problem..that crap law that Scalia stupidly signed up for claims that secular law can and should trump religious freedom...in that case, it was about Indians being able to consume peyote during religious ceremonies....and be held harmless if they later test positive for that particular drug (as a requirement of employment that they remain drug free, for example).

It isn't exactly the same thing, but the progressive nutbags that ultimately want to hold the Christian population in bondage will use it anyway. As the attorney general in this case is. I'm sure he followed the progression of that law through the courts very carefully, and was just waiting for a chance to use it.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

The gay couple did not want some kind of service the florist was not providing to anyone else. They wanted the same service the florist was providing to everyone else. They didn't demand the florist bake them a cake, just sell them flowers. I am assuming one of the things the florist did was sell flowers. Your analogy is absurd.

Ok, but I ask you once again, why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who did not approve of gay marriage? Just to make an issue of it???? Yes, of course.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

you are missing the point.

let me try again:

in your example of a muslim store only selling halal food. By so doing he is discriminating against everyone who does not eat halal food. Its no different than your florist example. The muslim grocer should be forced to carry kosher food, non-halal food, and all kinds of beer, wine and liguor. Otherwise he is limiting his business to people who share his religious views. If a florist gets sued for doing that , then so should the muslim grocer.

you libs claim to want freedom and equality, but only on your terms and only for your chosen minorities.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

The gay couple did not want some kind of service the florist was not providing to anyone else. They wanted the same service the florist was providing to everyone else. They didn't demand the florist bake them a cake, just sell them flowers. I am assuming one of the things the florist did was sell flowers. Your analogy is absurd.

Yup. And it was absurd the last time he offered the same silly analogy. And the last time it was similarly shot down.

What you're getting is a window into what conservatives tell each other. And as you can see, these are arguments best made around folks who won't question them, or even think too hard about them.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

The gay couple did not want some kind of service the florist was not providing to anyone else. They wanted the same service the florist was providing to everyone else. They didn't demand the florist bake them a cake, just sell them flowers. I am assuming one of the things the florist did was sell flowers. Your analogy is absurd.

Ok, but I ask you once again, why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who did not approve of gay marriage? Just to make an issue of it???? Yes, of course.

Because they trust the florist's work and have done business with her in the past.

 

[Syriusly]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. .

Why is can't I buy halal food?

More specifically- I have bought halal food- I have been to restaurants that are proudly halal- and not surprisingly they didn't ask me to prove I was a muslim when I sat down.

You are attempting to once again create a strawman.

Argue against public accommodation laws if you want- but stop pretending you are stupid and laying out scenaros that do not apply to public accommodation laws

Here is Washington State's public accommodation law

Washington State Law Prohibits
Discrimination in Places of
Public Accommodation
The law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on the following:
•
Race •
Honorably discharged veteran or military status
• Color
• HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C status
• National Origin
• Pregnancy or maternity
• Sex • Sexual orientation or gender identity
• Creed • Use of a guide dog or service animal by a person
with a disability
• Disability
UNDER RCW 49.60.215, A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION CANNOT:
•Refuse or withold entrance;
• Charge a different rate or offer different terms and conditions of service;
• Prohibit entrance of a service animal.
• Make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment that is discriminatory.

 

[Ravi]

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

No! The baker can choose not to supply such cake toppers.

then the gay couple could not insist that he get one for their cake? His refusal to buy and sell a cake topper with two women would not be discrimination in your mind?

No, because the baker does not sell them. If he or she did, and refused to sell them to a Christian, THAT would be discrimination.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

The gay couple did not want some kind of service the florist was not providing to anyone else. They wanted the same service the florist was providing to everyone else. They didn't demand the florist bake them a cake, just sell them flowers. I am assuming one of the things the florist did was sell flowers. Your analogy is absurd.

Ok, but I ask you once again, why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who did not approve of gay marriage? Just to make an issue of it???? Yes, of course.

Perhaps this is the town's most talented florist. Perhaps this is the only florist in town. Perhaps this is America where no sober, tax paying citizen should suffer discrimination based on immutable traits.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

The gay couple did not want some kind of service the florist was not providing to anyone else. They wanted the same service the florist was providing to everyone else. They didn't demand the florist bake them a cake, just sell them flowers. I am assuming one of the things the florist did was sell flowers. Your analogy is absurd.

Ok, but I ask you once again, why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who did not approve of gay marriage? Just to make an issue of it???? Yes, of course.

So you want us to speculate like you do?

I don't know what the reason is, but both parties have said that this couple had been buying flowers from this florist for 9 years.

 

[Redfish]

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

No! The baker can choose not to supply such cake toppers.

then the gay couple could not insist that he get one for their cake? His refusal to buy and sell a cake topper with two women would not be discrimination in your mind?

No, because the baker does not sell them. If he or she did, and refused to sell them to a Christian, THAT would be discrimination.

wait a minute. He sells toppers with a man and a woman. Is he not discriminating by not selling toppers with two men or two women?


