Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[NYcarbineer]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Yes. The owner of the company has that right. Employees are hired to do a job and if they refuse, they should get fired. If the owner of the company chooses not to sell alcohol, that would be his right since it's his business. Otherwise, employees enter into a contact where they will perform certain duties for their pay.

Of course, libs tend to complain when employers fire Muslim for not serving alcohol or touching pork products. Some companies allowed them to refuse providing they could get other employees to do it for them. Thing is, employers have a right to fire employees who refuse to do the job they agree upon when hired. If concessions were made from the start, it would be different.

Muslim bakeries refuse to bake gay wedding cakes and the left refuses to even talk about that. The view is that it's their business, their call. They would probably fire an employee who agreed to do a gay wedding. Of course, it's a moot point since Muslims generally don't hire non-Muslims.

Obama seems to think that Muslims should have the right to refuse to do things based on their religion. Most libs don't extend that courtesy to Christians.

"So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.

This is what has happened in the Land Of Lincoln with the US Government vs the Star Transport trucking company. A couple of Muslims signed a contract to work for a trucking company, a contract that says that drivers will take any load that a company administrator assigns and will deliver that payload. Period. The terms of employment are known ahead of time among all employees.

But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.

The Obama administration is suing the trucking company for violating these Muslims’ freedom of religion because after they refused to take the load as per the contract they signed, they were properly and logically fired."

Obama Sues to Allow Illinois Muslims to Skip Work W/O Being Fired

seems, unreasonable, to ask a transport firm to not transport legal commercial goods.

Muslim cab drivers lost the case in court over their refusal to transport alcohol.

 

[Doc1]

How you practice your religion is not up to the government either...that is the whole point to the 1st Amendment.....

How you run a business is part of regulation. You can't just claim "religion" To avoid having handicap parking or avoid following safety rules .

we aren't talking safety issues moron......we are talking freedom of association...another Right that we all have.....

We are talking business . You don't have the same religious protections .

Even in your personal life , "religion" doesn't excuse you from the laws .

"Yes I'm smoking pot , officer . It's part of my religion! "

"Drafted for war?? Hold on , I'm one of those objector religious guys ! No army for me !"

Sorry, but that's NOT what the Constitution says.

But of course YOU only want to abide by their decisions that you like.

And what decisions that you don't like do you nonetheless want to abide by?

You see kid
I know that my opinion doesn't matter. Hence my biggest problem with abortion (since it IS the law of the land is that bitches like you can't call it a human

 

[EverCurious]

Sounds like a person with objection could just refuse based on "their democrats" heh

 

[Care4all]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

for legal reasons...they are next of kin, without needing a will, they can make medical decisions for their partner, they can file jointly on tax returns....maybe even collect their spouses Social Security death benefit if 1 dies... things like that, is my understanding

 

[danielpalos]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Yes. The owner of the company has that right. Employees are hired to do a job and if they refuse, they should get fired. If the owner of the company chooses not to sell alcohol, that would be his right since it's his business. Otherwise, employees enter into a contact where they will perform certain duties for their pay.

Of course, libs tend to complain when employers fire Muslim for not serving alcohol or touching pork products. Some companies allowed them to refuse providing they could get other employees to do it for them. Thing is, employers have a right to fire employees who refuse to do the job they agree upon when hired. If concessions were made from the start, it would be different.

Muslim bakeries refuse to bake gay wedding cakes and the left refuses to even talk about that. The view is that it's their business, their call. They would probably fire an employee who agreed to do a gay wedding. Of course, it's a moot point since Muslims generally don't hire non-Muslims.

Obama seems to think that Muslims should have the right to refuse to do things based on their religion. Most libs don't extend that courtesy to Christians.

"So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.

This is what has happened in the Land Of Lincoln with the US Government vs the Star Transport trucking company. A couple of Muslims signed a contract to work for a trucking company, a contract that says that drivers will take any load that a company administrator assigns and will deliver that payload. Period. The terms of employment are known ahead of time among all employees.

But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.

The Obama administration is suing the trucking company for violating these Muslims’ freedom of religion because after they refused to take the load as per the contract they signed, they were properly and logically fired."

