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

[Dot Com]

It is amusing to watch people both complain about homosexuals 'being victims' while complaining that Christians are suffering persecution for being told to follow the same law everyone else is told to follow.

Scalia (extremely conservative judge) agrees with you

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Minersville School District v. Board of Education LII Legal Information Institute

2. Religious convictions do not relieve the individual from obedience to an otherwise valid general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. P. 594.

 

[koshergrl]

My point is you're a fascist pig.

Interesting. I can't see the connection myself.

A lying fascist pig.

No, really. I don't see the connection. Care to explain it?

No, I don't need to. Everybody else gets it.

So, really its an insult in place of an argument. I do agree though. I expect everybody else gets it.

We aren't arguing about you being a lying fascist. That's not the topic of the convo. It's just an observation. So it's an insult in ADDITION to my winning arguments.

 

[PratchettFan]

Interesting. I can't see the connection myself.

A lying fascist pig.

No, really. I don't see the connection. Care to explain it?

No, I don't need to. Everybody else gets it.

So, really its an insult in place of an argument. I do agree though. I expect everybody else gets it.

We aren't arguing about you being a lying fascist. That's not the topic of the convo. It's just an observation.

That's nice. But at this point you're boring me. So have fun.

 

[koshergrl]

A lying fascist pig.

No, really. I don't see the connection. Care to explain it?

No, I don't need to. Everybody else gets it.

So, really its an insult in place of an argument. I do agree though. I expect everybody else gets it.

We aren't arguing about you being a lying fascist. That's not the topic of the convo. It's just an observation.

That's nice. But at this point you're boring me. So have fun.

I am. I enjoy spanking fascists.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Nope, you, as with most liberals got it ass backwards, which is what I think you like.

She did not call the gay man a pixie or anything like that. She just voiced her sincerely held religious beliefs. Your agreeing with them has no bearing on the first amendment right. That is really what the first amendment is all about, stopping bigots like you from interfering in religious belief. I will admit though that the bigots on the left has done a good job of twisting the first amendment around to where it is unrecognizable.

You mean the First amendment written by Deists to keep Christians from dominating government or establishing state religion. THAT First Amendment? You can't have freedom of religion unless you have freedom FROM religion.

She has a "right" to believe in whatever Imaginary Friends In The Sky she wants to. But when he put out a sign that said, "Flowers for sale", then she has to sell the ******* flowers.

BTW I don't necessarily agree with her beliefs and in the way the country is heading I am thinking economics and public sentiment will change her attitude. But until then it is her RIGHT to her strongly held religious beliefs. Much like the courts have ruled Muslims can refuse cab fairs for those with dogs and alcohol.

First, i've never heard this claim. Do you have a link?

Second, drunks or dogs could present a potential danger to a cab driver and his property, so I could see that being a valid concern. If it were true which I don't think it is.

The founders weren't deists. The science is settled.

 

[Syriusly]

Is homosexuality rational?

Yes, for a small percentage of the population, and that has been true for all of human history as far as we know.

Your statement is also held by pedophiles. That doesn't mean that such is rational or that individuals would feel comfortable around people who hold such opinions.

Ah when the homophobes run out of rational arguments....they wheel out their favorite strawman- Mr. Pedophile....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This is naïve and devoid of merit, completely unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

To allow businesses that provide goods and services to the general public to refuse to accommodate patrons based on race, religion, or sexual orientation will be disruptive to the local market, which in turn will be disruptive to all other interrelated markets; the Commerce Clause authorizes governments to regulate their respective markets to ensure the stability and integrity of those markets.

State and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional – they in no way 'violate' the 'civil rights' of business owners, who are subject to all manner of regulatory policy that likewise do not 'violate' owners' rights.

 

[Syriusly]

No, really. I don't see the connection. Care to explain it?

No, I don't need to. Everybody else gets it.

So, really its an insult in place of an argument. I do agree though. I expect everybody else gets it.

We aren't arguing about you being a lying fascist. That's not the topic of the convo. It's just an observation.

That's nice. But at this point you're boring me. So have fun.

I am. I enjoy spanking fascists.

Hey- we don't want to hear about your sexual fetishes here on USMB!

 

[Pop23]

Are flowers key to having a traditional wedding ceremony?

Traditional

Get it?

 

[Syriusly]

So using the logic that liberals are using, if a swinger couple wanted an Orthodox Jewish photographer to photograph one of their orgies, the photographer would be guilty of "discrimination" if he declined to service the event, no matter how politely he did so, because the swinger couple would note that multiple sex partners was their "sexual identity," their "sexual orientation."

A Bible-believing Christian would find it just as offensive to attend an event where gay couples were holding hands, hugging, and kissing as an Orthodox Jew would find it to attend an orgy.

YOU may think it's silly to find such things offensive, but you should have enough tolerance and respect for different beliefs not to try to force people to view things that you know they find offensive.

If the photographer offered to photograph orgies then it would be discrimination if he refused to photograph one orgy simply because it was a Christian or homosexual orgy.

But as long as the photographer did not offer photography of orgies or of any other pornography, there is no violation.

You folks seem to not quite understand how this works.

 

[Pop23]

So using the logic that liberals are using, if a swinger couple wanted an Orthodox Jewish photographer to photograph one of their orgies, the photographer would be guilty of "discrimination" if he declined to service the event, no matter how politely he did so, because the swinger couple would note that multiple sex partners was their "sexual identity," their "sexual orientation."

A Bible-believing Christian would find it just as offensive to attend an event where gay couples were holding hands, hugging, and kissing as an Orthodox Jew would find it to attend an orgy.

