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

[Nosmo King]

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?

Making floral arraignments does not restrict her religious beliefs. It is, in fact, her stock in trade. Her beliefs do not impact her work. If she did not know the couple, she would have made the flowers without a second thought. Her religion preaches hatred toward strangers.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Making floral arraignments does not restrict her religious beliefs. It is, in fact, her stock in trade. Her beliefs do not impact her work. If she did not know the couple, she would have made the flowers without a second thought. Her religion preaches hatred toward strangers.

Nobody said it restricts religious beliefs. That doesn't even make sense.

Try harder. You can figure this out. You cannot compel people to celebrate, or to create art, for events that they consider #1, sacred, or #2, morally reprehensible.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Her beliefs do not impact her work.

Colossians 3:23-24

"Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Yeah...those Satanists should be able to perform ritual sacrifice. Damn law getting in the way of their "deeply held beliefs".

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Yeah...those Satanists should be able to perform ritual sacrifice. Damn law getting in the way of their "deeply held beliefs".

Did the florist kill someone?

 

[JFK_USA]

Segregationists and slave owners felt the same way.

They were just following the bible.

BOOM!! /thread.

Example of what? Bigotry from the left? Start with religion.

what about it?

The moment you or anyone else attacks my religion or belief in God you become a bigot.

bigot:
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

She can have her beliefs, but she can't break the law and have a defense for those beliefs.

Ex. Honor Killings.

If a father kills their daughter, he can believe that he was doing it for the "honor" of his family. However, he still broke the law because of the action of murder.

Back to the Florist:

If a Florist refuses to serve a gay couple because she doesn't believe that same-sex marriage is real, she can have that belief. She cannot do the action of discrimination towards a gay couple and use her beliefs as a defense. She still discriminated against them, that's against the law.

If we allowed religious exemptions for people breaking the law, we would have chaos and no law to guide society.

This is kind of funny.

If she doesn't think gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

If she thinks gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. If homos are going to call their sacrilegious ceremonies *marriage* then we view it as a sacrament. Since they are defiling it, we view it as an abomination, and we're not going to participate.

Get over it. Call a gaker.

Umm... No. It's a right given by a secular state government. It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

It Was Never About the Cake Deborah Munn

And that's what bigots like Sass will never truly understand. They are treating human beings as less than human because of who they love. It's wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

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

If they made such a shirt or advertised that they would make such a shirt, yes.

Why can't you simpletons grasp this concept? If you provide a product to white couple A you cannot refuse the same product to black couple B. (You can replace race with religion, country of origin, etc and in some places sexual orientation)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LITTLENIPPER SAID:

“So, who exactly determines what is a valid law and one that the "State" is free to regulate?”

The Supreme Court, where state courts follow that precedent.

And state courts have consistently upheld public accommodations laws to be Constitutional.

LITTLENIPPER SAID:

“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.”

You don't understand.

The issue has nothing to do with 'forcing' anyone to 'accept' anything.

The states have correctly determined that to allow businesses to discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market; therefore appropriate regulatory measures are enacted – public accommodations laws – to ensure the stability and integrity of the market.

This is regulatory policy no different than any other type of regulatory policy, such as ensuring safe working conditions for employees, that consumers are not exposed to potentially harmful goods and services, and that protect the environment from pollutants.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Yeah...those Satanists should be able to perform ritual sacrifice. Damn law getting in the way of their "deeply held beliefs".

Did the florist kill someone?

Law is law. Do you deny there are laws that protect gays from discrimination?

 

[koshergrl]

Segregationists and slave owners felt the same way.

They were just following the bible.

BOOM!! /thread.

what about it?

The moment you or anyone else attacks my religion or belief in God you become a bigot.

bigot:
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

She can have her beliefs, but she can't break the law and have a defense for those beliefs.

Ex. Honor Killings.

If a father kills their daughter, he can believe that he was doing it for the "honor" of his family. However, he still broke the law because of the action of murder.

Back to the Florist:

If a Florist refuses to serve a gay couple because she doesn't believe that same-sex marriage is real, she can have that belief. She cannot do the action of discrimination towards a gay couple and use her beliefs as a defense. She still discriminated against them, that's against the law.

If we allowed religious exemptions for people breaking the law, we would have chaos and no law to guide society.

This is kind of funny.

If she doesn't think gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

If she thinks gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. If homos are going to call their sacrilegious ceremonies *marriage* then we view it as a sacrament. Since they are defiling it, we view it as an abomination, and we're not going to participate.

Get over it. Call a gaker.

Umm... No. It's a right given by a secular state government. It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

It Was Never About the Cake Deborah Munn

And that's what bigots like Sass will never truly understand. They are treating human beings as less than human because of who they love. It's wrong.

Again. The state doesn't dictate what constitutes *religion* and what doesn't. This is why we told you idiots to call it a union, not a marriage.

Because marriage is a sacrament, and as such, we are compelled to treat it as such.

Which means homo weddings are an abomination and we can't participate in them in any way, shape or form.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

So, the government took a religious ceremony and secularized it. Perfect!!

 

[JFK_USA]

Segregationists and slave owners felt the same way.

They were just following the bible.

BOOM!! /thread.

The moment you or anyone else attacks my religion or belief in God you become a bigot.

bigot:
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

She can have her beliefs, but she can't break the law and have a defense for those beliefs.

Ex. Honor Killings.

If a father kills their daughter, he can believe that he was doing it for the "honor" of his family. However, he still broke the law because of the action of murder.

