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

[Ravi]

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

No, what the liberals on this thread are saying is that to operate a business you must abide by local anti-discrimination laws.

No, what liberals on this thread are saying is that if you're a Christian you will be fined by the state if you refuse to participate in rituals you don't want to participate in.

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, what liberals on this thread are saying is that if you're a Christian you will be fined by the state if you refuse to participate in rituals you don't want to participate in.

Selling a cake is not a religious ritual.

A civil marriage ceremony isn't either.

So there is no violation of religious freedom here.

Can someone else maybe get this through this dense person's head?

Not a chance. She makes a box of hammers look like a terrific dinner partner by comparison, and twice as fun to converse with.

 

[SwimExpert]

Im not sure im into businesses serving people they dont want to .....by force of the government.

If theyre known bigots and enough people decide not to shop there as a result, theyll fail.

That all said, shes a despicable bigot. **** her

I agree completely. I think that discriminating against homosexuals should not only be legal, but protected!

The only catch is that they should have to post big signs by the entrance and include a clearly visible "non fine print" disclaimer in all their advertisements that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Im not sure im into businesses serving people they dont want to .....by force of the government.

If theyre known bigots and enough people decide not to shop there as a result, theyll fail.

That all said, shes a despicable bigot. **** her

I agree completely. I think that discriminating against homosexuals should not only be legal, but protected!

The only catch is that they should have to post big signs by the entrance and include a clearly visible "non fine print" disclaimer in all their advertisements that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

Been there, done that. It didn't work. How about living in the present instead of the past?

 

[SwimExpert]

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

 

[kaz]

Im not sure im into businesses serving people they dont want to .....by force of the government.

If theyre known bigots and enough people decide not to shop there as a result, theyll fail.

That all said, shes a despicable bigot. **** her

I agree completely. I think that discriminating against homosexuals should not only be legal, but protected!

The only catch is that they should have to post big signs by the entrance and include a clearly visible "non fine print" disclaimer in all their advertisements that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

Exactly, potential employees and customers should know so they can make an informed choice

 

[TemplarKormac]

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%)

So eager to hide the sins of your party that you throw up the voting record of the party regarding the Civil Rights Act, especially that of the Southern branch. It's just like you not to see the bigger picture:

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Oh, and check this out, coming straight from Obama's mouth:

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker PolitiFact Texas

It took him 20 years to come around, he was a 'right winger' by your standards, who ironically, turned right around and drove through the Civil Rights act. Whoops.

 

[kaz]

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

Um...so Christians who don't want to be forced to do business with gays would object to gays they don't want to do business being forced to do business with them.



Say what?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

More like a Barack Obama speech.

You're little tin god says very similar things in campaign mode, Jake.

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.

Yes Jake, they supported segregation - which Eisenhower had forcibly broken up. Remember when proud PROGRESSIVE Orval Faubus blocked black students from entering Little Rock schools. Republican Eisenhower sent troops to force the issue against you democrats.

Now little Soros sycophants like you love to lie that Republicans were dims and dims were Republicans - but Eisenhower was an opponent of and dismantled the FDR new deal programs and agencies - while your fellow democrat Faubus was an outspoken supporter of New Deal welfare state programs.

Hey, how'd they feel about labor unions?

Yes Jake, how DID they feel about the unions? Are you going to regale us with some lies from MoveOn?

Well, before you start lying:

What about Dixicrat Fritz Hollings?

{
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-labor voting record.
Hollings scores 100% by the AFL-CIO on labor issues
As the federation of America’s unions, the AFL-CIO includes more than 13 million of America’s workers in 60 member unions working in virtually every part of the economy. The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.}

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Fritz_Hollings_Jobs.html

{In January 1955, soon after his first inauguration as governor of Arkansas, Orval Eugene Faubus went before the state’s CIO affiliate, the Arkansas Industrial Union Council, to thank the delegates for their help in the recent election. In 1953 and 1954, the Arkansas labor movement, with money from both the CIO and the AFL, had funded a massive campaign to convince both trade unionists and African Americans to pay their poll taxes and cast ballots in the Democratic primary.}

http://www.ihc.ucsb.edu/rightandlabor/abstracts/pierce_abstract.pdf

Well gawdamn Jake, it looks like you're a ******* liar...

Not that there was anyone ignorant of that...

Sean Hannity, is that you in there?



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

Jake, I know that Soros tells you morons that lies are the path to glory for your filthy party - but you should know by now that I'm going to expose your every time.