YOU may think it's silly to find such things offensive, but you should have enough tolerance and respect for different beliefs not to try to force people to view things that you know they find offensive.

If the photographer offered to photograph orgies then it would be discrimination if he refused to photograph one orgy simply because it was a Christian or homosexual orgy.

But as long as the photographer did not offer photography of orgies or of any other pornography, there is no violation.

You folks seem to not quite understand how this works.

I hope this one makes it on Judge Judy


The ratings will go through the roof!

 

[bodecea]

Of course they are- just like yourself- they call themselves Christians.

And think of homosexuals exactly as you do.

A Google search reveals they are Westboro...not Christians. Nice try though

Your Google is broken.

Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

My Google is fine, the pic is an image of Westboro and I don't consider them Christians. Stop getting your man briefs in a bunch

I don't wear underwear and your interest is creepy.

Baptist is Christian...just like you say you are.

I could slap the name plate from our BMW on a Chevy but that doesn't make the Chevy a BMW

And Ironically, they could say the same thing about you and all Catholics. Many Baptists do not consider Catholics Christians.

 

[bodecea]

How many of these Christians that don't want to be painted with the Westboro brush....would like to paint all Muslims?

I know some Muslims I think very highly of, in fact they help feed the homeless on weekends. Your problem is when you hear Christian you think Westboro and assume all Christians are like that. One can disagree with a lifestyle but that doesn't mean they hate the person living the lifestyle. Some Homos love playing the victim

Now that's very ironic considering that that florist is playing the victim on FOX.

 

[BlindBoo]

if a swinger couple wanted an Orthodox Jewish photographer to photograph one of their orgies

e
Hyperbole much?

 

[bodecea]

The appeal will be made on religious and artistic freedom grounds.

Get over it and stop wasting taxpayer's money. Who gives a phlying phuck about a phlorist with a bug up her ass?

Plenty care

Because you like a good Christian victim.

 

[Nosmo King]

So using the logic that liberals are using, if a swinger couple wanted an Orthodox Jewish photographer to photograph one of their orgies, the photographer would be guilty of "discrimination" if he declined to service the event, no matter how politely he did so, because the swinger couple would note that multiple sex partners was their "sexual identity," their "sexual orientation."

A Bible-believing Christian would find it just as offensive to attend an event where gay couples were holding hands, hugging, and kissing as an Orthodox Jew would find it to attend an orgy.

YOU may think it's silly to find such things offensive, but you should have enough tolerance and respect for different beliefs not to try to force people to view things that you know they find offensive.

If the photographer offered to photograph orgies then it would be discrimination if he refused to photograph one orgy simply because it was a Christian or homosexual orgy.

But as long as the photographer did not offer photography of orgies or of any other pornography, there is no violation.

You folks seem to not quite understand how this works.

I wonder what they think goes on at a same sex wedding?

I've been to two of them, both Lesbian weddings. So far as I could tell, they were typical weddings. One had a band, so I enjoyed it better than the other that had a DJ. the one with the DJ had better food.

But nothing about the affairs was the least bit torrid or shocking.

 

[bodecea]

if a swinger couple wanted an Orthodox Jewish photographer to photograph one of their orgies

e
Hyperbole much?

Mike's a RWr...they don't do well with analogies.

 

[Pop23]

So using the logic that liberals are using, if a swinger couple wanted an Orthodox Jewish photographer to photograph one of their orgies, the photographer would be guilty of "discrimination" if he declined to service the event, no matter how politely he did so, because the swinger couple would note that multiple sex partners was their "sexual identity," their "sexual orientation."

A Bible-believing Christian would find it just as offensive to attend an event where gay couples were holding hands, hugging, and kissing as an Orthodox Jew would find it to attend an orgy.

YOU may think it's silly to find such things offensive, but you should have enough tolerance and respect for different beliefs not to try to force people to view things that you know they find offensive.

If the photographer offered to photograph orgies then it would be discrimination if he refused to photograph one orgy simply because it was a Christian or homosexual orgy.

But as long as the photographer did not offer photography of orgies or of any other pornography, there is no violation.

You folks seem to not quite understand how this works.

Since the photographer does weddings, would he/she have to photograph a nudist wedding?

Hmmmmmm

 

[bodecea]

Just one question: why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who does not approve of gay marriage? Why would they want to contribute to the profit of a business that does not approve of their lifestyle?

Try to answer honestly.

Maybe that was the only florist they thought could do the job they wanted done. It really doesn't matter. Once the florist offered to do floral arrangements for marriage, they were obligated to do them.

Now, the way around this is for bakers or florists to put up a sign saying, "We are legally obligated to cater to gay marriage despite our religious objections. Please be aware that all proceeds from services for gay marriage will be donated to Gay Conversion Therapy."

And that would be TOTALLY legal.

 

[bodecea]

Is homosexuality rational?

Yes, for a small percentage of the population, and that has been true for all of human history as far as we know.

Your statement is also held by pedophiles. That doesn't mean that such is rational or that individuals would feel comfortable around people who hold such opinions.

There it is!

 

[Pop23]

Just one question: why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who does not approve of gay marriage? Why would they want to contribute to the profit of a business that does not approve of their lifestyle?

Try to answer honestly.

Maybe that was the only florist they thought could do the job they wanted done. It really doesn't matter. Once the florist offered to do floral arrangements for marriage, they were obligated to do them.

Now, the way around this is for bakers or florists to put up a sign saying, "We are legally obligated to cater to gay marriage despite our religious objections. Please be aware that all proceeds from services for gay marriage will be donated to Gay Conversion Therapy."

And that would be TOTALLY legal.

ABSOLUTELY and a WIN/WIN!

I love a happy ending!

Some one pass me a hankie