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

[PaintMyHouse]

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

No, but it limits them. Most things done for money do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

LOL. Okay Sweetheart, whatever you say since it's your bill to pay.

 

[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

None of those are protected by anti-discrimination law.

True. But what most liberals are arguing is that just by being in a business I am creating a contract I will do business with anyone. If that were true, I would be required to deal with those customers and I am not

 

[koshergrl]

"Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.
"I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process."

Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov t Settlement Offer and Her Attorney Reveals What s Next TheBlaze.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope. They were and always will be Democrats. When the Civil Rights act passed, a couple of Democrats, namely Strom Thurmond switched parties because he so strongly believed in segregation and the inferiority of the black man.

By the way, that would make a good sig line for someone. Too bad I don't bandy about people's stupidity on my sig line.

Not just democrats, but far left PROGRESSIVE democrats.

Jake5000 is a ******* liar who holds party above all and engages in the big lie technique on behalf of George Soros.

But whatchagunnado?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.
"I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process."

Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov t Settlement Offer and Her Attorney Reveals What s Next TheBlaze.com

Stupid then, even more stupid now, but you love her for it I'm sure? Stupid peas in their stupid religious pod.

 

[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

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

And?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

No Jake, you're a moronic leftist dim who is convinced that if you just lie enough, you'll fool everyone.

Less than 10% of you democrats switched party and joined the GOP during the Dixicrat movement - you're just spewing big lie propaganda in hopes of rewriting history on behalf of your filthy party.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, as I was saying...

Funny - fact shows it was your democrats who forced blacks to the back of the bus.

Funny - facts show those Democrats were far right wing conservatives. They are your political ancestors.

Funny - that part of the equation is always willfully censored out by the people pouring that piss you drink with so much gusto.

Then why were they Democrats? And why are you citing your own posts to support your argument?

If you read their party platform of the year 1964, you'll notice how left wing it actually is:

Democratic Party Platforms Democratic Party Platform of 1964

Moreover, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace were all populist Democratic governors who opposed desegregation. They led a die hard movement to resist integration. This kind of stuff went on well after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

When white democrats in the south began feeling alienated by their party, they switched and joined pro civil rights Republicans coming in from the Northern States.

 

[Seawytch]

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

And?

There are legitimate reasons to refuse service that would hold up to legal scrutiny.

The Florist and baker refusing to serve gays because they are gay does not in a few places.

 

[Silhouette]

Depends on if someone "is" gay or acts gay. All the difference in the world when it comes to the legal question of business law vs the 1st Amendment..

...I'll ask Anne Heche about it when I get a minute..

Wow this thread loaded 90 pages since just yesterday when it was started.

Pretty impressive. It seems to fly against many LGBT militants who claim "the war is over, we won, nothing to see here, go home.."

 

[g5000]

Excerpts From the Platform and Principles (official, white-only) Mississippi State Democratic Party, Adopted June 30, 1960

The Democratic Party of Mississippi stands today where it has always stood with feet firmly planted on the solid foundation of the Constitution of the United States, pure Americanism and the traditional Southern American Way of Life.

Party affiliation aside, all that jingoism could have been right out of a Sarah Palin speech.

The very first two planks of their platform:

We are opposed to strong centralized government, national or state.

We believe in States' Rights and local self-government, and are unalterably opposed to any encroachment upon the rights of the states by the federal government, or any department or agency thereof, and upon county and municipal government by the state, or any department or agency thereof.

Hey, how'd they feel about labor unions?

We believe that every person shall have the right to work and no person shall be denied that right because he or she is not a member of a union or other labor organization. ...

Sean Hannity, is that you in there?



Uncensored, those lumps you feel in your throat? That's your balls.

 

[Flash]

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

If you want to discuss this silly crap then be aware that a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the Democrats.

I personally think it was the wrong thing to do to pass the Act but both the Republicans and Democrats disagreed with the concept of personal liberty and voted for the thing anyhow.

