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

a reply to: NavyDoc

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that EVERY law ultimately has a man with a gun and a badge to enforce it and that people should think hard and long before demanding more and more laws because ultimately force is the result.

So, less law equals less cops with guns = we will be much safer?

Or, less law equals fewer Christians being shot by cops? :-)

Just joshing Doc - what you're actually saying is that everything can't be legislated - and I agree with that - but...

There are already anti-discrimination laws that exist - for a very good reason. What we're actually arguing about here is whether there should either be NO laws against discrimination, or - religious folk should get an exemption

originally posted by: Kali74
Back then, you couldn't refuse the business of a white man just because you didn't like him or didn't like his values... there had to be a specific reason.

You just made this up, right?

Businesses can and still do refuse business from people they simply don't like. There is no law against that.

originally posted by: Jamie1

Businesses can and still do refuse business from people they simply don't like. There is no law against that.

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state). For example, if you don't like someone who is black or Jewish or gay, then you'd better be careful about refusing their business.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that EVERY law ultimately has a man with a gun and a badge to enforce it and that people should think hard and long before demanding more and more laws because ultimately force is the result.

So, less law equals less cops with guns = we will be much safer?

Oh, the idea of us going back to tribes is heartwarming, don't you think?. People gathering together with same ideologies thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong. Their communities grow, they need more land, yada yada. One tribe trying to overpower another tribe. Making their own laws, forcing everyone to follow them.

Ideaologies on how something should be are rarely the reality.

We are a society. Laws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

Last thing I want to do is live in a lawless country. Laws are usually enacted because something happened.

Discrimination laws happened because majority was denying equal rights to minorities.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1

Businesses can and still do refuse business from people they simply don't like. There is no law against that.

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state). For example, if you don't like someone who is black or Jewish or gay, then you'd better be careful about refusing their business.

What about white or Christian?

originally posted by: AnneeLaws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

That's why we have The Constitution.

State laws cannot violate the protections FROM the government that are described in The Constitution. For example, the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of a person's religious beliefs.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: AnneeLaws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

That's why we have The Constitution.

State laws cannot violate the protections FROM the government that are described in The Constitution. For example, the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of a person's religious beliefs.

I'm not the one who wants to go lawless.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1

Businesses can and still do refuse business from people they simply don't like. There is no law against that.

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state). For example, if you don't like someone who is black or Jewish or gay, then you'd better be careful about refusing their business.

What about white or Christian?

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state).

White is a race and Christian is a religion, no?

a reply to: Annee

Oh, the idea of us going back to tribes is heartwarming, don't you think?. People gathering together with same ideologies thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong. Their communities grow, they need more land, yada yada. One tribe trying to overpower another tribe. Making their own laws, forcing everyone to follow them.

Pure John Wayne baby...as long as you trust John's thinking you'll be OK

I love the idea that Christians might actually end up in some kind of fatal standoff with cops over cakes or flowers

:-)

Edit to add - because, of course - I don't actually like the idea - I am amused that it was presented as a probable scenario

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I'm old enough to have lived before the Fair Housing Act, Disability Act, Civil Rights Act, Womens Rights movement, atheist separation of church and state movement, etc. etc.

I've watched it all evolve over the past 60+ years.

When I got divorced, I had no legal right to any credit rating or credit cards as a wife, unless I had opened them independently in my own name. That has since changed.

The idea that people will just handle things themselves without law is ludicrous.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: AnneeLaws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

That's why we have The Constitution.

State laws cannot violate the protections FROM the government that are described in The Constitution. For example, the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of a person's religious beliefs.

I'm not the one who wants to go lawless.

Nobody wants to go lawless.

The Constitution protects individuals from the government showing up at the door with guns, forcing them to hand over money or be put in a cage, for expressing the religious beliefs.

It's why those advocating to repeal gay marriage laws can petition the SOCUS to overturn them even though the majority in their states have agreed to ban gay marriage.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that EVERY law ultimately has a man with a gun and a badge to enforce it and that people should think hard and long before demanding more and more laws because ultimately force is the result.

So, less law equals less cops with guns = we will be much safer?

Oh, the idea of us going back to tribes is heartwarming, don't you think?. People gathering together with same ideologies thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong. Their communities grow, they need more land, yada yada. One tribe trying to overpower another tribe. Making their own laws, forcing everyone to follow them.

Ideaologies on how something should be are rarely the reality.

We are a society. Laws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

Last thing I want to do is live in a lawless country. Laws are usually enacted because something happened.

Discrimination laws happened because majority was denying equal rights to minorities.

frankly, i dont see that changing. such tribal behaviors will be around until tribal psychology stops being around.

dont ask me when or why that might happen. i dont know, but we can hope.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1

Businesses can and still do refuse business from people they simply don't like. There is no law against that.

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state). For example, if you don't like someone who is black or Jewish or gay, then you'd better be careful about refusing their business.

What about white or Christian?

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state).

White is a race and Christian is a religion, no?

I'm not sure if "white" is a race or not. There is much discussion and controversy over how that is defined.

