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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In our society, denying service because 'we don't serve n1ggers' isn't the same as denying service because you don't have money. We recognize a distinct difference between the two. You don't.

So you're saying that Sexual Deviants equate to epithets used to violently describe racial minorities?

 

[Syriusly]

Save that churches are explicitly exempt from PA laws, chicken little.

And no church has been forced to perform a gay wedding. Not one.

So much for your 'targeting Christians' schtick.

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

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

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

And the law certainly does.

Totally irrelevant. Nobody said a business was a church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

In our society, denying service because 'we don't serve n1ggers' isn't the same as denying service because you don't have money. We recognize a distinct difference between the two. You don't.

So you're saying that Sexual Deviants equate to epithets used to violently describe racial minorities?

No he is saying you are a bigot.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you people always bring up this false argument? Walk into a hardware store and ask for a bushel of apples. It's not discrimination because a hardware store doesn't sell fucking apples.

And that Baker doesn't bake cakes for deviants

The baker bakes cakes. The laws in these states mean that you can't sell a cake to a straight couple and refuse to sell the same cake to a gay couple. No one has asked for a product or service not provided by the business.

So the law in those states literally promote sexual deviancy?

You're saying that THE LAW... promotes deceit, as truth; that sexual deviancy is NORMAL?

Then the law is illegitimate.

The law is not that hard to understand

A business cannot discriminate against customers because of
race
creed(religion)
color
handicap
veteran status
sexual preference
gender
and a few I can't remember.

Nothing about sexual deviancy in the law- just protecting consumers from bigotry by business's

 

[Syriusly]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Oh yes- the poor Christians who are being told that they have to obey the laws like non-Christians.

I can see why that would offend you. Why should you be held to the same requirements as jews and Muslims? And blacks and chinese? Why should you be expected to act like a business owner who is handicapped or a veteran?

Poor, poor christians.....folks picking you by saying you have to obey the law also.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you people always bring up this false argument? Walk into a hardware store and ask for a bushel of apples. It's not discrimination because a hardware store doesn't sell fucking apples.

And that Baker doesn't bake cakes for deviants

The baker bakes cakes. The laws in these states mean that you can't sell a cake to a straight couple and refuse to sell the same cake to a gay couple. No one has asked for a product or service not provided by the business.

So the law in those states literally promote sexual deviancy?

You're saying that THE LAW... promotes deceit, as truth; that sexual deviancy is NORMAL?

Then the law is illegitimate.

Says you. And you're nobody.

 

[dblack]

Ownership is the power to control. They are synonymous.

Your logic is flawed. You're arguing that because you can regulate something if you own it, any regulation must mean ownership.

Like saying that because you can order chinese on your cell phone, any order of chinese food MUST be on your cell phone. Its an assumption of exclusivity that just doesn't make sense. Nor is logically supportable

I'm not interested in debating the meaning of the word "ownership". The point is that regulation is about proactive control over people, as opposed to laws which are responsive.

It should have the power to respond to those who would coerce others. It should have no power to initiate such coercion.

Ah fuck. Am I wasting my time with another closet anarchist? You guys need to start your own threads

Am I wasting my time with a statist who interprets any appeal to individual liberty as "anarchy"?

(an anarchist would never say government "should have the power to" do anything at all.)

 

[koshergrl]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Being denied the same services offered to straight couples because they're gay isn't being 'treated fairly'.

Its flagrantly discriminatory. And quite illegal.

Nonsense. Caterers have the right to choose their gigs, just as musicians and any other artist do. They aren't OBLIGATED to sell out to any jackass who demands that they do so.

 

[Skylar]

Ownership is the power to control. They are synonymous.

Your logic is flawed. You're arguing that because you can regulate something if you own it, any regulation must mean ownership.

Like saying that because you can order chinese on your cell phone, any order of chinese food MUST be on your cell phone. Its an assumption of exclusivity that just doesn't make sense. Nor is logically supportable

I'm not interested in debating the meaning of the word "ownership". The point is that regulation is about proactive control over people, as opposed to laws which are responsive.

