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

[Skylar]

This isn't about selling cake. It's about forcing Christians to endorse practices they believe are sacrilegious, or face fines, imprisonment and who knows what else.

It's not exactly endorsing practices they consider sacreligious. It's performing acts themselves that are sacreligious.

As businesses, however, they endorse them by way of their participation.

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

 

[koshergrl]

" A law is unjust if it is inflicted on the citizenry that, as a result of being forced to accept abominable behavior, had no part in enacting or devising the law."

"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience."

"Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience."

"No one should be FORCED to leave their beliefs at the door. No other group of people is being ask to leave their beliefs behind. This discrimination [is] against the Christian."

Arlene s Flowers Response to Attorney General s Settlement Offer - Family Policy Institute of Washington

 

[Skylar]

Would you allow human sacrifice if people claimed it was one of their religious practices?

The pertinent question here is would you FORCE people to do human sacrafice if it was the law and they objected to it morally?

Because forcing people to do human sacrifice is JUST LIKE asking a florist to sell flowers for a wedding.

And the point the "Christians" are arguing us that it's their deeply held beliefs that should not be infringed upon. Why do Christian beliefs trump Satanists?

Or Muslims. If Christian beliefs trump civil law, does that mean that Sharia trumps civil law as well?

If not, why not?

 

[koshergrl]

It's not exactly endorsing practices they consider sacreligious. It's performing acts themselves that are sacreligious.

As businesses, however, they endorse them by way of their participation.

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

 

[Seawytch]

Just wait for the Satanists to start in on PA laws... Can the Satanic Temple Save America - The Daily Beast

 

[Skylar]

As businesses, however, they endorse them by way of their participation.

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

 

[Katzndogz]

Would you allow human sacrifice if people claimed it was one of their religious practices?

The pertinent question here is would you FORCE people to do human sacrafice if it was the law and they objected to it morally?

ROFLMNAO! This is the SECOND thread TONIGHT that I have witnessed the Left hauling out HUMAN SACRIFICE as a means to show that 'homosexuality is legitimate'.

I wonder if she's also in the 'Democrats are getting Desperate' thread?

Because we all know that homosexuality is JUST LIKE Human Sacrifice, eh?

Very close. Both are sinful acts. What you want to do is create degrees of wrongdoing. Even if homosexuality is a sin it's not as bad as human sacrifice. I have never identified degrees of sin anywhere. Have you?

I do not consider homosexuals sinners. That is not a judgment I can make. The Bible admonishes against judging the sin in another's soul. What I am supposed to do is not sin myself and judge my own soul. For that reason I could never participate in a same sex wedding nor treat a same sex relationship as normal.

Aside from any religious argument I firmly believe that artistic freedom is total and absolute, not subject to any demand.

 

[koshergrl]

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

It's not an action. It's a refusal to participate.

The state has no authority. The case will be thrown out on appeal, and the state's attorney will lose his seat.

 

[Katzndogz]

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

Which is clearly not the case here. There are no customers that say they were treated unfairly.

 

[Seawytch]

As businesses, however, they endorse them by way of their participation.

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

In fact, the case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” 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.

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

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This isn't about selling cake. It's about forcing Christians to endorse practices they believe are sacrilegious, or face fines, imprisonment and who knows what else.

It's not exactly endorsing practices they consider sacreligious. It's performing acts themselves that are sacreligious.

As businesses, however, they endorse them by way of their participation.

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

Get queer florists and leave the Christians alone. We aren't your slaves.

Kosh... I Agreed with this, but I wanted to also THANK YOU!

 

[Skylar]

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

It's not an action. It's a refusal to participate.

Refusing to treat your customers fairly and equally is an action. And its quite illegal.

If you do it, then you're subject to fines. Why you did it is irrelevant to the law. As the law doesn't regulate beliefs. It regulates actions.

If your religious beliefs make your profession impossible, find another profession.

The state has no authority. The case will be thrown out on appeal, and the state's attorney will lose his seat.

