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

[koshergrl]

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?

The judge determined she would pay a fine and agree to service homo weddings.

Isn't going to happen.

 

[Dana7360]

But what if all business in their area did that?

What if aliens land in Bozeman Montana tomorrow? You're speculating on non realities. Look at the uproar that is created in the public every time one of these type of events hits the press. The majority of people do not like homophobic bigots who are going to run their businesses discriminating against gay people. If I'm looking to buy flowers and I see a sign that says "No gays allowed" I'm going to keep on moving. And so will a great many people. There are plenty of other reasonably minded businesses out there who would love to accept my money, and the money of gay people.

There are millions of very small towns in America. Many of them are in states that passed laws against gay marriage. Many of those states have many small towns that have only one store. Only one gas station. Only one post office. What happens if a gay person in one of those towns doesn't have a store that will service them?

A store shouldn't be able to deny service to any paying and law abiding person.

So that gay person has to either move to a city or town that does have stores that will service them or that gay person dies of starvation.

 

[Syriusly]

Sometimes it's vital.

It's vital to pay a woman less than a man, simply because she's a woman? I understand the point you're aiming at, but I also think you're intentionally addressing a different point than where I was going. Moving on...

How about religion? Is religion immutable? Is discrimination based on religion okay?

Truth is immutable. And religion based on TRUTH is immutable. If a police officer locks up a killer, isn't he in fact discriminating against that person. The truth is that homosexuality is as much an issue as alcoholism. Society gains nothing by indulging problems.

That isn't truth- that is merely your opinion.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Yawn.

She's not a *wedding vendor*. She's a florist, who doesn't have to participate in rituals she thinks are sacrilegious and offensive. Sowwy.

 

[Skylar]

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?

The judge determined she would pay a fine and agree to service homo weddings.

Isn't going to happen.

The judge determined that she would pay a fine. And that's quite likely to happen. Either voluntarily or through a lien.

 

[koshergrl]

But what if all business in their area did that?

What if aliens land in Bozeman Montana tomorrow? You're speculating on non realities. Look at the uproar that is created in the public every time one of these type of events hits the press. The majority of people do not like homophobic bigots who are going to run their businesses discriminating against gay people. If I'm looking to buy flowers and I see a sign that says "No gays allowed" I'm going to keep on moving. And so will a great many people. There are plenty of other reasonably minded businesses out there who would love to accept my money, and the money of gay people.

There are millions of very small towns in America. Many of them are in states that passed laws against gay marriage. Many of those states have many small towns that have only one store. Only one gas station. Only one post office. What happens if a gay person in one of those towns doesn't have a store that will service them?

A store shouldn't be able to deny service to any paying and law abiding person.

So that gay person has to either move to a city or town that does have stores that will service them or that gay person dies of starvation.

Oh please, lol.

I have lived in those tiny towns all my life. What you claim happens ALL THE TIME. When you only have one vendor, sometimes you don't get what you want, that's the way of the world honey. If you want Levis but you live in a town that only sells Wranglers, do you have the option of forcing the mercantile owners to ship in Levis? Even if they don't want to?

Give me a ******* break.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

The judge determined she would pay a fine and agree to service homo weddings.

Isn't going to happen.

The judge determined that she would pay a fine. And that's quite likely to happen. Either voluntarily or through a lien.

It's going to appeal. This has been dragging on for years, lol. The law is going to be changed. That's because it's a bad, anti-religion, discriminatory law.

And of course the fags are all over it.

 

[bodecea]

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?

The judge determined she would pay a fine and agree to service homo weddings.

Isn't going to happen.

The judge determined that she would pay a fine. And that's quite likely to happen. Either voluntarily or through a lien.

A lien would work...as her lawyer gets richer.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

You can't force a small business to endorse activities/gatherings they have no interest in endorsing. Particularly if that activity constitutes sacrilege in their eyes.

Sucks to be a queer who wants to force Christians to kowtow at their *weddings*. Go pick your own flowers.

 

[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.

Yawn.

She's not a *wedding vendor*. She's a florist, who doesn't have to participate in rituals she thinks are sacrilegious and offensive. Sowwy.

Is she being asked to officiate the wedding? Is she giving away the bride? Will she serve as an altar boy or acolyte?

Or is she arraigning flowers in her shop as usual?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Yawn.

She's not a *wedding vendor*. She's a florist, who doesn't have to participate in rituals she thinks are sacrilegious and offensive. Sowwy.

Is she being asked to officiate the wedding? Is she giving away the bride? Will she serve as an altar boy or acolyte?

Or is she arraigning flowers in her shop as usual?

They want to force Christians to kowtow at fake weddings.

It isn't going to happen.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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?

The judge determined she would pay a fine and agree to service homo weddings.

Isn't going to happen.

The judge determined that she would pay a fine. And that's quite likely to happen. Either voluntarily or through a lien.

It's going to appeal.

And its almost certainly going to lose. As the precedent on PA laws is quite solid.

This has been dragging on for years, lol. The law is going to be changed. That's because it's a bad, anti-religion, discriminatory law.

Unlikely, as Oregon overwhelmingly supports gay marriage. Nor is there any sign the PA law will be changed. Worse for you, its irrelevant. As she's still subject to judgment from her previous violation. The law may change, but the judgment doesn't.

Chances are very, very good that she's going to pay and pay large. Far more than the $1000 and $1 dollar that she was offered in compromise.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yawn.