I am just trying to get everyone to think this through and understand where it will lead.

 

[Syriusly]

Pratchett, arguing a false premise is like pissing in the wind. Behaviors aren't equal to race. There is ZERO protection for behaviors in the US Constitution. Remember that..

But there is the First Amendment which protects a person's right to exercise (daily, every day, everywhere) of their faith. You cannot force them to commit grave blasphemy as a matter of secular law. Hobby Lobby will be the guide for this.

The ultimate sin of blasphemy would be submitting the Bible to redaction by the hand of man. The ultimate sin with regard to this topic would be to force Christians (or Christians submitting actively or passively to that force) to rewrite the terms of Jude 1 and instead incorporate a sin into "a held value". THAT is the abstract core of Jude 1 that gets you eternity in the slammer. The ultimate blasphemy: redacting the Holy Words without Permission (and that's a capital "P").

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.

You cannot ask a Christian to do that. You cannot mandate a Christian to do that. There is no mitigation for that transgression. And that is because a homosexual cultural value replaces normal values and from there the bastardization of the New Testament Teachings becomes indelible. It would be like saying "lying is the new vogue, incorporate lying into the fabric, the hub (marriage=equivalent) of human society" instead of "lying is a sin, extend compassion to the liars and bring them to the fold".

It isn't exactly the same thing, but the progressive nutbags that ultimately want to hold the Christian population in bondage will use it anyway. .

Poor, poor oppressed Christians!

Though I do wonder about the subtext of the posts you are making.

First of all you post about wanting to beat someone's ass with a whip.......and now you are posting about bondage........you are sharing more than we need to know.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

No! The baker can choose not to supply such cake toppers.

then the gay couple could not insist that he get one for their cake? His refusal to buy and sell a cake topper with two women would not be discrimination in your mind?

No, because the baker does not sell them. If he or she did, and refused to sell them to a Christian, THAT would be discrimination.

wait a minute. He sells toppers with a man and a woman. Is he not discriminating by not selling toppers with two men or two women?


I am just trying to get everyone to think this through and understand where it will lead.

No, it isn't discriminating because he doesn't sell the toppers. He is free to choose the products he sells. He is not free to refuse to sell a product he sells to someone because he is a bigot against them.

The PA laws do not dictate what a business may sell.

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong again. The florist routinely sells wedding flowers. She was not asked to stock goods beyond her normal inventory.

should the baker be required to carry cake toppers with two men or two women?

No! The baker can choose not to supply such cake toppers.

then the gay couple could not insist that he get one for their cake? His refusal to buy and sell a cake topper with two women would not be discrimination in your mind?

No, because the baker does not sell them. If he or she did, and refused to sell them to a Christian, THAT would be discrimination.

wait a minute. He sells toppers with a man and a woman. Is he not discriminating by not selling toppers with two men or two women?


I am just trying to get everyone to think this through and understand where it will lead.

I just wish you would try to think this through for yourself.

We already have.

 

[mdk]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

I think you have a terribly poor understanding how public accommodations laws actually work. Go into your nearest Radio Shack, assuming that they haven't been closed by the time I finish this post, and demand spaghetti and meatballs. When they refuse you service go and file a complaint with the state claiming they discriminated against you. After the roars of laughter subside you'll be promptly shown the door.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Oh good. You realize that at least on a national level, lifestyle choice was never a criteria of discrimination protection. Many Leftists don't get that fine point. The "add the words" campaign failed here in Idaho, and that's a good thing. Whether it be drugs, homosexuality, or pedophilia, nobody deserves to live however they want and not face discrimination for it. That's bullshit. So here in Idaho since sexual orientation can be discriminated, my kids are safe because I don't have to hire a pedophile babysitter.

So heterosexuality should not be a criteria for discrimination protection.

Even you have to see this as nonsense.

wrong, its exactly on point. you libs just refuse to understand where this will lead.

So what you are saying is that if blacks can't be refused service in a restaurant because of their race, then hot dog stands will have to sell pianos. And yet, for some strange reason, that didn't happen.

I'm not a liberal. Not even close. I just don't think being a conservative obligates you to be silly.

No, what I am doing is making a valid analogy between forcing a florist to do business that violates her relition and a muslim grocer being forced to do business that violates his religion.

If you are going to force the florist to do business with gays by providing services that gays want, then you also have to force the muslim grocer to do business with jews by carrying products that jews want.

The gay couple did not want some kind of service the florist was not providing to anyone else. They wanted the same service the florist was providing to everyone else. They didn't demand the florist bake them a cake, just sell them flowers. I am assuming one of the things the florist did was sell flowers. Your analogy is absurd.

Ok, but I ask you once again, why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who did not approve of gay marriage? Just to make an issue of it???? Yes, of course.

You DO know (because you've been told several times) that that couple did business with that florist for 9 years before she pulled her "I can't serve gays" schtick. In fact, as someone pointed out, her business probably helped get this couple together in love since they kept buying flowers for each other for 9 years. She's a bit of a matchmaker, she is.

