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

[TemplarKormac]

Calling them irrational is both dismissive and I constructive argument.

Calling the argument irrational and explaining why is fine. But calling the one making the argument 'irrational' is something I like to call "ad hominem." There has been a lot name calling going on in this thread, from both sides.

It's a shame that some feel that they can dismiss rational thought as irrational simply because they disagree

I see liberals do it, too. They are the ones who label dissenters as "homophobes" or "bigots."

It betrays shallow thinking.

See? You just did it yourself. If you want to make a convincing argument, the last thing you do is call someone a "shallow thinker."

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

The reality is much different though. Those businesses that have taken a stand aren't social lepers loss of business doesn't drive them to bankruptcy. They are more successful than ever before.

Sweet Cakes was driven out by violent militant gays to another location where they are making more money than ever. Masterpiece bakery stopped making wedding cakes but sales of other baked goods have more than made up for it. We all know what happened with Chick fil A.

Conversely when Cracker Barrel supported gays over Phil Robertson, in two days the chain was so crippled that it had to apologize. Just like the A&E network had to rethink its programming decisions.

By all means have companies openly declare their position. See who squeaks first.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Actually he spoke the the truth. That little moron is as big an idiot as you are.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

The reality is much different though. Those businesses that have taken a stand aren't social lepers loss of business doesn't drive them to bankruptcy. They are more successful than ever before.

Sweet Cakes was driven out by violent militant gays to another location where they are making more money than ever. Masterpiece bakery stopped making wedding cakes but sales of other baked goods have more than made up for it. We all know what happened with Chick fil A.

Conversely when Cracker Barrel supported gays over Phil Robertson, in two days the chain was so crippled that it had to apologize. Just like the A&E network had to rethink its programming decisions.

By all means have companies openly declare their position. See who squeaks first.

SweetCakes is facing a 150K penalty, and baking out of the house again. While the Hitler Youth for Jesus does rush to the defense of these bigots, those days are numbered, very much so.

 

[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.

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

So you think that the vendors for a wedding actually participate like a guest or clergy? That wedding vendors sanctify marriage like a priest?

What rationale can you provide?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So you think that the vendors for a wedding actually participate like a guest or clergy? That wedding vendors sanctify marriage like a priest?

What rationale can you provide?

Uh, no, this is you putting words in my mouth.

This is my rationale:

Your argument is absurd. This woman, while a vendor and not any man/woman of the cloth, she is an individual with religious beliefs. When you force her to violate her own religious beliefs to serve people who her religion says is participating in sinful practices, you're doing her harm.

She is not stopping those two from getting married. Your argument is one of false cause.

 

[Pop23]

Is masterpiece still challenging the court order to bake the damn cakes?

I believe so. Mr. Phillips though has stopped selling wedding cakes while the case is still active.


>>>>

Over a cake

So as not be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation of the customer in violation of Colorado Public Accommodation laws by not providing the same goods and services offered to other customers.

Rosa Parks would laugh her ass off.

Her opinion, like yours, is of no importance.

Flowers dude, it's just flowers

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I believe so. Mr. Phillips though has stopped selling wedding cakes while the case is still active.


>>>>

Over a cake

So as not be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation of the customer in violation of Colorado Public Accommodation laws by not providing the same goods and services offered to other customers.

Rosa Parks would laugh her ass off.

Her opinion, like yours, is of no importance.

Flowers dude, it's just flowers

No dude, it's equality, an American Value that matters.

 

[Pop23]

Conservatives are obsessed with restoring the right to discriminate.

Dude, it's floral arrangements.

We fight over flowers now?

Don't you know, queers have the right to demand service, and receive it...and not just blow jobs.

Don't you know, christians have the right to demand service and receive it....and not just blow jobs.

Flowers

 

[Pop23]

Over a cake

So as not be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation of the customer in violation of Colorado Public Accommodation laws by not providing the same goods and services offered to other customers.

Rosa Parks would laugh her ass off.

Her opinion, like yours, is of no importance.

Flowers dude, it's just flowers

No dude, it's equality, an American Value that matters.

A court wasted it's time on flowers

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So as not be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation of the customer in violation of Colorado Public Accommodation laws by not providing the same goods and services offered to other customers.

Rosa Parks would laugh her ass off.

Her opinion, like yours, is of no importance.

Flowers dude, it's just flowers

No dude, it's equality, an American Value that matters.

A court wasted it's time on flowers

No, on equality. She could have been selling gum or Girl Scout cookies, the point is exactly the same.

 

[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.

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.

So you think that the vendors for a wedding actually participate like a guest or clergy? That wedding vendors sanctify marriage like a priest?

What rationale can you provide?

Uh, no, this is you putting words in my mouth.

