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

[PratchettFan]

And the same arguments were made when blacks refused to go to the back of the bus and sat down at the diner counter. I think we survived the pain.

When were homosexuals made to sit in the back of the bus?

Two things homosexuals can't grasp: Private and public means different things. Homosexuality is not a race. Sitting in the back of a public bus is not the same as forcing someone to do business with someone they don't like. The tyranny is all yours.

Yes. The same arguments.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm pretty sure the laws of Louisiana don't apply to this case. But yeah, if you feel it is wrong they won't serve you then you should stand up and do something about it.

I asked you to cite the statutes that applied in this case, guess you can't do that.

Why would I want to force a black bar to serve me? What would I gain by doing that? maybe a gunshot or a knife in the gut. So I force them to serve me, a fight starts, people get hurt, the cops come and arrest a bunch of people, the bar owner loses his business. All because I chose to be an asshole?

The whole gay agenda is just foolish, it is hurting the gay cause much more than helping it.

This was a court ruling. Do I actually have to show the court was referencing a statute?

I have no idea why you would want to. I have already said that is your choice. Do it or don't. You have the option to do it if it means that much to you. Apparently it meant that much to this particular couple.

What did they gain? They get to pay legal bills, court costs, risk being counter sued. Managed to alienate many who might otherwise support them.

Liberals do not think rationally about anything. You shit in your soup and then ***** because it tastes bad.

They gain the right, even the expectation, to hold their heads up and proclaim that they will not be fucked with. If you don't see the need to fight for that, then we just are never going to understand each other.

ever hear the expression "pick your battles"? this kind of crap hurts the gay cause more than helps it.

I understand that our constitution give equal rights to every citizen, no special rights to minorities or majorities. Gays want special rights, want to redefine marriage, want to redefine human biology and sexuality. Homosexuality is not a normal human condition, it is an aberation, a mental illness.

mentally ill people are entitled to equal rights, they are not entitled to force anyone else to accept their orientation as normal.

It's their battle. I think I'll let them pick it. I hope they win.

 

[Silhouette]

They still cannot legitimately marry Kaz in any state forced illegally to abdicate/erode it's own laws in favor of impeachable shadow-justice being practiced by the US Supreme Court: Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Iceweasel]

And the same arguments were made when blacks refused to go to the back of the bus and sat down at the diner counter. I think we survived the pain.

When were homosexuals made to sit in the back of the bus?

Two things homosexuals can't grasp: Private and public means different things. Homosexuality is not a race. Sitting in the back of a public bus is not the same as forcing someone to do business with someone they don't like. The tyranny is all yours.

Yes. The same arguments.

No. Not even close. Race & public isn't the same as sexual preference and private. Ya'll are stuck on stupid.

 

[dblack]

I agree completely. I think that discriminating against homosexuals should not only be legal, but protected!

The only catch is that they should have to post big signs by the entrance and include a clearly visible "non fine print" disclaimer in all their advertisements that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

But what if all business in their area did that? What if there was no business in their area who would do business with them

Here you go sweetheart. Sucks to be you

That doesn't even remotely say that gays shouldn't have to deal with Christians.

You're right on the quote. I confused it with the other discussion, but you're still wrong, sorry. Liberals tried that and got fine to the point what if gays don't want to deal with them.

I'm not finding those quotes for you, you made the claim, I don't have to prove you wrong

No, you made the claim. I reread the thread and no one said that gay people should be able to refuse serving Christians.

When you said that Christians would object if the law was reversed and I said no, they wouldn't, that was me making the claim. Gotcha. Prove me wrong!!!

This discussion has spanned multiple threads actually and several liberals have made the accusation you did and each one whiffed like you did. If you want to know, why don't you start a thread with a poll? Just don't make it a stupid poll like liberals always do. What about these as the choices?

Would Christians be OK with laws allowing gay businesses to not do business with them if Christian businesses are allowed to not do business with gays?

I am not a Christian, I think Christians would object to that
I am not a Christian, I think Christians would not object to that
I am a Christian, I should be able to discriminate against gays but not the reverse
I am a Christian, I'm good both ways

If you want to know the truth, be sure to set it to display the voters so liberals don't stack the vote

Dude. Your stupid strawman is dismissed.