 

[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.

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.

Exactly. You can't apply discrimination protection to everyone. Which is why it can't be considered a universal right. It's a privilege extend by government to select people in select circumstances. That's not what equal protection is about.

How is providing discrimination protection to some and not others equal protection?

It's not.

 

[Silhouette]

A customer wanting beer or wine in a store that does not stock beer and wine is not suffering discrimination. A kosher butcher does not stock bacon, but anyone wanting bacon in his shop came to the wrong butcher.

But anyone in that kosher butcher shop can buy any of his goods and he cannot refuse their patronage, so long as they buy what he has to sell.

It seems a simple solution then. Christians merely post that their shop is a Christian shop and as such they are not allowed as a matter of faith to serve gay weddings (enable in any way shape or form the spread of a homosexual culture within the normal one. The hub of any culture being marriage, of course). "Good luck elsewhere" should be the closing sentiment to that sign.

The crux of the entire logic being that you cannot force Christianity to incorporate a homosexual value system into their dogma.

 

[Syriusly]

Why is a muslim owned convenience store not forced to sell beer and wine? Why are they allowed to discriminate against their customers who choose to consume beer and wine?

Because you are not discriminating when you don't sell something to everyone. It is only when you do sell something but refuse to sell it to some people because of what they are when discrimination comes in.

Wrong, the grocer who sells only halal is refusing to do business with non-muslims. His store may be the most convenient so by refusing to carry what they need he is forcing them to go farther to get their food.

I know it sounds like a strech, but its not. Religious freedom is either part of our freedom or it isn't. The rules apply to everyone or no one.

The grocer is not preventing non-mulsims from shopping in his store by selling halal. Anyone is welcome to purchase halal products.

He is limiting what he sells for religious reasons, just as the florist was doing. She got sued, so should he.

I think you have a terribly poor understanding how public accommodations laws actually work. Go into your nearest Radio Shack, assuming that they haven't been closed by the time I finish this post, and demand spaghetti and meatballs. When they refuse you service go and file a complaint with the state claiming they discriminated against you. After the roars of laughter subside you'll be promptly shown the door.

Better than Radio Shack- go find a Bible shop- yes- a shop that specializes in Bibles and all things related- and ask to buy a Koran.

They don't carry a Koran, and are under no obligation to do so.

But they couldn't refuse to sell a Bible to a Muslim- because he was a Muslim.

 

[Syriusly]

A customer wanting beer or wine in a store that does not stock beer and wine is not suffering discrimination. A kosher butcher does not stock bacon, but anyone wanting bacon in his shop came to the wrong butcher.

But anyone in that kosher butcher shop can buy any of his goods and he cannot refuse their patronage, so long as they buy what he has to sell.

It seems a simple solution then. Christians merely post that their shop is a Christian shop and as such they are not allowed as a matter of faith to serve gay weddings (enable in any way shape or form the spread of a homosexual culture within the normal one. The hub of any culture being marriage, of course). "Good luck elsewhere" should be the closing sentiment to that sign.

Well that would be a simple solution that would break the law.

They can put up a sign saying that they no longer serve weddings.

But they cannot put a sign saying that they no longer serve Jewish weddings. Or the weddings of veterans. Or the weddings of African Americans. Or the weddings of homosexuals. Or the wedding of blind people.

All would violate Washington State law.

 

[PratchettFan]

Pratchett, arguing a false premise is like pissing in the wind. Behaviors aren't equal to race. There is ZERO protection for behaviors in the US Constitution. Remember that..

But there is the First Amendment which protects a person's right to exercise (daily, every day, everywhere) of their faith. You cannot force them to commit grave blasphemy as a matter of secular law. Hobby Lobby will be the guide for this.

The ultimate sin of blasphemy would be submitting the Bible to redaction by the hand of man. The ultimate sin with regard to this topic would be to force Christians (or Christians submitting actively or passively to that force) to rewrite the terms of Jude 1 and instead incorporate a sin into "a held value". THAT is the abstract core of Jude 1 that gets you eternity in the slammer. The ultimate blasphemy: redacting the Holy Words without Permission (and that's a capital "P").

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.

You cannot ask a Christian to do that. You cannot mandate a Christian to do that. There is no mitigation for that transgression. And that is because a homosexual cultural value replaces normal values and from there the bastardization of the New Testament Teachings becomes indelible. It would be like saying "lying is the new vogue, incorporate lying into the fabric, the hub (marriage=equivalent) of human society" instead of "lying is a sin, extend compassion to the liars and bring them to the fold".

Clearly you can mandate a Christian to do just that. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion. That there is a question as to whether this violates the first amendment is obvious. That is an issue for the SC to determine, and I expect it will eventually do so.

As to your statement on the nature of homosexuality, that is an opinion. You are certainly entitled to it, but it has no bearing on this issue at all.