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

[koshergrl]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly what is Holy about a public courthouse wedding? Oh right, you can't answer that because that's the end of your argument.

Good point. There is nothing holy about it at all. I wonder if these dopey florists sell to people of other religions instead of The One True Religion. Or God forbid, atheists.

It doesn't matter that you don't believe the sacraments are holy.

Christians do feel they are holy, and you can't force them to participate in freak show travesties of them. Sorry!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Only a truly ignorant fool would not know the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers.

And from the South.

Does being in the south automatically make us racist?

Are you that stupid?

Nope. Unlike you, I don't succumb to stereotypes.

 

[BlindBoo]

Does being in the south automatically make us racist?

No, believing your race is superior to another make one a racist. But here is the vote on the Civil Rights Bill 1964, by region. You decide.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• 
  
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

 

[koshergrl]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Then pay the fines imposed.

Anyone who has read my posts know that I am opposed to same sex marriage.

I've posted a way to accomplish two christian precepts.

Of course, you CAN serve you're religion by taking this up through the courts. I have no problem with that. I think it's less productive then the alternatives, that being ELECTING THOSE THAT ARE LIKE YOU. That takes cash.

Informing a gay couple of your intent with the profits might make them think about procuring these services elsewhere.

Win/Win

You can't fine people for failing to participate in religious rituals. It's a state vs church thing. The state cannot compel people to participate in religious ceremonies they don't want to participate in.

Sowwy.

 

[Ravi]

How about this hypothetical. A man's brother in law passes away. After doing some research as to florists in his area he identifies the flower shop owned by a gay. He orders an elaborate funeral arrangement with a banner that says God Hates Fags. Should the flower shop be shut down if they refuse this order?

Sell him the flowers, he can get the banner elsewhere since in that situation those are Fighting Words, and therefore not protected. Personally, if I did banners, he can have whatever he likes up to the point where what he wants is illegal, as long as the check clears.

So a baker can bake a wedding cake for homos but refuse to put any wording or two little homos on the top of it?

I don't know why this is so difficult for you people to grasp. If you sell a product to person A, you cannot refuse to sell the same exact product to person B because they are gay, or black, or Christian, etc.

I don't sell to people who are rude to my staff, jerk us around about paying their invoices and for a bunch of other reasons. I also don't sell to people I don't think will buy enough. I don't sell to people for a bunch of reasons, they are all good reasons, but they are up to me, not you. Your hostility doesn't change that

None of those are protected by anti-discrimination law.

 

[Seawytch]

How about this hypothetical. A man's brother in law passes away. After doing some research as to florists in his area he identifies the flower shop owned by a gay. He orders an elaborate funeral arrangement with a banner that says God Hates Fags. Should the flower shop be shut down if they refuse this order?

Sell him the flowers, he can get the banner elsewhere since in that situation those are Fighting Words, and therefore not protected. Personally, if I did banners, he can have whatever he likes up to the point where what he wants is illegal, as long as the check clears.

So a baker can bake a wedding cake for homos but refuse to put any wording or two little homos on the top of it?

I don't know why this is so difficult for you people to grasp. If you sell a product to person A, you cannot refuse to sell the same exact product to person B because they are gay, or black, or Christian, etc.

I don't sell to people who are rude to my staff, jerk us around about paying their invoices and for a bunch of other reasons. I also don't sell to people I don't think will buy enough. I don't sell to people for a bunch of reasons, they are all good reasons, but they are up to me, not you. Your hostility doesn't change that

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude legalzoom.com

 

[g5000]

Only a truly ignorant fool would not know the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers.

And from the South.

Does being in the south automatically make us racist?

Are you that stupid?

Nope. Unlike you, I don't succumb to stereotypes.

I guess you are that stupid. The subject was specifically Southern Democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.

And you, retard, somehow heard "everyone from the South".

 

[Ravi]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly what is Holy about a public courthouse wedding? Oh right, you can't answer that because that's the end of your argument.

Good point. There is nothing holy about it at all. I wonder if these dopey florists sell to people of other religions instead of The One True Religion. Or God forbid, atheists.

It doesn't matter that you don't believe the sacraments are holy.

