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

[Nosmo King]

If you decide that the customer is not worthy of your efforts due to an immutable fact about said customer, you are a bigot.

It would then be my right to be a bigot, and not your right to force a change in my beliefs simply because you don't like them, which is also bigoted within itself.

Stop being a bigot, bigot.

If you decided that said customer is not worthy of your services due to your own prejudices, you are operating a public business and breaking the law.

Any law that forces me to go against my religiously held beliefs is an intrinsic violation of my First Amendment rights. Religious preference isn't unique to just Christians, Nosmo.

If you operated a kosher butcher shop and a customer asked for a pound of bacon, your religious sensibilities might be ruffled, but, more importantly, you do not stock bacon. So refusal of service is no big deal.

If, on the other hand, you operated a flower shop and your business is to create floral arraignments, you would not consider the act of arraigning flowers as part of your daily worship or a sacrament of your faith, but you would consider it precisely what it actually is: part and parcel of your business.

Your religious beliefs are not directly connected to your business, if that business serves folks with the items you have at hand to sell. Vendors ain't priests. Dogma ain't legal cover, especially when your business has nothing to do after the customer takes his purchase from your shop.

And what florist investigates the couples getting married? What florist should be the arbiter of the propriety of the occasion? What florist should give their personal imperator to a wedding?

 

[Seawytch]

Flowers - Cake - Photos

Such are now life's neccesities.

So here you are again intimating that some businesses should be allowed to discriminate while others are not.

Businesses often do.

You don't get that?

Try buying a new Porsche when you're poor

Where do you come up with these ridiculous analogies?

Point please?

Yours was not an example of discrimination. Try again.

 

[Katzndogz]

She never refused to sell them flowers. That would be discrimination. What she refused to sell was her artistry. An artist should always have the right to refuse their artistry to anyone for any reason or no reason.

So, a guy paints a picture, puts it up for sale, and then a *** tries to buy it and the guy says no, I don't sell to fags? Yeah, ain't gonna happen. In business the only criteria that matters is whether the check clears.

A gay sees a picture that was painted and asks the artist to paint a special one. A commission just for him.

It's not gonna happen. It didn’t happen to me.

 

[Nosmo King]

Try reading before responding. Did I say Gay is a race? Nope! But your failure to comprehend my post put you in a particularly poor light.

While we protect race because it is not a factor in what a person is, sexual preference is a behavior and cannot rationally be protected.

By associating homosexuality with race, you offer the same logical fallacy that your party does in general.

Race, like sexual orientation, is an immutable fact.

 

[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.

But what if all business in their area did that? What if there was no business in their area who would do business with them

There are certainly bigots on both sides. A lot of liberals have through the discussion tried to make the Christian argument though that they would object if the reverse (as you did) was proposed and they all said no, gays should not have to deal with them either

That is not in the least bit true. I have not seen one such post. Why lie about something like that?

Oh, well, you haven't seen it, I must be lying then. JoeBigot131 and PaintMyHouse for examlpe have argued that incessently. Given their post count, you are as KosherGirl said obviously not reading

^more lies

Here you go sweetheart. Sucks to be you

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to force someone to bake you a cake? I can't find that part.

Where in the constitution does it say they CAN'T require you to bake a cake?


Actually, what requires you to back a cake is when you took out an ad that says, "I bake wedding cakes" In short, your advertisement was half of a written contract.

That doesn't even remotely say that gays shouldn't have to deal with Christians.

You're right on the quote. I confused it with the other discussion, but you're still wrong, sorry. Liberals tried that and got fine to the point what if gays don't want to deal with them.

I'm not finding those quotes for you, you made the claim, I don't have to prove you wrong

 

[Katzndogz]

If you decide that the customer is not worthy of your efforts due to an immutable fact about said customer, you are a bigot.

It would then be my right to be a bigot, and not your right to force a change in my beliefs simply because you don't like them, which is also bigoted within itself.

Stop being a bigot, bigot.

If you decided that said customer is not worthy of your services due to your own prejudices, you are operating a public business and breaking the law.

Any law that forces me to go against my religiously held beliefs is an intrinsic violation of my First Amendment rights. Religious preference isn't unique to just Christians, Nosmo.

If you operated a kosher butcher shop and a customer asked for a pound of bacon, your religious sensibilities might be ruffled, but, more importantly, you do not stock bacon. So refusal of service is no big deal.

If, on the other hand, you operated a flower shop and your business is to create floral arraignments, you would not consider the act of arraigning flowers as part of your daily worship or a sacrament of your faith, but you would consider it precisely what it actually is: part and parcel of your business.