Gays cannot discriminate against Christians. And no one has said they should be able to do so.

Why shouldn't gays be allowed to discriminate against Christians?

 

[Freewill]

As the bible depicts, the persecution of Christians is picking up steam and the temple will soon be built

If this isn't embedded with succession fuel, then nothing is. Interesting the modern Scarlet Letter 'G' for gay, represents victory when in actuality, we all feel sorry for their parents.

It's time for those of us raised in the Bible Belt to rise.

Muslim US government wants to attack Christians?

"Every knee will bow, every tongue will confess" -

-Geaux
===================================

(CNN)If you have not been following the case of Barronelle Stutzman, you should be.

Stutzman is the Washington florist who has been sued for living out her Christian beliefs. In 2013, a long-time friend and customer came to her flower shop and asked her to provide flowers for his gay wedding. Stutzman had known this man and had done business with him for about nine years. Nevertheless, she told him that she could not participate in his wedding "because of my relationship with Jesus."

The man's partner subsequently spread the word via social media. As a result, the attorney general of Washington State sued Stutzman for violating the state's anti-discrimination law. The two men also sued her in their personal capacity and were represented by the ACLU. As a result of these lawsuits, Stutzman stands to lose her business, her home, and her personal savings. Her whole life hangs in the balance with this case.

Yesterday, a Washington State judge issued a summary judgment that went against her. Stutzman's legal team put out this statement explaining what this means:

A state judge ruled Wednesday that Washington floral artist and grandmother Barronelle Stutzman must provide full support for wedding ceremonies that are contrary to her faith.

A florist loses religious freedom and much more - CNN.com

There is nothing in the Bible that says you can't supply flowers for a gay wedding. This florist's problem is bigotry, not adherence to religious doctrine.

Standard liberal answer, if you don't agree with a liberal then you naturally a bigot, unless that disagreement is pointed at Christians.

 

[Freewill]

From the Washington state consitution:

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 88, 1993 House Joint Resolution No. 4200, p 3062. Approved November 2, 1993.]

Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution

How does the courts ruling jive with the state constitution?

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

 

[Freewill]

so a business owner has no freedom, only minorities have freedom? think about it, thats what you are saying.

I don't think that is what he is saying at all. If you open your business to the public, then you have to let the public in.

Yes, a better scenario would have been for the florist to tell them that she was totally booked up for that day, rather than refuse due to their gayness.

Sure, cuz christians lie, right?

everyone lies. it has nothing to do with religion. are obama's lies based on religion? oops, well maybe they are since islam permits lying to further the goals of islam.

Yep...so much for that Commandment.

You ought to go read that commandment again. Hint, Clinton broke it.

 

[PratchettFan]

And the same arguments were made when blacks refused to go to the back of the bus and sat down at the diner counter. I think we survived the pain.

When were homosexuals made to sit in the back of the bus?

Two things homosexuals can't grasp: Private and public means different things. Homosexuality is not a race. Sitting in the back of a public bus is not the same as forcing someone to do business with someone they don't like. The tyranny is all yours.

Yes. The same arguments.

No. Not even close. Race & public isn't the same as sexual preference and private. Ya'll are stuck on stupid.

That's ok. The tyranny is mine, remember. So I'm fine with you not agreeing.

 

[PratchettFan]

From the Washington state consitution:

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 88, 1993 House Joint Resolution No. 4200, p 3062. Approved November 2, 1993.]

Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution

How does the courts ruling jive with the state constitution?

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

 

[Pop23]

And 145 pages, and these guys are still as clueless as the Whites Only folks, and that why we use the law. That's the only way to fix this when so many still live under rocks.

Their "morality" will have to catch up, as usual.

Comparing a job to a floral arrangement?

Rosa Parks b like......

You serious dude?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And 145 pages, and these guys are still as clueless as the Whites Only folks, and that why we use the law. That's the only way to fix this when so many still live under rocks.

Their "morality" will have to catch up, as usual.

Comparing a job to a floral arrangement?

Rosa Parks b like......

You serious dude?

The point is the same. It's discrimination against a minority that we fix using the law because people simply won't be decent otherwise.