Obama Sues to Allow Illinois Muslims to Skip Work W/O Being Fired

seems, unreasonable, to ask a transport firm to not transport legal commercial goods.

Muslim cab drivers lost the case in court over their refusal to transport alcohol.

Should we insist, Persons of alleged morals; follow all of the precepts of their Religion, if they want a "religious" exemption?

 

[Seawytch]

The Bible says the same thing about tattoos .

The florists are full of shit . Otherwise they'd have no work . You'd have to refuse tattoo people, people of different faiths , people living in sin , divorced people , people not getting married in a church , people not getting married by the same denomination pastor/preist , people wh kids out of wedlock , and so on .

You think the florist is doing all that ? Hell no.

But a gay wedding ! Suddenly they play the religion card?!! Bullshit!

You don't get to dictate how they follow their religion asswipe. That is the true separation of church and state and the Freedom of Religious clause in the very first Amendment of the Bill of Rights.....

So how come racist bigots can't use religion to deny service to blacks?

Democrats...the racist bigots......should be able to deny service to anyone they want.....black lies matter democrats should be able to deny service to whites....and left wing neo nazis should be able to deny service to blacks.....if it is their own business.....

But since we are talking about religion....Freedom of religion is a basic right and it is codified in the !st Amendment....if a democrat bigot believed in a religion that would prohibit them from serving blacks, or a democrat bigot who hates whites was a member of the nation of islam...and because of their religion didn't want to serve whites....that is protected under the First Amendment......

Freedom of religion trumps having flowers forcibly made by the florist......

You're arguing for the world the way you want it to be, not the way it is.
Racism would be allowed.
Racist bigots cannot use religion as a reason to discriminate. Why should anti gay bigots be able to when racists cannot?

That's your biggest problem, were the Constitution being followed . The problem is that people like you only want to follow SC decisions that you like.

No, I follow the ones I don't like too.

Why is it that no one is challenging the Federal Law that requires the racist to serve the black or the Islamaphobe to serve the Muslim and are instead picking on state and local laws?

 

[Seawytch]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

for legal reasons...they are next of kin, without needing a will, they can make medical decisions for their partner, they can file jointly on tax returns....maybe even collect their spouses Social Security death benefit if 1 dies... things like that, is my understanding

Actually, gays marry for all the exact same reasons straights marry.

 

[Timmy]

Florist can discriminate all she wants in her personal life. When you open up business , you are bound to the rules of business .

By the way. The true irony is that they are acting very unchristian .

 

[The Great Goose]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

for legal reasons...they are next of kin, without needing a will, they can make medical decisions for their partner, they can file jointly on tax returns....maybe even collect their spouses Social Security death benefit if 1 dies... things like that, is my understanding

Actually, gays marry for all the exact same reasons straights marry.

Because they made their boyfriend pregnant.

 

[Seawytch]

I still can't work out why same sex people need to marry each other.

for legal reasons...they are next of kin, without needing a will, they can make medical decisions for their partner, they can file jointly on tax returns....maybe even collect their spouses Social Security death benefit if 1 dies... things like that, is my understanding

Actually, gays marry for all the exact same reasons straights marry.

Because they made their boyfriend pregnant.

No, you got me. No "shotgun" weddings. No unplanned pregnancies either. These are good things.

 

[keepitreal]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

 

[The Great Goose]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Yes. The owner of the company has that right. Employees are hired to do a job and if they refuse, they should get fired. If the owner of the company chooses not to sell alcohol, that would be his right since it's his business. Otherwise, employees enter into a contact where they will perform certain duties for their pay.

Of course, libs tend to complain when employers fire Muslim for not serving alcohol or touching pork products. Some companies allowed them to refuse providing they could get other employees to do it for them. Thing is, employers have a right to fire employees who refuse to do the job they agree upon when hired. If concessions were made from the start, it would be different.

Muslim bakeries refuse to bake gay wedding cakes and the left refuses to even talk about that. The view is that it's their business, their call. They would probably fire an employee who agreed to do a gay wedding. Of course, it's a moot point since Muslims generally don't hire non-Muslims.

Obama seems to think that Muslims should have the right to refuse to do things based on their religion. Most libs don't extend that courtesy to Christians.

