Judge Rules Against Christian Florist Who Refused to Provide Flowers for Gay Wedding

a reply to: My_Reality

She's also being sued by the state for breaking the law. What she did is against the law, no matter how polite she was or how many times she's served Ingersol in the past.

PS. What's a "militant homosexual attitude"?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: My_Reality

She's also being sued by the state for breaking the law. What she did is against the law, no matter how polite she was or how many times she's served Ingersol in the past.

PS. What's a "militant homosexual attitude"?

Seriously!

If anyone is being militant, it's her.

originally posted by: My_Reality
She politely refused because of her convictions.

It doesn't matter if she was polite or physically threw them out.

She broke the law. She is a criminal.

a reply to: Annee

She is not a criminal.

a reply to: Annee

Context, context, context. Care to address anything else I posted or is a drive-by sentence post going to be all?

In response to what you said I believe your wrong. It has everything to do with respecting her beliefs. I mean, this couple wants their beliefs respected after all. They managed to convince a few juries or judges with their legal arguments but I believe they are taking advantage of the system while spitting in this woman's face, so to speak.

Leaving the legal matters out of this if they cared about their convictions they would also have the common decency to respect those of this woman. Like I said, I am not surprised. People demand respect and equality all the time but when it comes time to have respect and equality for others the concepts are foreign. Human nature at its finest.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's a figure of speech to describe in three words something I didn't want to expand upon with several. Hey, since you asked though. Are you saying that you have never experienced or witnessed something along those lines? You know...demanding respect and fair treatment while thumbing their nose at when it comes to someone else?

originally posted by: Baldryck
a reply to: Annee

She is not a criminal.

Yes she is. She was asked by the state to abide by the law after the incident. She refused.

She broke a law and then refused to comply when requested by the state.

She continues to refuse to comply and has been found guilty of committing that crime.

originally posted by: My_Reality
a reply to: Annee

Context, context, context.

Law, law, law.

a reply to: Annee

My God. Please read the whole post before you shoot off what you think is a cute witty reply. Do you realize that what you replied to? I was asking you to address what I said in context. And your response is to do the same thing over! I feel like I'm arguing with children. No wonder I don't get involved in "serious discussion" on these boards. But hey at least I won the debate.

I think it's time I start my own religion so I can break whatever laws I want. And it'll be legal, because I now have "religious freedom."

originally posted by: My_Reality
Are you saying that you have never experienced or witnessed something along those lines? You know...demanding respect and fair treatment while thumbing their nose at when it comes to someone else?

I absolutely have seen that. But that's not what's happening here.
The couple are not demanding respect.
They ARE demanding fair treatment. It's the law, it's in the Constitution (14th amendment). What's wrong with demanding fair treatment?
They are not disrespecting her. They're asking her to sell them some flowers, which is what she does. How is that disrespectful?

I'll be happy to address ANYTHING you want to ask or say. I see you've asked a couple others to address what you've posted and I think that's what we're doing. If anything is left unaddressed, I'd be happy to address it. What is it that you want addressed?

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
The florist thinks the law's requirement violates her Constitutional right to the free expression of her religion.

Then let her sue the state.

The State of Washington is suing her. The end game is the State of Washington will send government agents with guns to take her money, and/or put her in jail, because she didn't sell flowers to two guys for their wedding.

She has hired legal counsel to defend against the State of Washington.

That's a valid point. For those people who call for "there aught to be a law" for this or that that displeases them, remember that ultimately men with guns will enforce that law and people could die. Remember that Eric Garner died, ultimately, because his fellow New Yorkers demanded that those nasty cigarettes have an excessive tax imposed upon them.

Be careful what you wish for when you cry, "there aught to be a law."

originally posted by: My_Reality
a reply to: Annee

My God. Please read the whole post before you shoot off what you think is a cute witty reply. Do you realize that what you replied to? I was asking you to address what I said in context. And your response is to do the same thing over! I feel like I'm arguing with children. No wonder I don't get involved in "serious discussion" on these boards. But hey at least I won the debate.

I am not going to address all the excuses you are providing, because that's all you are doing.

I guarantee you I know this story more then you do.

She is wrong.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: My_Reality
a reply to: Annee

Context, context, context.

Law, law, law.

So you agreed with laws that banned mixed race marriages because they were, after all, the law?

Or do you agree that some laws are, in fact, wrong?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
The florist thinks the law's requirement violates her Constitutional right to the free expression of her religion.

Then let her sue the state.

The State of Washington is suing her. The end game is the State of Washington will send government agents with guns to take her money, and/or put her in jail, because she didn't sell flowers to two guys for their wedding.

She has hired legal counsel to defend against the State of Washington.

That's a valid point. For those people who call for "there aught to be a law" for this or that that displeases them, remember that ultimately men with guns will enforce that law and people could die. Remember that Eric Garner died, ultimately, because his fellow New Yorkers demanded that those nasty cigarettes have an excessive tax imposed upon them.

Be careful what you wish for when you cry, "there aught to be a law."

And I have zero desire to live in your world of anarchy.

Just so we're ckear.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Remember that Eric Garner died, ultimately, because his fellow New Yorkers demanded that those nasty cigarettes have an excessive tax imposed upon them.

Oh PLEASE!!! He didn't even have any cigarettes on him! He died because some thug cops killed him. WAY off topic!

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: My_Reality
a reply to: Annee

Context, context, context.

Law, law, law.

So you agreed with laws that banned mixed race marriages because they were, after all, the law?

Or do you agree that some laws are, in fact, wrong?

I live now, in my own time.

I'm not going to speculate my thinking by circumstances of living in a past time.

Try to stay in the present.

It is interesting that mixed race marriages was brought up because I was just wondering if the same people defending the shop owner now over the gay couple would defend the shop owner if the couple were straight mixed race.

Or would that cross a line?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: My_Reality
a reply to: Annee

My God. Please read the whole post before you shoot off what you think is a cute witty reply. Do you realize that what you replied to? I was asking you to address what I said in context. And your response is to do the same thing over! I feel like I'm arguing with children. No wonder I don't get involved in "serious discussion" on these boards. But hey at least I won the debate.

I am not going to address all the excuses you are providing, because that's all you are doing.

I guarantee you I know this story more then you do.

She is wrong.

She is right to claim that the Washington State law is unconstitutional if she believes the stature forces her to violate her religious beliefs.

The 1st Amendment protects her from the government making laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Her religion does not endorse men marrying each other.

Aiming a gun at her and telling her she must hand over money or live in a cage because she refused to exchanged some flowers she owned for money is abhorrent.

You prefer having police aim guns at people and force them to do things against their religious beliefs? To what? Shopping at another store?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Remember that Eric Garner died, ultimately, because his fellow New Yorkers demanded that those nasty cigarettes have an excessive tax imposed upon them.

Oh PLEASE!!! He didn't even have any cigarettes on him! He died because some thug cops killed him. WAY off topic!

No, it's exactly on topic.

The police were called by shop owners because they didn't like Garner selling home made cigarettes in front of their stores.

The ultimate enforcement of the law is police aiming guns at you if you don't abide.

Same exact situation here.

Women didn't abide by the laws of Washington State, and now government agents will show up at her house with guns and force her to live in a cage or hand over money.

That's the end game of every law that's passed.

Cops with guns telling you to hand over money or live in a cage. Look what happened in Paris yesterday. A comedian was arrested for tweeting something that was deemed non-supportive of the "I am Charlie" slogan.

You want more laws? That means more cops with guns forcing you to comply by taking your money or putting you in a cage.