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

[Skylar]

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.

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

We are where we should have been, 40 years ago, but your kind has been holding equality back, 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.

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.

Really?

How were they harmed? Did the florist prevent them from getting flowers? Did she prevent them from getting married?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

So you agree, there was no harm done by her refusal to participate.

We agree. No harm.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

It's not what they carry, it's do they sell it to everyone with money? Pretty simple to figure out when you think about it, which you haven't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

So you agree, there was no harm done by her refusal to participate.

We agree. No harm.

The harm was the religious discrimination,. which isn't allowed by law there.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Think about the marriage contract. That's what we're talking about. Not the church's role in sanctifying marriage for its congregants.

We're talking about the contract provided through the marriage license.

Two consenting adults neither of which is currently married could establish a next of kin relationship where one does not currently exist should be able to avail themselves of the protections and benefits of the marriage contract.

Not one adult and one child, not one adult and one sheep, not three adults, not two children and one adult, not any combination other than two consenting adults who are not currently married to someone else and have no pre-existing next of kin relationship.

Your example is quite often used as a last resort.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

So you agree, there was no harm done by her refusal to participate.

We agree. No harm.

Wrong yet again. The customers were harmed, the vendor? Not so much.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My understanding of history leads me to believe that whenever the state steps in to tell people what they *must* do in regards to religious practices, imprisonment and bloodshed is not far behind.

Here it's the opposite. Before the First Amendment they were jailing people for having the wrong religion. That's where it came from.

This is why we don't let your kind have any real power, we'd be in the Dark Ages again: America s True History of Religious Tolerance History Smithsonian

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Think about the marriage contract. That's what we're talking about. Not the church's role in sanctifying marriage for its congregants.

We're talking about the contract provided through the marriage license.

Two consenting adults neither of which is currently married could establish a next of kin relationship where one does not currently exist should be able to avail themselves of the protections and benefits of the marriage contract.

Not one adult and one child, not one adult and one sheep, not three adults, not two children and one adult, not any combination other than two consenting adults who are not currently married to someone else and have no pre-existing next of kin relationship.

Your example is quite often used as a last resort.

Christians view the marriage contract as a sacrament.
So to ask them to participate in a ritual that bastardizes the holy nature of the sacrament, and is by its very definition an unholy sacrilegious event is a violation of their religious freedom, and a human rights violation besides.

But progressives like that sort of thing. They always have. They used to get their jollies forcing Jews to do stuff that they were religiously opposed to, too.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

In another 20 years the deranged will be marrying their dogs and have brothels of corpses.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

So you agree, there was no harm done by her refusal to participate.

We agree. No harm.

Huh? Are you drinking? Because I never said anything you just posted.

You claimed that the judge is forcing her to perform the wedding. Says who?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They used to get their jollies forcing Jews to do stuff that they were religiously opposed to, too.

You mean like when the Catholics told the Jews to either convert or die? Fun times.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

In another 20 years the deranged will be marrying their dogs and have brothels of corpses.

They're already doing it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

In another 20 years the deranged will be marrying their dogs and have brothels of corpses.

Stop being a child, it's annoying.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

So you agree, there was no harm done by her refusal to participate.

We agree. No harm.

Huh? Are you drinking? Because I never said anything you just posted.

You claimed that the judge is forcing her to perform the wedding. Says who?

Er..no, I didn't say that.

 

[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 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.

In another 20 years the deranged will be marrying their dogs and have brothels of corpses.

In another 20 years, folks will look back on people like yourself the way we look back on opponents of interracial marriage.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

In another 20 years the deranged will be marrying their dogs and have brothels of corpses.

In another 20 years, folks will look back on people like yourself the way we look back on opponents of interracial marriage.

No, they won't. In 20 years, folks will look at you the same way they look at Stalin, Pol Pot, Caligula, and Hitler.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

So you agree, there was no harm done by her refusal to participate.

We agree. No harm.

Huh? Are you drinking? Because I never said anything you just posted.

You claimed that the judge is forcing her to perform the wedding. Says who?

Er..no, I didn't say that.

My bad. You claimed that the judge is forcing her to provide flowers for the wedding.

 

[koshergrl]

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

And where is the florist required to perform the wedding?

So you agree, there was no harm done by her refusal to participate.

We agree. No harm.

Huh? Are you drinking? Because I never said anything you just posted.

You claimed that the judge is forcing her to perform the wedding. Says who?

Er..no, I didn't say that.

My bad. You claimed that the judge is forcing her to provide flowers for the wedding.

Er..no, I didn't.