"So, according to the Obama administration, if you are a Muslim in Illinois who signed a contract to work for a company, but you find that you just don’t want to do something your boss tells you to do, why, you just don’t have to do it. Oh, and if you are fired for refusing to do the work you contracted to do, why, Obama will sue your employer for you.

This is what has happened in the Land Of Lincoln with the US Government vs the Star Transport trucking company. A couple of Muslims signed a contract to work for a trucking company, a contract that says that drivers will take any load that a company administrator assigns and will deliver that payload. Period. The terms of employment are known ahead of time among all employees.

But a couple of Muslims for Star Transport found out that their boss was going to ask them to transport a load of alcohol–a job that everyone knows the company has–and these Muslims refused to take the load because: religion.

The Obama administration is suing the trucking company for violating these Muslims’ freedom of religion because after they refused to take the load as per the contract they signed, they were properly and logically fired."

Obama Sues to Allow Illinois Muslims to Skip Work W/O Being Fired

seems, unreasonable, to ask a transport firm to not transport legal commercial goods.

Muslim cab drivers lost the case in court over their refusal to transport alcohol.

And so they should have.

 

[Spare_change]

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

Is that a threat?

The left believes that some have more rights than others.

Only the national socialist right wing, does that. Want to ban anyone, lately?

i submitted your name, but it was rejected ---- something about the ADA.

 

[Timmy]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

And the florist could've simply made the fucking flowers !

Why are her convictions valid and not the gays . The gay guy has the law on his side too.

 

[Spare_change]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

Thin skinned Republican (so called) presidents are not on any States or Federal PA Protected list

Is that a threat?

No. You see protected people are identified by the anti-discrimination laws. Thin skinned Republican so-called presidents are not on any federal or state list of protected persons, at least none that I can find. Perhaps you know of a state that offers discrimination protection for thin skinned so-called presidents, but I don't think there are any.

Sounded like a threat against the president of the united states to me .... are you backtracking now?

 

[Spare_change]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

And the florist could've simply made the fucking flowers !

Why are her convictions valid and not the gays . The gay guy has the law on his side too.

Her belief was a religious belief ... theirs wasn't, it was a socio-political belief. One trumps the other.

 

[Timmy]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

And the florist could've simply made the fucking flowers !

Why are her convictions valid and not the gays . The gay guy has the law on his side too.

Her belief was a religious belief ... theirs wasn't, it was a socio-political belief. One trumps the other.

Ummm . No. The law trumps .

 

[Spare_change]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

And the florist could've simply made the fucking flowers !

Why are her convictions valid and not the gays . The gay guy has the law on his side too.

Her belief was a religious belief ... theirs wasn't, it was a socio-political belief. One trumps the other.

Ummm . No. The law trumps .

Ahhh ---- but a law that is inherently unconstitutional should not.

 

[Seawytch]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

Title II of the Civil Rights Act protecting blacks (among others) from discriminationwas challenged on "religious freedom" grounds. Those that did not wish to offer equal access to goods and services to blacks on religious grounds did not win at at the SCOTUS level. The SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a very similar case. They refused. Why would this case be any different?

 

[Seawytch]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Yes, I just commented on this on another thread earlier.

When you can not exercise your religious convictions
then you do not have religious freedom!

The guy could have simply said...I'm sorry you feel that way
I will bring my business elsewhere

Discrimination of LGBTQ, and whatever other fucking letters
should only be measured against other LGBTQ

If the florist provided her services to a lesbian couple
yet, refused her services for these 2 guys....
THAT'S discrimination!

If same sex marriage was normal,
it wouldn't need to be legalized!

Abnormal does not equal normalcy
Equal rights doesn't equate to normalcy

I hope her case is overturned by the SC
and she turns around and sues those guys
for emotional distress and willful intimidation

And the florist could've simply made the fucking flowers !

Why are her convictions valid and not the gays . The gay guy has the law on his side too.

Her belief was a religious belief ... theirs wasn't, it was a socio-political belief. One trumps the other.

Ummm . No. The law trumps .

Ahhh ---- but a law that is inherently unconstitutional should not.

Ahhh...but PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.