Christians do feel they are holy, and you can't force them to participate in freak show travesties of them. Sorry!

If Christians feel that marriage is holy, then Christians should not be selling anything to support the weddings of non-Christian church weddings.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Then pay the fines imposed.

Anyone who has read my posts know that I am opposed to same sex marriage.

I've posted a way to accomplish two christian precepts.

Of course, you CAN serve you're religion by taking this up through the courts. I have no problem with that. I think it's less productive then the alternatives, that being ELECTING THOSE THAT ARE LIKE YOU. That takes cash.

Informing a gay couple of your intent with the profits might make them think about procuring these services elsewhere.

Win/Win

You can't fine people for failing to participate in religious rituals. It's a state vs church thing. The state cannot compel people to participate in religious ceremonies they don't want to participate in.

Sowwy.

But the judge can and did say that the florist violated consumer protection laws.

 

[Uncensored2008]

George Wallace for President 1968 Campaign Brochure

ON STATES RIGHTS

I recommend that the states of the Union continue to determine the policies of their domestic institutions themselves and that the bureaucrats and theoreticians in Washington let people in Ohio and New York and California decide themselves... what type of school system they are going to have. I recommend states rights and local government, and territorial democracy...

ON VIETNAM

...I think the first thing we ought to do in this country is to impress upon Hanoi and Peking and Moscow the resolve of the American people. These few people today who are out advocating sedition and raising money and clothes and supplies for the Viet Cong -- these college professors who are making speeches advocating victory for the Viet Cong Communists -- I would deal with these people as they ought to be dealt with, as traitors.

And you guys thought the neocons under Bush invented this kind of talk.

The Southern Democrats like Wallace are their political ancestors.

Big lie from the Big Liars...

{
When Faubus returned from the war, he cultivated ties with leaders of Arkansas' Democratic Party, particularly with progressive reform Governor Sid McMath, leader of the post-war "GI Revolt" against corruption, under whom he served as director of the state's highway commission. Meanwhile, conservative Francis Cherry defeated McMath's bid for a third term in the 1952 Democratic primary. Cherry became unpopular with voters, and Faubus challenged him in the 1954 primary.

Faubus rejected his father's radicalism for the more mainline New Deal, a pragmatic move. He was elected governor as a liberal Democrat. A 'moderate' on racial issues, his political realism resurfaced as he adopted racial policies that were palatable to influential white voters in the Delta region as part of a strategy to effect key social reforms and economic growth in Arkansas.[3]}

Orval Faubus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wallace too was a New Deal dim.

Just like you.

 

[Seawytch]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly what is Holy about a public courthouse wedding? Oh right, you can't answer that because that's the end of your argument.

Good point. There is nothing holy about it at all. I wonder if these dopey florists sell to people of other religions instead of The One True Religion. Or God forbid, atheists.

It doesn't matter that you don't believe the sacraments are holy.

Christians do feel they are holy, and you can't force them to participate in freak show travesties of them. Sorry!

Segregationists and anti miscegenationists are just as sure of their racist beliefs and that they are biblical as you are of your anti gay ones. How come they don't get to use the bible to discriminate?

 

[Katzndogz]

I only do what I want to do. No one can touch me with their demands. I won't paint gays. I may paint their dog if I feel like it. There's nothing they can do. They tried.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Then pay the fines imposed.

Anyone who has read my posts know that I am opposed to same sex marriage.

I've posted a way to accomplish two christian precepts.

Of course, you CAN serve you're religion by taking this up through the courts. I have no problem with that. I think it's less productive then the alternatives, that being ELECTING THOSE THAT ARE LIKE YOU. That takes cash.

Informing a gay couple of your intent with the profits might make them think about procuring these services elsewhere.

Win/Win

You can't fine people for failing to participate in religious rituals. It's a state vs church thing. The state cannot compel people to participate in religious ceremonies they don't want to participate in.

Sowwy.

Lots of weddings here are not religious, which is why your argument is DOA.

 

[kaz]

George Wallace for President 1968 Campaign Brochure

ON STATES RIGHTS

I recommend that the states of the Union continue to determine the policies of their domestic institutions themselves and that the bureaucrats and theoreticians in Washington let people in Ohio and New York and California decide themselves... what type of school system they are going to have. I recommend states rights and local government, and territorial democracy...