 

[Iceweasel]

And the same arguments were made when blacks refused to go to the back of the bus and sat down at the diner counter. I think we survived the pain.

When were homosexuals made to sit in the back of the bus?

Two things homosexuals can't grasp: Private and public means different things. Homosexuality is not a race. Sitting in the back of a public bus is not the same as forcing someone to do business with someone they don't like. The tyranny is all yours.

Yes. The same arguments.

No. Not even close. Race & public isn't the same as sexual preference and private. Ya'll are stuck on stupid.

That's ok. The tyranny is mine, remember. So I'm fine with you not agreeing.

I used logic, you used emotion. I'm fine with your disagreement.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ah man this is almost exactly what happen to my family. They were running the plantation according to their religion and the feds came in and granted freedom to most all their workers..........

 

[PratchettFan]

And the same arguments were made when blacks refused to go to the back of the bus and sat down at the diner counter. I think we survived the pain.

When were homosexuals made to sit in the back of the bus?

Two things homosexuals can't grasp: Private and public means different things. Homosexuality is not a race. Sitting in the back of a public bus is not the same as forcing someone to do business with someone they don't like. The tyranny is all yours.

Yes. The same arguments.

No. Not even close. Race & public isn't the same as sexual preference and private. Ya'll are stuck on stupid.

That's ok. The tyranny is mine, remember. So I'm fine with you not agreeing.

I used logic, you used emotion. I'm fine with your disagreement.

Sure you did. You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is the same. It's discrimination against a minority that we fix using the law because people simply won't be decent otherwise.

SEXUAL BEHAVIORS ARE NOT "MINORITIES".

There did your flawed premise get through your head yet?

Your cult and its flawed premise are about to have their day in court..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ah man this is almost exactly what happen to my family. They were running the plantation according to their religion and the feds came in and granted freedom to most all their workers..........

That sucks, losing their Religious Liberty, to treat others as property. Have these people no respect for faith?

 

[Edgetho]

Ah man this is almost exactly what happen to my family. They were running the plantation according to their religion and the feds came in and granted freedom to most all their workers..........

Not 'the feds' -- Republicans. We had to kill 300,000 dimocraps to get the job done.

dimocraps haven't changed much, they've just shifted their bigotry and hatred in another direction

 

[koshergrl]

And btw, there were no laws against homosexual marriage until the bigots passed them.

So name a gay couple that got married before the courts started ordering States to marry gay couples

These were the first to try, when there were no laws on the books here:

"On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota students, Richard John 'Jack' Baker and James Michael McConnell applied to Hennepin County District Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license. He denied the application, because the applicants were both men. Baker and McConnell sued Nelson, claiming Minnesota law on marriage made no mention of gender. The trial court was not impressed with the argument, agreeing with Nelson. The state Supreme Court agreed with the lower court. When Baker-McConnell went to the U.S. Supreme Court, the couple was rebuffed again."
Timeline of same-sex marriage - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Exactly, thanks. There was no gay marriage, the whole thing about no laws being on the books was a canard, homosexual couples could not marry

Yes because marriage was considered a sacred institution, blessed by God, every church and the community.

The homo lobby thought they could change the disposition and the sacred nature of marriage by shitting on it. Too bad, regardless of how depraved and sacrilegious you are, we will maintain it's a sacrament, and treat it as such. Get the courthouse clerks to bake you a cake.

 

[bodecea]

Look, you've got it all wrong. Here's what happened here: A florist set up a business to sell flowers for weddings. A gay couple tried to buy flowers from her for their wedding. She refused to do so on the grounds that her religion doesn't condone this. The gay couple posted about her refusal all over all the social media websites and set up a lawsuit against her business for discrimination and against her personally for being a bigot. She's probably going to lose her business and much of her savings over this. When this happens, the left is going to applaud the couple for standing up to the gay hating Christian bullies and she's going to become one of the homeless panhandlers the left sometimes gives a sandwich so they can feel morally superior to everyone else. This is all really just, and you're just an asshole and will have your life promptly destroyed in the name of justice, courtesy of the fine legal team of the ACLU, if you don't think this is the case.

Are you kidding? She's already a darling on FOX.