For example, what race is Obama?

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: AnneeLaws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

That's why we have The Constitution.

State laws cannot violate the protections FROM the government that are described in The Constitution. For example, the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of a person's religious beliefs.

I'm not the one who wants to go lawless.

Nobody wants to go lawless.

The Constitution protects individuals from the government showing up at the door with guns, forcing them to hand over money or be put in a cage, for expressing the religious beliefs.

It's why those advocating to repeal gay marriage laws can petition the SOCUS to overturn them even though the majority in their states have agreed to ban gay marriage.

You've jumped into a discussion with Navy Doc.

a reply to: Metallicus

Forcing the florist to engage in a homosexual relationship would be against the religion.

Denying services based on sexual orientation of the customer is discrimination and against the law based on the civil rights act. Really is that simple.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that EVERY law ultimately has a man with a gun and a badge to enforce it and that people should think hard and long before demanding more and more laws because ultimately force is the result.

So, less law equals less cops with guns = we will be much safer?

Oh, the idea of us going back to tribes is heartwarming, don't you think?. People gathering together with same ideologies thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong. Their communities grow, they need more land, yada yada. One tribe trying to overpower another tribe. Making their own laws, forcing everyone to follow them.

Ideaologies on how something should be are rarely the reality.

We are a society. Laws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

Last thing I want to do is live in a lawless country. Laws are usually enacted because something happened.

Discrimination laws happened because majority was denying equal rights to minorities.

frankly, i dont see that changing. such tribal behaviors will be around until tribal psychology stops being around.

dont ask me when or why that might happen. i dont know, but we can hope.

Bluntly, we are animals.

Although some non-human animal societies seem to be more evolved.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: AnneeLaws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

That's why we have The Constitution.

State laws cannot violate the protections FROM the government that are described in The Constitution. For example, the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of a person's religious beliefs.

I'm not the one who wants to go lawless.

Nobody wants to go lawless.

The Constitution protects individuals from the government showing up at the door with guns, forcing them to hand over money or be put in a cage, for expressing the religious beliefs.

It's why those advocating to repeal gay marriage laws can petition the SOCUS to overturn them even though the majority in their states have agreed to ban gay marriage.

You've jumped into a discussion with Navy Doc.

Yes, it started when I pointed out that the end game of all these laws is government agents showing up at a person's door, with guns, and forcing a citizen to either hand over money or be forced to live in a cage.

The florist broke Washington State law. The government agents in Washington have sued her. If she doesn't pay a fine she will have people with guns show up at her house.... because she believed she was exercising her religious beliefs by not providing flowers for a gay wedding.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: AnneeLaws are required to keep people who don't agree, agreeable. Laws are needed to keep minorities protected from majority ideaologies.

That's why we have The Constitution.

State laws cannot violate the protections FROM the government that are described in The Constitution. For example, the state cannot prohibit the free exercise of a person's religious beliefs.

I'm not the one who wants to go lawless.

Nobody wants to go lawless.

The Constitution protects individuals from the government showing up at the door with guns, forcing them to hand over money or be put in a cage, for expressing the religious beliefs.

It's why those advocating to repeal gay marriage laws can petition the SOCUS to overturn them even though the majority in their states have agreed to ban gay marriage.

You've jumped into a discussion with Navy Doc.

Yes, it started when I pointed out that the end game of all these laws is government agents showing up at a person's door, with guns, and forcing a citizen to either hand over money or be forced to live in a cage.

The florist broke Washington State law. The government agents in Washington have sued her. If she doesn't pay a fine she will have people with guns show up at her house.... because she believed she was exercising her religious beliefs by not providing flowers for a gay wedding.

Back to belief again?

There is belief and then there is law. There's also ignorance of law.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1

Businesses can and still do refuse business from people they simply don't like. There is no law against that.

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state). For example, if you don't like someone who is black or Jewish or gay, then you'd better be careful about refusing their business.

What about white or Christian?

Well, that's true unless the people they don't like can prove that they were refused because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (depending on the state).

White is a race and Christian is a religion, no?

I'm not sure if "white" is a race or not. There is much discussion and controversy over how that is defined.

For example, what race is Obama?

According to the legal definition of race, white is a race. According to science, there is no "race" - only cultural and ethnic groups.

I think there used to be a law back in the Jim Crow days, that said if you were half black, you were considered all black, because you were "tainted". Obama is obviously of mixed race, but he could be perceived as black because he looks more black than white. So, conceivably, he could sue a white store owner who refused him service because the store owner perceived him as a black man.

a reply to: Annee

The idea that people will just handle things themselves without law is ludicrous.

Of course, we all have opinions about what makes a fair law - a good law

Seriously, when it comes down to someone that feels they're being forced to act against their conscience or their beliefs - I actually have a great deal of understanding and sympathy for that. Even when I don't agree with their position

I'm just not convinced that this is ever that. I know we can't make bigotry illegal - but I'm with you

We live in a country full of people that don't like each other - and we have to be able to live together