You do seem quite interested in ignoring the fact that you don't need to own people to regulate commerce.

Your assumption of exclusivity is a logical fallacy, and a rather obtuse one. Your conclusions based on that fallacy are thus invalid and meaningless.

The authority to regulate commerce is within the authority of the State. And the State requiring a minimum code of conduct for those conducting business in their state is reasonable. Mandating that those doing business with the public treat their customers fairly and equally is also reasonable.

Am I wasting my time with a statist who interprets any appeal to individual liberty as "anarchy"?

(an anarchist would never say government "should have the power to" do anything at all.)

Depends on the anarchist. But as I'm not willing to swallow your bullshit that any regulation is ownership. And your entire argument is prefaced on that nonsense.

We're not getting rid of PA laws because you've convinced yourself that fallacy of logic must be true.

 

[Skylar]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Being denied the same services offered to straight couples because they're gay isn't being 'treated fairly'.

Its flagrantly discriminatory. And quite illegal.

Nonsense. Caterers have the right to choose their gigs, just as musicians and any other artist do. They aren't OBLIGATED to sell out to any jackass who demands that they do so.

Says you. The PA laws of the states in question clearly mandate that anyone doing business with the public can't discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, religion, etc.

You say they can. You're obviously wrong.

Your entire argument has degenerated into you denying the law, denying PA laws exist, and insisting that religion grants you immunity to any law you disagree with.

It doesn't. So what else have you got?

 

[koshergrl]

They didn't discriminate against them. They opted not to participate in an event that they view as sacrilegious.

 

[Syriusly]

They didn't discriminate against them. They opted not to participate in an event that they view as sacrilegious.

They refused to provide service or goods that they would have provided to a heterosexual couple.

No- Christians do not get special exemptions because they are Christians.

 

[Skylar]

They didn't discriminate against them. They opted not to participate in an event that they view as sacrilegious.

They obviously discriminated against them, as the law has found in both the case of the Florist and the Baker. They simply did so for religious motivation. And the law doesn't regulate belief. It regulates ACTION.

When they discriminated against gays, they broke the law.

You can deny this happened. You can deny the PA laws exist. You can deny that any Christian is subject to any law they disagree with. But you're still wrong on all courts.

 

[koshergrl]

They didn't discriminate against gays. They served them happily for years.

They refused to participate in a ceremony they consider an abomination. It's no different than refusing to contract with a Satanist. We don't have to provide services for events we consider abominations.

And we won't.

 

[Skylar]

They didn't discriminate against gays.

Clearly they did under the law. They didn't offer the same services to gays as they do straights. You can deny it happened. But reality don't change to match your denial.

 

[koshergrl]

The reality is that Christians view marriage as a religious ceremony, and homo rituals as sacrilege. You aren't going to be able to force us to attend.

 

[Ravi]

They are treated fairly. The only person not being treated fairly are the Christians who are being told they must renounce the tenets of their faith, or be fined and possibly imprisoned.

Being denied the same services offered to straight couples because they're gay isn't being 'treated fairly'.

Its flagrantly discriminatory. And quite illegal.

Nonsense. Caterers have the right to choose their gigs, just as musicians and any other artist do. They aren't OBLIGATED to sell out to any jackass who demands that they do so.

Says you. The PA laws of the states in question clearly mandate that anyone doing business with the public can't discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, religion, etc.

You say they can. You're obviously wrong.

Your entire argument has degenerated into you denying the law, denying PA laws exist, and insisting that religion grants you immunity to any law you disagree with.

It doesn't. So what else have you got?

I'm not sure if that is true about caterers since they normally don't operate an open to the public shop.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

They didn't discriminate against gays. They served them happily for years.

They refused to participate in a ceremony they consider an abomination. It's no different than refusing to contract with a Satanist. We don't have to provide services for events we consider abominations.

And we won't.

You won't- because you own no business- you don't provide goods or services to anyone. So you can be as bigoted as you want.

However, every business is required to follow the law- yes- that includes business's owned by Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

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

No.

And the law is bad law.