She's not a *wedding vendor*. She's a florist, who doesn't have to participate in rituals she thinks are sacrilegious and offensive. Sowwy.

Is she being asked to officiate the wedding? Is she giving away the bride? Will she serve as an altar boy or acolyte?

Or is she arraigning flowers in her shop as usual?

They want to force Christians to kowtow at fake weddings.

It isn't going to happen.

Says who? The judge hasn't ordered that she must make the cake. Only that she must pay a fine.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And, of course, it's fair to ask, When the next group of perverts--i.e., pedophiles and beast lovers--gets enough scientists to say that they, too, were "born that way," and when they get the media and enough liberal judges behind them so that 40-year-old men can marry 12-year-old girls and beast lovers can marry their animals, will it be "discrimination" for a Christian photographer to respectfully decline to service their weddings?

Don't even try to say that this is far fetched. After seeing the success of the gay marriage campaign , some beast lovers have already filed suit in recent years to be allowed to marry their dogs and horses, and pedophiles in Europe have been lobbying in the last few years to have pedophilia decriminalized and/or to lower the age of consent down to 12, with the support of some of the same scientists who peddle the "gays were born that way" myth.

20 years ago the idea that gays would be allowed to marry and also force Christian vendors to service their weddings would have sounded absurd to most people. Now look where we are.

 

[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.

You can't force a small business to endorse activities/gatherings they have no interest in endorsing. Particularly if that activity constitutes sacrilege in their eyes.

Sucks to be a queer who wants to force Christians to kowtow at their *weddings*. Go pick your own flowers.

What do you mean 'endorse'? Is a wedding not a wedding unless all the vendors approve? Are the vendors family or guests?

No. The vendors are not being harmed by discriminating. The refused customers, however, do suffer harm.

 

[Skylar]

And, of course, it's fair to ask, When the next group of perverts--i.e., pedophiles and beast lovers--gets enough scientists to say that they, too, were "born that way," and when they get the media and enough liberal judges behind them so that 40-year-old men can marry 12-year-old girls and beast lovers can marry their animals, will it be "discrimination" for a Christian photographer to respectfully decline to service their weddings?

Don't even try to say that this is far fetched. After seeing the success of the gay marriage camp;aign , some beast lovers have already filed suit in recent years to be allowed to marry their dogs and horses, and pedophiles in Europe have been lobbying in the last few years to have pedophilia decriminalized and/or to lower the age of consent down to 12, with the support of some of the same scientists who peddle the "gays were born that way" myth.

20 years ago the idea that gays would be allowed to marry and also force Christian vendors to service their weddings would have sounded absurd to most people. Now look where we are.

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy. Classics never go out of style.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Yawn.

She's not a *wedding vendor*. She's a florist, who doesn't have to participate in rituals she thinks are sacrilegious and offensive. Sowwy.

Is she being asked to officiate the wedding? Is she giving away the bride? Will she serve as an altar boy or acolyte?

Or is she arraigning flowers in her shop as usual?

They want to force Christians to kowtow at fake weddings.

It isn't going to happen.

Says who? The judge hasn't ordered that she must make the cake. Only that she must pay a fine.

Read the OP. We're in the florist thread.

 

[koshergrl]

"In further evidence that Christians are the last group of Americans that can still face legal discrimination, a Kentucky Human Rights Commission examiner has ordered a screen-printing company to promote homosexual messaging, despite their religious beliefs. Not only that, but he has ordered the company to undergo diversity brainwashing training for their refusal to do so earlier. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, many Christians thought we might be entering a new age of religious tolerance. We see it extended to Muslims, Jews, atheists, and even Satanists, so why not Christians? Well, things haven’t really worked out that way. In fact, it seems like these cases of reverse-discrimination have been on the rise lately. As for the screen-printing company in question, they refused an order for T-shirts in 2012. The shirts were meant to promote the Lexington Gay Pride Festival, and the messaging was nothing the Christian company wanted anything to do with. A sensible American might sympathize even while disagreeing with their choice. But “freedom of expression” in this country has now become a mandate. Not only can you say whatever you want, but you must also say what other people want"

Christian Shirt Company Forced to Print Homosexual Messages Fix This Nation .com

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They want to force Christians to kowtow at fake weddings.

It isn't going to happen.

It already is, or are those people not real Christians?

 

[Skylar]

"In further evidence that Christians are the last group of Americans that can still face legal discrimination, a Kentucky Human Rights Commission examiner has ordered a screen-printing company to promote homosexual messaging, despite their religious beliefs. Not only that, but he has ordered the company to undergo diversity brainwashing training for their refusal to do so earlier. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, many Christians thought we might be entering a new age of religious tolerance. We see it extended to Muslims, Jews, atheists, and even Satanists, so why not Christians? Well, things haven’t really worked out that way. In fact, it seems like these cases of reverse-discrimination have been on the rise lately. As for the screen-printing company in question, they refused an order for T-shirts in 2012. The shirts were meant to promote the Lexington Gay Pride Festival, and the messaging was nothing the Christian company wanted anything to do with. A sensible American might sympathize even while disagreeing with their choice. But “freedom of expression” in this country has now become a mandate. Not only can you say whatever you want, but you must also say what other people want"

Christian Shirt Company Forced to Print Homosexual Messages Fix This Nation .com

Oh no....Christians being held to the same laws as everyone else. The poor babies.