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

[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.

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

Neither Hitler not Stalin supported gay marriage. I do. I think you may be a little confused.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In the grand scheme of things, nobody would dare make a Muslim suffer homosexual(s) in his proprietorship.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Well then that's settled! I'm glad we agree she isn't. Instead, she's being fined for violating PA laws.

 

[Skylar]

In the grand scheme of things, nobody would dare make a Muslim suffer a homosexual in his proprietorship. I mean, you don't want a fatwa issued against you, am I right?

Generally speaking Fatwas aren't issued by random business owners.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In the grand scheme of things, nobody would dare make a Muslim suffer homosexual(s) in his proprietorship.

No, you are wrong, as always.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Harm suggests there was malicious intent involved. Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[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.

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

Harm suggest there was malicious intent involved. Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

I don't think harm mandates malicious intent. But a loss.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Nor are your opinions based on truth either. Truth is immutable, opinions are immutable, so is reality. The reality here is the a sexual orientation is deemed by the law of the government to trump the religious freedom in all cases where businesses and their owners are involved. Another reality: nobody can force their beliefs or lifestyle on anybody else. Nobody can be forced to condone or accept something they don't believe in or adhere to. This standard does not work only one way, please remember that.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Here we get to the meat of the matter. Allie...I mean, Koshergrl wants to determine the validity of legal marriage. Where does she get such authority?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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'?

Rational is something that doesn't always agree with you. Rational in this case is what you are not. So don't flip out when someone doesn't agree with your argument.

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

Move. You're surrounded by people who hate you to the core. Why would you want to live in such a place?

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

So, if I own a bar, I should have no right to refuse service to a drunk person? If I own a gun shop, I should have no right to refuse service to someone who is rambling about how he wants to kill his wife? If I own a hotel, I should have no right to refuse service to someone who appears to be engaged in human trafficking? I have no right to refuse service to someone who is being belligerent, abusive to my employees, and/or disrupting the operation of my business?

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.

There are two problems with everything you are saying. The first is that you continue to argue from fantasy what-ifs that don't reflect reality. You are envisioning a world where every single individual in town so passionately hates the one local homosexual that they want him/her to die. That's absurd.

The second problem is that you've failed to grasp my deeper point, which is that you can't legislatively end homophobia. Even if laws require homophobes to do business with gay people against their own volition, they're still going to be homophobes. But now, their hatred is going to grow deeper. It's better to let society turn them into social lepers. Let society turn their backs on those businesses, let those people feel the pain when they are driven to the brink of bankruptcy when nobody wants to do business with them. That is the only real chance of those people having an actual change of heart.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once a society starts down the road of depravity and degredation it doesn't stop until it reaches the end. Either by internal collapse or invasion by a more robust people.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nor are your opinions based on truth either. Truth is immutable, opinions are immutable, so is reality. The reality here is the a sexual orientation is deemed by the law of the government to trump the religious freedom in all cases where businesses and their owners are involved.

Sexual orientation isn't 'trumping' anything more than race or gender is. Its PA laws vs. religious belief. Its the laws that require that those doing business with the public treat their customer fairly and equally. Not homosexuality.

Another reality: nobody can force their beliefs or lifestyle on anybody else. Nobody can be forced to condone or accept something they don't believe in or adhere to. This standard does not work only one way, please remember that.

You can believe whatever you wish. PA laws don't regulate belief. They regulate actions in business. And that's totally within the State's practical ability to regulate. As well as their authority.

 

[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.

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.

Reductio ad absurdum. When you resort to these kinds of arguments, there is in fact no argument at all.

 

[Skylar]

Once a society starts down the road of depravity and degredation it doesn't stop until it reaches the end. Either by internal collapse or invasion by a more robust people.

Unless it doesn't.

 

[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.

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

No state requires a religious official to perform a gay marriage ceremony that violates his faith.

 

[TemplarKormac]

B-b-b-but...

THE CRUSADERS!

I have one of those. He's level 70 and does 1 million damage.

 

[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'?

Rational is something that doesn't always agree with you. Rational in this case is what you are not. So don't flip out when someone doesn't agree with your argument.

Disagree, of course. But my posts are rational. Calling them irrational is both dismissive and I constructive argument. It's a shame that some feel that they can dismiss rational thought as irrational simply because they disagree. It betrays shallow thinking.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

You're a ******* idiot, go away.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

You're a ******* idiot, go away.

Well, that's a concession if I ever heard one.