 

[Ravi]

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

Um...so Christians who don't want to be forced to do business with gays would object to gays they don't want to do business being forced to do business with them.



Say what?

Are you twelve?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Jake5000 is a far left partisan hack.

He has been programmed by the leftist hate sites to engage in a big lie campaign in hopes of rewriting history to be more favorable to democrats.

Basically - he lies.

 

[BlindBoo]

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".

Isn't that what Boo said? Or do you not know a blanket statement when you see one?

I said, "the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers", and Boo completed the statement with, "and from the South." So the totality of the statement became, "The Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers and from the South."

Exactly, it doesn't mean everyone in the south was a conservative or a racist either. But Southern Republicans, by percentage, were even more against the Civil Rights Act than the Southern Democrats were.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow.....talk about revisionist history.

Fact is not revisionist, shorbus.

Racism is predicated upon the notion that man is a product of his inclusion in a group. It is collectivist by nature. That one does not guide one's own life and views, but instead is driven by the actions of ancestors who shared a common skin color/

Racism is and always will be a leftist ideology. Big lie will not alter reality.

 

[Seawytch]

No, what liberals on this thread are saying is that if you're a Christian you will be fined by the state if you refuse to participate in rituals you don't want to participate in.

Selling a cake is not a religious ritual.

A civil marriage ceremony isn't either.

So there is no violation of religious freedom here.

Can someone else maybe get this through this dense person's head?

Maybe the judge?

Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs. [...]

Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”​

Judge To Anti-Gay Florist Religion Is Not An Excuse To Defy Anti-Discrimination Laws ThinkProgress

 

[hipeter924]

Im not sure im into businesses serving people they dont want to .....by force of the government.

If theyre known bigots and enough people decide not to shop there as a result, theyll fail.

That all said, shes a despicable bigot. **** her

I agree completely. I think that discriminating against homosexuals should not only be legal, but protected!

The only catch is that they should have to post big signs by the entrance and include a clearly visible "non fine print" disclaimer in all their advertisements that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

I think the situation could be resolved if the state law was amended to allow an exclusion from same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

Then people could just boycott and protest as they wish, and the florist could keep selling flowers to openly heterosexual people and have a 'No Same Sex' sign on the door.

But I don't support the nonsense of not selling someone flowers or a cake, just because it might be part of a same-sex wedding. So I am not grieving over the fact that some homophobes are stupid enough to drive themselves into financial oblivion.

 

[SwimExpert]

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

Um...so Christians who don't want to be forced to do business with gays would object to gays they don't want to do business being forced to do business with them.



Say what?

My point is that most people, most of the time, view most issues mostly in terms of what they stand to get out of it, or lose. There are bigots on both sides.

 

[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%)

So eager to hide the sins of your party that you throw up the voting record of the party regarding the Civil Rights Act, especially that of the Southern branch. It's just like you not to see the bigger picture:

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Oh, and check this out, coming straight from Obama's mouth:

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker PolitiFact Texas

It took him 20 years to come around, he was a 'right winger' by your standards, who ironically, turned right around and drove through the Civil Rights act. Whoops.

It was the second civil war of sorts. Look at how the Confederate states voted. Even Southern Republicans voted against it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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".

Isn't that what Boo said? Or do you not know a blanket statement when you see one?

I said, "the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers", and Boo completed the statement with, "and from the South." So the totality of the statement became, "The Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers and from the South."

Which perpetuates the stereotype that Southerners are inherently racist and/or still oppose civil rights. As I said, Boo's statement is based on the belief that the South still is in such way as it was 50 years ago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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%)

So eager to hide the sins of your party that you throw up the voting record of the party regarding the Civil Rights Act, especially that of the Southern branch. It's just like you not to see the bigger picture:

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Oh, and check this out, coming straight from Obama's mouth:

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker PolitiFact Texas

It took him 20 years to come around, he was a 'right winger' by your standards, who ironically, turned right around and drove through the Civil Rights act. Whoops.

It was the second civil war of sorts. Look at how the Confederate states voted. Even Southern Republicans voted against it.

"Second civil war?" There was only ONE southern Republican who voted against the bill in the South. One. Look at your argument starting to fall apart. You think that just because one southern Republican voted against it means Southern Republicans and right wingers are racist, hate gays, and oppose civil rights.

Give me a break, man.

 

[Katzndogz]

Stutzman never objected to selling flowers to homosexuals and had always sold flowers to homosexuals.