 

[BULLDOG]

Were they demanding the florist get married to them? That's the only way they could be trying to force her to participate.

Do you think that you own the florists shop? Or do you just demand that the party is the rightful owner of all people so has the right to dictate who may or may not trade with who?

Did your GLORIOUS PEOPLES party repeal this?

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

Since the servitude of the florist is involuntary. Again recognizing that you view the party as the rightful owner of all subjects.

Do the voices in your head tell you all that crazy crap?

 

[Silhouette]

If you want to discuss this silly crap then be aware that a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the Democrats.

I personally think it was the wrong thing to do to pass the Act but both the Republicans and Democrats disagreed with the concept of personal liberty and voted for the thing anyhow.

And the funny thing is that lifestyles aren't even a civil right. Change the premise and it changes the whole argument. They certainly are not dominant to force someone to abdicate their 1st Amendment right to the exercise of their faith in their daily life.

 

[Seawytch]

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

If you want to discuss this silly crap then be aware that a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the Democrats.

I personally think it was the wrong thing to do to pass the Act but both the Republicans and Democrats disagreed with the concept of personal liberty and voted for the thing anyhow.

If you're going to "discuss this crap" then you should realize that the vote went down on regional lines, not political ones. It was the racist South against the progressive North, period.

 

[BULLDOG]

But she didn't refuse for another reason. She refused to serve someone specifically because they were gay. That's a protected class, and serving them would be the decent thing to do anyway.

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

You Communists have a serious hostility toward the Constitution. Time for the ACLJ to take up the case on grounds of violation of the the 13th.

Sure, that's just what we need. Some bible thumper who thinks he knows the law to preach to the judges. What could go wrong?

 

[g5000]

The New Deal program of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) generally united the party factions for over three decades, since Southerners, like Northern urban populations, were hit particularly hard and generally benefited from the massive governmental relief program. FDR was adept at holding white Southerners in the coalition[7] while simultaneously beginning the erosion of Black voters away from their then-characteristic Republican preferences. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s catalyzed the end of this Democratic Party coalition of interests by magnetizing Black voters to the Democratic label and simultaneously ending White control of the Democratic Party apparatus.[8] A series of court decisions, rendering primary elections as public instead of private events administered by the parties, essentially freed the Southern region to change more toward the two-party behavior of most of the rest of the nation.

In the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956 Republican nominee Dwight David Eisenhower, a popular World War II general, won several Southern states, thus breaking some white Southerners away from their Democratic Party pattern. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting theDeep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats), but the Republican Party nominated for the Presidency Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it. From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term "Solid South" to describe the states' Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably.

Southern Democrats

Anti-integration Southern Democrats, the political ancestors of today's right wing bigots.

 

[koshergrl]

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

If you want to discuss this silly crap then be aware that a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the Democrats.

I personally think it was the wrong thing to do to pass the Act but both the Republicans and Democrats disagreed with the concept of personal liberty and voted for the thing anyhow.

If you're going to "discuss this crap" then you should realize that the vote went down on regional lines, not political ones. It was the racist South against the progressive North, period.

Nonsense. Racism has always been the cancer of the left. Always.

 

[BULLDOG]

Were they demanding the florist get married to them? That's the only way they could be trying to force her to participate.

Do you think that you own the florists shop? Or do you just demand that the party is the rightful owner of all people so has the right to dictate who may or may not trade with who?

Did your GLORIOUS PEOPLES party repeal this?

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

Since the servitude of the florist is involuntary. Again recognizing that you view the party as the rightful owner of all subjects.

Your argument died, right here, decades ago. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Read the decision, it will do you good. Having to service customers isn't slavery, it's business, and here we regulate that, for good reason.

The florist never refused to serve these customers and in fact did serve these customers for nine years.

She should explain that to the judge. I don't think it will excuse her breaking the law this time though.