This is my rationale:

Your argument is absurd. This woman, while a vendor and not any man/woman of the cloth, she is an individual with religious beliefs. When you force her to violate her own religious beliefs to serve people who her religion says is participating in sinful practices, you're doing her harm.

She is not stopping those two from getting married. Your argument is one of false cause.

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant to all other arraignments she creates. She is not a participant in the wedding. She has no interest in the wedding beyond the approval code on the credit card receipt. Her religious beliefs do not impact her wears. Creating her wares is not a holy sacrament.

Her business is open to the public. She accommodates all other customers without fail. She is not being harmed by plying her trade.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant to all other arrangements she creates.

That sir, is the problem, when people's beliefs are rendered irrelevant by the law.

 

[Skylar]

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant to all other arrangements she creates.

That sir, is the problem, when people's beliefs are rendered irrelevant by the law.

I disagree. Laws being applicable only if any given person 'believe' they should be isn't our system or law nor ever has been.

 

[dblack]

A business owner should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just as a worker should be free to refuse to work for any employer for any reason, just as a consumer should be free to refuse to patronize any business for any reason. Anything less is a gross violation of the most basic of human rights.

 

[Skylar]

A business owner should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just as a worker should be free to refuse to work for any employer for any reason, just as a consumer should be free to refuse to patronize any business for any reason. Anything less is a gross violation of the most basic of human rights.

I disagree. We tried the 'white only' lunch counter. It didn't work out well.

States have undisputed authority over intrastate commerce. Its reasonable for them to require a minimum code of conduct for those engaged in commerce in their state. And among this, that they treat their customers fairly and equally.

 

[Nosmo King]

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant to all other arrangements she creates.

That sir, is the problem, when people's beliefs are rendered irrelevant by the law.

So far as arraigning the daffodils, yes indeed, her religious beliefs are irrelevant. Her arraignments are not icons. A flower arraignment betrays no religious dogma in and of itself.

Let's imagine there is a florist working at her bench and all she sees are order slips and cans of flowers in a cooler. One of the orders is for center pieces for the Harrison wedding. She has no clue who the Harrison's are. She makes up fourteen center pieces and rings for the delivery man to take them to the venue.

This florist has her own interpretation of Scripture which she believes forbids her from associating with sinners. But she just finished fourteen center pieces for the Harrison wedding.

How was she harmed? How were her convictions repressed? As it turns out, making center pieces is not a holy endeavor. It's not an infringement of her right to practice her religion. It's making center pieces.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So far as arraigning the daffodils, yes indeed, her religious beliefs are irrelevant. Her arraignments are not icons. A flower arraignment betrays no religious dogma in and of itself.

A flawed rationale. First of all, it isn't the "arraignment" of the daffodils. It's the fact she is being made to sell them to a gay couple, which violates her religious beliefs.

Let's imagine there is a florist working at her bench and all she sees are order slips and cans of flowers in a cooler. One of the orders is for center pieces for the Harrison wedding. She has no clue who the Harrison's are. She makes up fourteen center pieces and rings for the delivery man to take them to the venue.

Let's imagine that speculation is a logical fallacy. If some random person was selling those flowers with no contact with the gay couple whatsoever, perhaps, but in this case, she had been selling flowers to these two for 9 years, assuming they were heterosexuals.

This florist has her own interpretation of Scripture which she believes forbids her from associating with sinners. But she just finished fourteen center pieces for the Harrison wedding.

Fourteen? Then why is she being sued? Earth to you! What is this couple complaining about then?

 

[Pop23]

Rosa Parks would laugh her ass off.

Her opinion, like yours, is of no importance.

Flowers dude, it's just flowers

No dude, it's equality, an American Value that matters.

A court wasted it's time on flowers

No, on equality. She could have been selling gum or Girl Scout cookies, the point is exactly the same.

Gum and cookies are available in any number of places.

True story

Now, tell me why having to buy gum at Safeway instead of Al's Grocery is worth a second of a judges time.

Flowers, Cake or professional photography are not essential to life, or for that matter, a marriage ceremony.

A second true story.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Her opinion, like yours, is of no importance.

Flowers dude, it's just flowers

No dude, it's equality, an American Value that matters.

A court wasted it's time on flowers

No, on equality. She could have been selling gum or Girl Scout cookies, the point is exactly the same.

Gum and cookies are available in any number of places.

True story

Now, tell me why having to buy gum at Safeway instead of Al's Grocery is worth a second of a judges time.

Because equality dictates that such a thing is unnecessary and gets in the way of people living their lives. Just because they don't like your kind doesn't give them right to refuse service. People have busy lives to lead. Having to drive to the gas station that takes your kind just gets in the way.