Says you. The fines that the States are applying demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

By their participation they are committing an independent sin of their own.

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

In fact, the case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” 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.

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

You're citing the law and the outcome of actual cases.

They're citing how they feel. You're speaking different languages.

 

[koshergrl]

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

It's not an action. It's a refusal to participate.

Refusing to treat your customers fairly and equally is an action. And its quite illegal.

If you do it, then you're subject to fines. Why you did it is irrelevant to the law. As the law doesn't regulate beliefs. It regulates actions.

If your religious beliefs make your profession impossible, find another profession.

The state has no authority. The case will be thrown out on appeal, and the state's attorney will lose his seat.

Says you. The fines that the States are applying demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about.

She treated them fairly.
She just opted out of participating in sacrilege.

The fine that the state requests is a TINY amount. Just over $1000. $1 for attorney's fees lol. It's nothing but a token.

Because the judge KNOWS the case is laughable, and just wants the florist to denounce her faith by agreeing that she will cater homo weddings in the future.

won't happen. Will be thrown out on appeals, and the attorney, next election cycle will be gone.

 

[bodecea]

If they can't do their job without sinning, then perhaps they would be happier in another profession.

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

It's not an action. It's a refusal to participate.

The state has no authority. The case will be thrown out on appeal, and the state's attorney will lose his seat.

Care to make some kind of friendly wager about that?

 

[Skylar]

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

It's not an action. It's a refusal to participate.

Refusing to treat your customers fairly and equally is an action. And its quite illegal.

If you do it, then you're subject to fines. Why you did it is irrelevant to the law. As the law doesn't regulate beliefs. It regulates actions.

If your religious beliefs make your profession impossible, find another profession.

The state has no authority. The case will be thrown out on appeal, and the state's attorney will lose his seat.

Says you. The fines that the States are applying demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about.

She treated them fairly.

Says you. Neither the law nor the court agree with you:

tutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” 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.

You can imagine you can ignore ignore the law. But the law isn't ignoring you.

She just opted out of participating in sacrilege.

Then her job is clearly incompatible with her religion and she should consider finding another profession. As treating her customers fairly and equally is a requirement of doing business in her state. And denying to serve someone because of their sexual orientation isn't treating them fairly or equally.

Because the judge KNOWS the case is laughable, and just wants the florist to denounce her faith by agreeing that she will cater homo weddings in the future.

The judge wants the florist to denounce her faith?

You do realize that you're just making this shit up as you go along, right?

 

[Skylar]

Totally irrelevant (not to mention it's a logical fallacy).

Which logical fallacy, specifically?

And its totally relevant. If your religion forbids you from working on Sunday, and your job is on Sunday, you may need a different job. As your religion and your profession are incompatible.

Since anyone that does business with the public is required to treat all their customers fairly and equally, if their religion makes that impossible, then their profession and their religion are incompatible. And they may need to find a different profession.

The state does not have the authority in this country to force people to participate in rituals that they view as sacrilegious.

The State does have the authority to fine someone for illegal discrimination.

It's not discrimination to refuse to endorse homo marriage, nor is it discrimination to refuse to participate in sacrilegious celebrations.

Sure it is. The discrimination is the action. Not the motivation.

And if your beliefs make it impossible for you to treat your customers fairly and equally, perhaps another profession would be a better idea. As your profession and your religion are clearly incompatible.

It's not an action. It's a refusal to participate.

The state has no authority. The case will be thrown out on appeal, and the state's attorney will lose his seat.

Care to make some kind of friendly wager about that?

I'm down. Say a $100 wager on the USSC rejecting religious belief as a basis for ignoring state PA laws? Or at the very least, denying cert for an appeal of a lower court ruling rejecting religious belief as a basis for ignoring state PA laws.

Anyone? I'm quite confident in my position. And I've got an extra C-note right here.

 

[Nosmo King]

Is Homosexuality a criminal offense? Can one be arrested for merely being and, while living as a sober, tax paying, responsible adult, behaving as a Homosexual?

