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

[bodecea]

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

I don't know, honestly. Interesting idea tho.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

 

[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

I don't know, honestly. Interesting idea tho.

Silly huh?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Awwwwwwwwww....Allie's, I mean koshergrl's upset.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Kinky Allie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“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.”

Such as public accommodations laws, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, business activity that the state is free to regulate.

“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.”

Where public accommodations laws seek only to regulate economic activity, not 'disadvantage' religious expression.

 

[dblack]

“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.”

Agreed. This issue is broader, and more fundamental, than religious freedom.

Such as public accommodations laws, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, business activity that the state is free to regulate.

“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.”

Where public accommodations laws seek only to regulate economic activity, not 'disadvantage' religious expression.

Should boycotts against businesses based on protected classes be prohibited on the same grounds? Should employees be allowed to discriminate against employers based on protected classes?

 

[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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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....

Actually those hostile to gay Americans never had any rational 'arguments' to begin with, they just become increasingly irrational and ridiculous.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

Er..they didn't disrupt it. They tried to opt out of participating. But dumbass wahoo queers want them to be FORCED to participate.

 

[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.

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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

Er..they didn't disrupt it. They tried to opt out of participating. But dumbass wahoo queers want them to be FORCED to participate.

Why do you believe Christians are not required to follow the law like everyone else?

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

So, who exactly determines what is a valid law and one that the "State" is free to regulate? Do we have government of the people, by the people and for the people? Or ---- do we have a dictatorship? Is it unreasonable that an individual would not wish to help promote and support behavior one finds repulsive, immoral, and/or unhealthy. If the government says that it is against the law to hide Jewish children and yet a person hides Jewish children----- is that individual breaking a reasonable law?

Germany, during the 1930's actually believed that that they were free to regulate who was a real German and who was not. I personally feel that a government has no right to regulate to whom I sell to, buy from, or who I must associate with. The government cannot make distinctions; however, individuals must have that freedom or they will lose their right of freedom of choice and association.

As a individual, I may not like your choices, opinions, or ideas; however, I can choose not to support your business, and or picket your establishment. However, I do not feel that it is correct for me to sue you --- making you accept and do what you disagree with simply because I think you should.

 

[Syriusly]

“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.”

Agreed. This issue is broader, and more fundamental, than religious freedom.

Such as public accommodations laws, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, business activity that the state is free to regulate.

“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.”

Where public accommodations laws seek only to regulate economic activity, not 'disadvantage' religious expression.

Should boycotts against businesses based on protected classes be prohibited on the same grounds? Should employees be allowed to discriminate against employers based on protected classes?

No.

No.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

Er..they didn't disrupt it. They tried to opt out of participating. But dumbass wahoo queers want them to be FORCED to participate.

When Religious Liberty Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia ThinkProgress

You're no different than a racist over using the n word.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So, who exactly determines what is a valid law and one that the "State" is free to regulate? Do we have government of the people, by the people and for the people? Or ---- do we have a dictatorship?.

Read the words.

"otherwise valid law"- a law not found to be invalid for other reasons.

Who determines what is a valid law? The legislative makes law, the judiciary determines whether the law is valid- that is how our system works.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

Er..they didn't disrupt it. They tried to opt out of participating. But dumbass wahoo queers want them to be FORCED to participate.

Why do you believe Christians are not required to follow the law like everyone else?

Why do you believe that law trumps someone's religious beliefs? If I were a lawmaker, for instance, and I created introduce a law which directly flew in the face of your beliefs, would you sit there and take it?

 

[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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

Er..they didn't disrupt it. They tried to opt out of participating. But dumbass wahoo queers want them to be FORCED to participate.

Participate how? As guests? Participate in the wedding ceremony? We're they asked to check out the gift registry? We're they expected to give away the bride? We're they in the reception line?

Nope. They were asked to make floral arraignments. That's not participation. It is, in fact , a florist's stock in trade, no matter how much paranoid hyperbole you want to ladle on.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

Er..they didn't disrupt it. They tried to opt out of participating. But dumbass wahoo queers want them to be FORCED to participate.

Participate how? As guests? Participate in the wedding ceremony? We're they asked to check out the gift registry? We're they expected to give away the bride? We're they in the reception line?

Nope. They were asked to make floral arraignments. That's not participation. It is, in fact , a florist's stock in trade, no matter how much paranoid hyperbole you want to ladle on.

They were asked to create floral arrangements (and place them) for a ceremony they believe is sacrilege.
They can't be compelled to do so. There's no law in the world that could compel them to do so. If there is, it's a bad law.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

That's not the point. The point is that to us, it's a sacred ritual.

And we don't have to participate in farces that demean and marginalize it.

Then RSVP 'no'.

But you don't have the right to disrupt it.

And chances are, few people would attend your peculiar church that preaches hatred against strangers.

Er..they didn't disrupt it. They tried to opt out of participating. But dumbass wahoo queers want them to be FORCED to participate.

Why do you believe Christians are not required to follow the law like everyone else?

Why do you believe that law trumps someone's religious beliefs? If I were a lawmaker, for instance, and I created introduce a law which directly flew in the face of your beliefs, would you sit there and take it?

Exactly, if any law is proposed or passed that the homos/libs think goes against them in any way shape or form their heads spin and explode and then wonder why someone else gets upset at it

 

[koshergrl]

So should homosexual silk screen printers be obliged to print up shirts that say "God Hates Fags" if someone demanded it?