Back to the Florist:

If a Florist refuses to serve a gay couple because she doesn't believe that same-sex marriage is real, she can have that belief. She cannot do the action of discrimination towards a gay couple and use her beliefs as a defense. She still discriminated against them, that's against the law.

If we allowed religious exemptions for people breaking the law, we would have chaos and no law to guide society.

This is kind of funny.

If she doesn't think gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

If she thinks gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. If homos are going to call their sacrilegious ceremonies *marriage* then we view it as a sacrament. Since they are defiling it, we view it as an abomination, and we're not going to participate.

Get over it. Call a gaker.

Umm... No. It's a right given by a secular state government. It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

It Was Never About the Cake Deborah Munn

And that's what bigots like Sass will never truly understand. They are treating human beings as less than human because of who they love. It's wrong.

Again. The state doesn't dictate what constitutes *religion* and what doesn't. This is why we told you idiots to call it a

And the state's definition of marriage is different than a religion's definition. And the state cannot deny equal protection under the law to any citizen. So a state's definition of marriage must include gay marriage.

 

[Preacher]

Good for her for standing up for her rights!

 

[JFK_USA]

It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

So, the government took a religious ceremony and secularized it. Perfect!!

Don't blame me, blame whoever made it law. Once they made it law, they are bound by the US constitution to provide equal treatment under the law.

 

[koshergrl]

BOOM!! /thread.

She can have her beliefs, but she can't break the law and have a defense for those beliefs.

Ex. Honor Killings.

If a father kills their daughter, he can believe that he was doing it for the "honor" of his family. However, he still broke the law because of the action of murder.

Back to the Florist:

If a Florist refuses to serve a gay couple because she doesn't believe that same-sex marriage is real, she can have that belief. She cannot do the action of discrimination towards a gay couple and use her beliefs as a defense. She still discriminated against them, that's against the law.

If we allowed religious exemptions for people breaking the law, we would have chaos and no law to guide society.

This is kind of funny.

If she doesn't think gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

If she thinks gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. If homos are going to call their sacrilegious ceremonies *marriage* then we view it as a sacrament. Since they are defiling it, we view it as an abomination, and we're not going to participate.

Get over it. Call a gaker.

Umm... No. It's a right given by a secular state government. It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

It Was Never About the Cake Deborah Munn

And that's what bigots like Sass will never truly understand. They are treating human beings as less than human because of who they love. It's wrong.

Again. The state doesn't dictate what constitutes *religion* and what doesn't. This is why we told you idiots to call it a

And the state's definition of marriage is different than a religion's definition. And the state cannot deny equal protection under the law to any citizen. So a state's definition of marriage must include gay marriage.

Good for them.

The state cannot compel people to create art celebrating an event the artist has no desire to celebrate.

Nor can they compel people to participate in ceremonies they object to on religious grounds.

Enjoy your secular celebration of homosexual sex without Christians.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Making floral arraignments does not restrict her religious beliefs. It is, in fact, her stock in trade. Her beliefs do not impact her work. If she did not know the couple, she would have made the flowers without a second thought. Her religion preaches hatred toward strangers.

How do you know her beliefs don't impact her work?

Seriously, all life experiences impacts an artist work. Arranging flowers is an art form


Man, this has to be the silliest thread of all time.

Over FLOWERS

 

[TemplarKormac]

It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

So, the government took a religious ceremony and secularized it. Perfect!!

Don't blame me, blame whoever made it law. Once they made it law, they are bound by the US constitution to provide equal treatment under the law.

I didn't blame you, did I? I'm pretty much certain now that government shouldn't have a place in marriage, this is pretty much the prime example. The government shouldn't define marriage. At all.

"The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof."

So, when you make laws defining marriage, you are making laws in respect to the establishment of religion in America.

 

[MaryL]

lol. she might as well just close up shop, she hasn't a leg to stand on.

Unless they were Muslim. Then people would pee themselves as to which side to pander to, the gays or the muslims.Here in America, gays aren't exactly having their human rights trampled on if they don't get a flora arrangement or a cake made to their specifications when in other cultures and in a different time they would have been treated in a more profoundly different way. Suing over this stupidity is so petty. That is what this culture has come to.

 

[Syriusly]

This is kind of funny.

If she doesn't think gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

If she thinks gay marriage is real, then she's got no reason to object to selling the flowers.

Marriage is a sacrament to Christians. If homos are going to call their sacrilegious ceremonies *marriage* then we view it as a sacrament. Since they are defiling it, we view it as an abomination, and we're not going to participate.

Get over it. Call a gaker.

Umm... No. It's a right given by a secular state government. It might have begun as a religious ceremony but religion has NOTHING to do with the government extending a right to 2 individuals who want to be in a relationship together.

It Was Never About the Cake Deborah Munn

And that's what bigots like Sass will never truly understand. They are treating human beings as less than human because of who they love. It's wrong.

Again. The state doesn't dictate what constitutes *religion* and what doesn't. This is why we told you idiots to call it a

And the state's definition of marriage is different than a religion's definition. And the state cannot deny equal protection under the law to any citizen. So a state's definition of marriage must include gay marriage.

Enjoy your secular celebration of homosexual sex without Christians.

So sad for Christians that they think marriage is about nothing but sex.

Well actually so sad for the small minded bigots like you who claim to be Christians who think that marriage is about nothing more than sex.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“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?”

Another rightist who fails to understand.

Public accommodations laws are valid and Constitutional because their sole focus and intent is to regulate the markets, not 'discriminate' against a given religion.