This argument is a cultural argument. Should culture be in the hands of legislators?

As gender orientation is an immutable trait, where's the justice for Homosexuals? No other citizen would tolerate the cultural behavior from a minority seeking to hide behind religion. While religion is constitutionally protected, thank God, it is not an immutable trait. The rational used by the wedding vendors is based in a line of Scripture. With oppression coming with a Biblical mandate, some default to protected religious beliefs. All manner of cultural anachronisms have been based in a line of Scripture.

It seems to me that whenever Scripture has been used to justify a cultural attitude that has long since been left behind as the world got smaller. Slavery, arraigned marriages, adultery (think about courtesans, mistresses, concubines and the like). All those cultural attitudes and sins are defined by eras. The Victorians, the Edwardians, the Old South.

And so, culture evolves after diversity. Isn't it time for culture to be a benefactor to people, not an oppressor.

And another leftist spins out of orbit, unable to formulate a rational thought...

It is rational. You don't happen to agree. How do you define 'rational'?

 

[koshergrl]

"The First Amendment guarantees that every person has a fundamental right to the free exercise of religion. In 1990, the Supreme Court (wrongly) held in Employment Division v. Smith that laws of general application do not trigger claims under the Free Exercise Clause; only laws that actually target religious exercise can be struck down for that reason.
"The opinion was written by none other than conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the few instances where I disagree with how he wrote an opinion. I remain convinced that he just picked the wrong words to set forth the rule and did not intend to cast a key constitutional provision in such narrow terms.
"Smith overturned years of (correctly-decided) precedent, which held that whenever laws impair a person’s sincere religious belief, the law is presumed invalid as applied to that person unless the government can show the law is absolutely necessary and narrowly targeted to achieve a truly compelling public interest.
"Smith involved Native Americans who used peyote (an illegal, hallucinogenic drug) in their religious rituals. The Court upheld a federal law against its use. The Smith decision was widely criticized at the time, with religious-liberty scholars saying it should be overruled. Today’s case highlights Smith‘s shortcomings.
"This case clearly involves a violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. Government cannot compel someone like Stutzman to violate her religious beliefs under these circumstances. The time has come for the Court to overrule Smith, or announce some rule as to why these types of cases are different.
"Either way, this case must now work its way all the way through the court system. If the lower courts do not vindicate Stutzman’s constitutional rights, then the U.S. Supreme Court will have occasion to revisit what many consider to be a constitutional blunder from its past."

WA State Atty Gen Violates Christian Florist s Constitutional Rights - Breitbart

 

[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.

Is Homosexuality a criminal offense? Can one be arrested for merely being and, while living as a sober, tax paying, responsible adult, behaving as a Homosexual?

This argument is a cultural argument. Should culture be in the hands of legislators?

As gender orientation is an immutable trait, where's the justice for Homosexuals? No other citizen would tolerate the cultural behavior from a minority seeking to hide behind religion. While religion is constitutionally protected, thank God, it is not an immutable trait. The rational used by the wedding vendors is based in a line of Scripture. With oppression coming with a Biblical mandate, some default to protected religious beliefs. All manner of cultural anachronisms have been based in a line of Scripture.

It seems to me that whenever Scripture has been used to justify a cultural attitude that has long since been left behind as the world got smaller. Slavery, arraigned marriages, adultery (think about courtesans, mistresses, concubines and the like). All those cultural attitudes and sins are defined by eras. The Victorians, the Edwardians, the Old South.

And so, culture evolves after diversity. Isn't it time for culture to be a benefactor to people, not an oppressor.

How does the state forcing people to participate in sacrilege "benefit" people?

Being a wedding vendor is not being an archbishop or priest or minister is it?

Being a wedding vendor does not include dining, dancing and bringing a toaster oven wrapped in silver and white.

These are the businesses they have worked for. But they don't sanctify a wedding. That's what archbishops, priests and ministers are for.

Oddly enough, those archbishops, priests and ministers don't cater.