Your religious beliefs are not directly connected to your business, if that business serves folks with the items you have at hand to sell. Vendors ain't priests. Dogma ain't legal cover, especially when your business has nothing to do after the customer takes his purchase from your shop.

And what florist investigates the couples getting married? What florist should be the arbiter of the propriety of the occasion? What florist should give their personal imperator to a wedding?

The personal imperator belongs to the artist's creation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Race, like sexual orientation, is an immutable fact.

English is not your first language, I see.

im·mu·ta·ble
i(m)ˈmyo͞odəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
   "an immutable fact"

 

[kaz]

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.

That's a very misleading stat since southern blacks were Democrats

Not back then....

Yes, they were. They changed overwhelmingly under FDR. I wouldn't debate history if I were you, you barely have any idea what's going on today

 

[SwimExpert]

For that matter, you should have no right to force anyone to service a gay wedding, unless finding someone else to service the ceremony would be very difficult or impossible, which is almost never the case.

Not sure that I'm disagreeing so much as wanting to clarify. Judges and other government officials who are authorized to perform legal wedding ceremonies as a function of their office should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Try reading before responding. Did I say Gay is a race? Nope! But your failure to comprehend my post put you in a particularly poor light.

While we protect race because it is not a factor in what a person is, sexual preference is a behavior and cannot rationally be protected.

By associating homosexuality with race, you offer the same logical fallacy that your party does in general.

Race, like sexual orientation, is an immutable fact.

No, that's not true. It can be a choice, like for women who get raped and then avoid men, and women who want children with a male partner. Humans are mostly nature, but not all or always.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Under the Constitution, and in a tolerant and fair society, you should have no "right" to force a Christian photographer to service a gay wedding. For that matter, you should have no right to force anyone to service a gay wedding, unless finding someone else to service the ceremony would be very difficult or impossible, which is almost never the case.

There are plenty, plenty, plenty of photographers, florists, and bakers, etc., who don't mind servicing gay ceremonies. So it's not like gay couples don't have numerous readily available options.

I would be very curious to see what liberals would say if a Christian heterosexual group sued a gay photographer who refused to video record a lecture in a church on the health risks of homosexuality. After all, if photographers are a "public accommodation," and if you can't "discriminate" on the basis of "sexual identity," then the gay photographer would be liable for legal action if he refused to service the lecture just because he found it offensive.

A pro would do the job. That's what it is, a job.

 

[Katzndogz]

For that matter, you should have no right to force anyone to service a gay wedding, unless finding someone else to service the ceremony would be very difficult or impossible, which is almost never the case.

Not sure that I'm disagreeing so much as wanting to clarify. Judges and other government officials who are authorized to perform legal wedding ceremonies as a function of their office should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

That's why so many have stopped performing weddings.

 

[SwimExpert]

English is not your first language, I see.

im·mu·ta·ble
i(m)ˈmyo͞odəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
   "an immutable fact"

Is gender immutable?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For that matter, you should have no right to force anyone to service a gay wedding, unless finding someone else to service the ceremony would be very difficult or impossible, which is almost never the case.

Not sure that I'm disagreeing so much as wanting to clarify. Judges and other government officials who are authorized to perform legal wedding ceremonies as a function of their office should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

That's why so many have stopped performing weddings.

Which is perfectly fine. If you can't be a grownup about it, be gone.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

English is not your first language, I see.

im·mu·ta·ble
i(m)ˈmyo͞odəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
   "an immutable fact"

Is gender immutable?

Gender, a tricky one actually. Tell us, how do you know the gender of a person?

 

[SwimExpert]

That's why so many have stopped performing weddings.

That is their decision. In the meantime, there are those of us who are happy to pick up the slack and receive the financial benefit of performing services that are in demand. Free markets are great.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is gender immutable?

Not anymore.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Try reading before responding. Did I say Gay is a race? Nope! But your failure to comprehend my post put you in a particularly poor light.

While we protect race because it is not a factor in what a person is, sexual preference is a behavior and cannot rationally be protected.

By associating homosexuality with race, you offer the same logical fallacy that your party does in general.

Race, like sexual orientation, is an immutable fact.

I can see your skin color, but I can't see your sexual orientation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is their decision. In the meantime, there are those of us who are happy to pick up the slack and receive the financial benefit of performing services that are in demand. Free markets are great.

Then why strip the civil rights from others?

I said long ago that those who turn away customers are fools. BUT it is the right of any free person to trade with those they choose, and not trade with those they don't.

 

[Katzndogz]

That's why so many have stopped performing weddings.

That is their decision. In the meantime, there are those of us who are happy to pick up the slack and receive the financial benefit of performing services that are in demand. Free markets are great.

Which is exactly the way it would be if religious rights were respected.