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

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1


If one day he draws a picture of Mohammed for a customer, and the next day decides he doesn't want to draw any more pictures of Mohammed, then you're saying that the state should have the legal authority to force him to violate his religious beliefs.

How can one person claim something as a "right" if in doing so if requires another person to be forced to do it against their will?

Are you deliberately missing the point? The point is, if you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, but then you pick and choose who you draw a picture for based on their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual orientation, then you are being discriminatory, which is what the state says is against the law. If you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, then you decide NOT to offer pictures of Mohammed to the general public, that's not discriminatory.

How can someone claim something as a "right" if in doing so, takes away someone else's right? The laws says that people have a right to public accommodation, i.e., to participate in public commerce as long as they are not committing any crime. That is just as much a right as the right to life or the right to your personal property. If your religion says it's okay to kill people that disagree with you, or to take someone's property from them, then you don't get to freely exercise your religion. Freely exercising your religion doesn't mean you get to take away someone else's right.

People say that here and now, but I'd wager if a news article came out about a Muslim forced to sell pork or a Jew forced to cater to Nazis, the comments and news stories and actions by the authorities would differ quite a bit.

If you don't sell pork, you don't sell pork. It's very simple. Its not and never will part of your business.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Being a Nazi or white supremists is.

Orientation is a protected minority in this state.

And that's the problem--we have protected classes. This is not good for a society that strives to be classless. Nor is it Constitutional, IMHO. Discrimination it seems is okay, as long as you don't like who is being discriminated against and make mental gymnastics to justify it.

No, it's not a problem.

We are not a democracy where you can bully a minority.

Yes you can, as long as it is the right minority.

How is not wanting to business with someone "bullying" anyone? Given that bullying comes from a position of power with the big guy bullying the little guy, it seems that it is the state and the ACLU doing the bullying here.

You're referring to Christians being bullied, aren't you?

No, a small shop owner. Why? Is that what makes this cool in your eyes, that it's a Christian? I'm not Christian nor pro Christian, just anti-big brother.

Only when they force their belief on me through politics.

Belief is not the same as discrimination against an orientation. Belief is a choice you make. Orientation is a natural born birthright.

She does not have the choice to discriminate, just because she believes it's wrong.

She should have, thats freedom. She should be free to believe what she likes if it harms no one.
Withdrawing service isnt harming anyone, except maybe the person that decides to discriminate. Because ultimately it is her own business reputation that suffers when people choose to withdraw custom.

Thats freedom, people dont seem to even know what freedom is.
Freedom is the freedom to piss off whoever you like. But people must remember, every action has a reaction. Thats life, and thats the "God" given freewill to think freely, and take the consequences.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

A business that refuses service because one is black, white, a Jew, a Christian, etc., is breaking the law.

So is forcing an individual business owner to provide a service against their religious beliefs.

How is it against her religious beliefs? She signed a contract with the state for her business license to follow the laws. The bible tells you to follow "Ceaser's" Laws. The bible also says, judge not, lest ye be judged, yet he who is without sin cast the first stone, such condemnation and discrimination is the provenance of God by the Christian faith, it is not in her religion doctrine to judge and deny this couple based upon their orientation. Are they Sinning by the laws of the bible? Possibly, but judging the sinner is if anything her going against the beliefs she claims to transcribe to.

Forcing her to have gay sex would be forcing her to act against her religious beliefs, would also be rape. No one is forcing her to do anything homosexual herself.

When did "judge not , lest thee be judged" ever stop a self righteous religious freak from being judgemental?
Religious fanatics are some of the most judgemental people in society.

I have a rhetorical question...

If the laws of the land were obviously satanic and "anti-christ" would it be christian to abide by "Caesars Laws" then?

Ask Christ, his statements, not mine. Can argue both ways. Though nothing stopping a Christian from making a personal stand against something. Still not the teachings of Jesus. Which is the issue here. She's acting on her own, not following her religion, therefore her religious beliefs are not being discriminated against.

I dont make a habit of talking to mythical beings. Thats a fast track to the mental institution.
The only words that can really be attributed to Jesus, if he ever existed, is the sermon on the mount.
Everything else is second hand words being put into his mouth by people that probably didnt even know him, how could they possibly know him when he had been dead for at least a few decades before any pens hit paper?
And dont let me get started on Constantine.

Im asking you. You are the one quoting religious texts. Surely you understand the texts you are quoting?

I'm not Christian, I don't believe in all this either. However, we've tried arguing the law with them, now attempting to communicate with the assumption they believe what they say they do. According to them, the bible, the whole bible is the Word of God, which the supposed statements of Jesus being true to his person within the Bible, and his word being the most important.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1


If one day he draws a picture of Mohammed for a customer, and the next day decides he doesn't want to draw any more pictures of Mohammed, then you're saying that the state should have the legal authority to force him to violate his religious beliefs.

How can one person claim something as a "right" if in doing so if requires another person to be forced to do it against their will?