ON VIETNAM

...I think the first thing we ought to do in this country is to impress upon Hanoi and Peking and Moscow the resolve of the American people. These few people today who are out advocating sedition and raising money and clothes and supplies for the Viet Cong -- these college professors who are making speeches advocating victory for the Viet Cong Communists -- I would deal with these people as they ought to be dealt with, as traitors.

And you guys thought the neocons under Bush invented this kind of talk.

The Southern Democrats like Wallace are their political ancestors.

Damn queer hating, sexist, racist corporation loving Republicans. Tell me how you are one again?

I am old school conservative Republican who would like to see the racists and bigots who have infected our party exorcised. The Southern Strategy had the effect of overwhelming the GOP with liars, racists, bigots, psychopaths, and hypocrites.

I'd like to send you back to the Democrats.

Don't worry, you still have the southern racists solidly at home in the Democratic party with you. It was fiscal conservatism that drove southerners to the Republican party. But I actually live here, you just watch the south on the liberal media

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I only do what I want to do. No one can touch me with their demands. I won't paint gays. I may paint their dog if I feel like it. There's nothing they can do. They tried.

So far, but you will either play it fair or you will be out of business.

 

[koshergrl]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly what is Holy about a public courthouse wedding? Oh right, you can't answer that because that's the end of your argument.

Good point. There is nothing holy about it at all. I wonder if these dopey florists sell to people of other religions instead of The One True Religion. Or God forbid, atheists.

It doesn't matter that you don't believe the sacraments are holy.

Christians do feel they are holy, and you can't force them to participate in freak show travesties of them. Sorry!

If Christians feel that marriage is holy, then Christians should not be selling anything to support the weddings of non-Christian church weddings.

If Christians feel that homo weddings are sacrilegious, they cannot be compelled to attend/participate.

Sowwy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly what is Holy about a public courthouse wedding? Oh right, you can't answer that because that's the end of your argument.

Good point. There is nothing holy about it at all. I wonder if these dopey florists sell to people of other religions instead of The One True Religion. Or God forbid, atheists.

It doesn't matter that you don't believe the sacraments are holy.

Christians do feel they are holy, and you can't force them to participate in freak show travesties of them. Sorry!

If Christians feel that marriage is holy, then Christians should not be selling anything to support the weddings of non-Christian church weddings.

If Christians feel that homo weddings are sacrilegious, they cannot be compelled to attend/participate.

Sowwy.

That is incorrect, obviously,.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well those racist Southern States are now red. Times, they have changed.

Times have changed indeed - solid democrats like Hollings, Wallace, Faubus, Gore, et al. are gone.

My suggestion for anyone getting a business license, is to familiarize themselves with the State laws on discrimination, which apparently, the florist did not do.

So, a business license instantly strips one of any and all civil rights?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If Wallace gave this speech at CPAC today, he'd get a standing ovation.

Jake, you're stupid and you lie incessantly.

And those are your good points.

 

[kaz]

How about this hypothetical. A man's brother in law passes away. After doing some research as to florists in his area he identifies the flower shop owned by a gay. He orders an elaborate funeral arrangement with a banner that says God Hates Fags. Should the flower shop be shut down if they refuse this order?

Sell him the flowers, he can get the banner elsewhere since in that situation those are Fighting Words, and therefore not protected. Personally, if I did banners, he can have whatever he likes up to the point where what he wants is illegal, as long as the check clears.

So a baker can bake a wedding cake for homos but refuse to put any wording or two little homos on the top of it?

I don't know why this is so difficult for you people to grasp. If you sell a product to person A, you cannot refuse to sell the same exact product to person B because they are gay, or black, or Christian, etc.

I don't sell to people who are rude to my staff, jerk us around about paying their invoices and for a bunch of other reasons. I also don't sell to people I don't think will buy enough. I don't sell to people for a bunch of reasons, they are all good reasons, but they are up to me, not you. Your hostility doesn't change that

Pick you reasons carefully, or be prepared to defend them in court.

I'm a lot smarter than you are, no worries