Are you deliberately missing the point? The point is, if you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, but then you pick and choose who you draw a picture for based on their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual orientation, then you are being discriminatory, which is what the state says is against the law. If you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, then you decide NOT to offer pictures of Mohammed to the general public, that's not discriminatory.

How can someone claim something as a "right" if in doing so, takes away someone else's right? The laws says that people have a right to public accommodation, i.e., to participate in public commerce as long as they are not committing any crime. That is just as much a right as the right to life or the right to your personal property. If your religion says it's okay to kill people that disagree with you, or to take someone's property from them, then you don't get to freely exercise your religion. Freely exercising your religion doesn't mean you get to take away someone else's right.

People say that here and now, but I'd wager if a news article came out about a Muslim forced to sell pork or a Jew forced to cater to Nazis, the comments and news stories and actions by the authorities would differ quite a bit.

If you don't sell pork, you don't sell pork. It's very simple. Its not and never will part of your business.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Being a Nazi or white supremists is.

Orientation is a protected minority in this state.

And that's the problem--we have protected classes. This is not good for a society that strives to be classless. Nor is it Constitutional, IMHO. Discrimination it seems is okay, as long as you don't like who is being discriminated against and make mental gymnastics to justify it.

No, it's not a problem.

We are not a democracy where you can bully a minority.

Yes you can, as long as it is the right minority.

How is not wanting to business with someone "bullying" anyone? Given that bullying comes from a position of power with the big guy bullying the little guy, it seems that it is the state and the ACLU doing the bullying here.

You're referring to Christians being bullied, aren't you?

No, a small shop owner. Why? Is that what makes this cool in your eyes, that it's a Christian? I'm not Christian nor pro Christian, just anti-big brother.

Only when they force their belief on me through politics.

Belief is not the same as discrimination against an orientation. Belief is a choice you make. Orientation is a natural born birthright.

She does not have the choice to discriminate, just because she believes it's wrong.

She should have, thats freedom. She should be free to believe what she likes if it harms no one.
Withdrawing service isnt harming anyone, except maybe the person that decides to discriminate. Because ultimately it is her own business reputation that suffers when people choose to withdraw custom.

Thats freedom, people dont seem to even know what freedom is.
Freedom is the freedom to piss off whoever you like. But people must remember, every action has a reaction. Thats life, and thats the "God" given freewill to think freely, and take the consequences.

She has the freedom to believe whatever she wants. No one is saying she has to believe gay marrisge is OK.

But, she can not use that belief to discriminate.

If she sales flowers --- she sales flowers. Period.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I dont make a habit of talking to mythical beings. Thats a fast track to the mental institution.

Neither do I - though I admit to an ongoing conversation in my head with the Buddha. Buddha being more of concept and philosophy than a deity - but opinions differ even on that, so...

People have their religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, political beliefs ...not my business - not my place to judge

However, I will absolutely argue with them if it means that by supporting their freedom to believe what they believe I'm actively supporting the idea that other people should be treated badly or like a lesser people with lesser rights

I've learned a lot from Jesus - and Buddha - and many others that may or may not have been real. At what point does owning the bumper-sticker become more important than what the bumper-sticker says? I know there are people who would like to eradicate religion - but even if we could something else would fill it's place as soon as it was gone

We're trying to have a civilization here - secularism makes it possible for people with differing views to live together more or less in peace and harmony. It only works if we all agree on it together. It has nothing to do with destroying religion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1


If one day he draws a picture of Mohammed for a customer, and the next day decides he doesn't want to draw any more pictures of Mohammed, then you're saying that the state should have the legal authority to force him to violate his religious beliefs.

How can one person claim something as a "right" if in doing so if requires another person to be forced to do it against their will?

Are you deliberately missing the point? The point is, if you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, but then you pick and choose who you draw a picture for based on their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual orientation, then you are being discriminatory, which is what the state says is against the law. If you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, then you decide NOT to offer pictures of Mohammed to the general public, that's not discriminatory.

How can someone claim something as a "right" if in doing so, takes away someone else's right? The laws says that people have a right to public accommodation, i.e., to participate in public commerce as long as they are not committing any crime. That is just as much a right as the right to life or the right to your personal property. If your religion says it's okay to kill people that disagree with you, or to take someone's property from them, then you don't get to freely exercise your religion. Freely exercising your religion doesn't mean you get to take away someone else's right.

People say that here and now, but I'd wager if a news article came out about a Muslim forced to sell pork or a Jew forced to cater to Nazis, the comments and news stories and actions by the authorities would differ quite a bit.

If you don't sell pork, you don't sell pork. It's very simple. Its not and never will part of your business.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Being a Nazi or white supremists is.

Orientation is a protected minority in this state.

And that's the problem--we have protected classes. This is not good for a society that strives to be classless. Nor is it Constitutional, IMHO. Discrimination it seems is okay, as long as you don't like who is being discriminated against and make mental gymnastics to justify it.

No, it's not a problem.

We are not a democracy where you can bully a minority.

Yes you can, as long as it is the right minority.

How is not wanting to business with someone "bullying" anyone? Given that bullying comes from a position of power with the big guy bullying the little guy, it seems that it is the state and the ACLU doing the bullying here.

You're referring to Christians being bullied, aren't you?

No, a small shop owner. Why? Is that what makes this cool in your eyes, that it's a Christian? I'm not Christian nor pro Christian, just anti-big brother.

Only when they force their belief on me through politics.

Belief is not the same as discrimination against an orientation. Belief is a choice you make. Orientation is a natural born birthright.

She does not have the choice to discriminate, just because she believes it's wrong.

She should have, thats freedom. She should be free to believe what she likes if it harms no one.
Withdrawing service isnt harming anyone, except maybe the person that decides to discriminate. Because ultimately it is her own business reputation that suffers when people choose to withdraw custom.

Thats freedom, people dont seem to even know what freedom is.
Freedom is the freedom to piss off whoever you like. But people must remember, every action has a reaction. Thats life, and thats the "God" given freewill to think freely, and take the consequences.

She has the freedom to believe whatever she wants. No one is saying she has to believe gay marrisge is OK.

But, she can not use that belief to discriminate.

If she sales flowers --- she sales flowers. Period.

She should have the freedom to serve whoever she pleases.
Its her "private" enterprise. If she doesnt want to serve someone, they can go somewhere else to get flowers.
Its that simple. Its her property.

And if everyone decided not to serve gays, would that be fine by you? How about pharmacists, grocery stores, car dealerships, ect? Would every business saying, screw you to homosexuals be alright?

Yes this is an extreme unlikely thing at this point, but by saying she should have that right, you're saying completely not letting gays purchase anything ANYWHERE is alright.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: OneManArmy

I dont make a habit of talking to mythical beings. Thats a fast track to the mental institution.

Neither do I - though I admit to an ongoing conversation in my head with the Buddha. Buddha being more of concept and philosophy than a deity - but opinions differ even on that, so...

People have their religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, political beliefs ...not my business - not my place to judge

However, I will absolutely argue with them if it means that by supporting their freedom to believe what they believe I'm actively supporting the idea that other people should be treated badly or like a lesser people with lesser rights

I've learned a lot from Jesus - and Buddha - and many others that may or may not have been real. At what point does owning the bumper-sticker become more important than what the bumper-sticker says? I know there are people who would like to eradicate religion - but even if we could something else would fill it's place as soon as it was gone

We're trying to have a civilization here - secularism makes it possible for people with differing views to live together more or less in peace and harmony. It only works if we all agree on it together. It has nothing to do with destroying religion

I wouldnt have called that a discussion with Buddha, Id call it "thinking". Having a moral compass and trying to follow it with critical thought. Comparing yourself to the "idea" and seeing how you measure up.

Its very hard for anyone to agree on anything when they are fed a daily diet of social engineering telling them who they should be hating today. The civilization that you speak of is in decline. The type of corruption and rich/poor divides and financial crises are what you see when a civilization is dying. "Nero fiddled while Rome burned."

Its not just religion that is heavily under attack, its community, families, and the very fabric of civilization itself, the moral compass has been skewed. We idolize celebrities, we worship money. We are all millionaires in waiting. Well thats what people think anyway. The rich never really play fair, because even the poor think they will be rich "one day".

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We never learn.

The "human rights" movement with its many subdivisions is often a front for extreme left wing ideologies that use a good cause to push a sinister or just downright bonkers agenda.

The media attention this whole story gets, puts it straight into the category of propaganda. Know it for what it is. IMO.

This is just Christian bashing. To be honest. I recognize it very well, its fed to me on a weekly basis, and I have been hearing it for a couple decades now. Extreme left wing atheists using the cover of gay rights to push an anti christian agenda.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1


If one day he draws a picture of Mohammed for a customer, and the next day decides he doesn't want to draw any more pictures of Mohammed, then you're saying that the state should have the legal authority to force him to violate his religious beliefs.

How can one person claim something as a "right" if in doing so if requires another person to be forced to do it against their will?

Are you deliberately missing the point? The point is, if you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, but then you pick and choose who you draw a picture for based on their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual orientation, then you are being discriminatory, which is what the state says is against the law. If you offer to draw pictures of Mohammed to the general public, then you decide NOT to offer pictures of Mohammed to the general public, that's not discriminatory.

How can someone claim something as a "right" if in doing so, takes away someone else's right? The laws says that people have a right to public accommodation, i.e., to participate in public commerce as long as they are not committing any crime. That is just as much a right as the right to life or the right to your personal property. If your religion says it's okay to kill people that disagree with you, or to take someone's property from them, then you don't get to freely exercise your religion. Freely exercising your religion doesn't mean you get to take away someone else's right.

People say that here and now, but I'd wager if a news article came out about a Muslim forced to sell pork or a Jew forced to cater to Nazis, the comments and news stories and actions by the authorities would differ quite a bit.

If you don't sell pork, you don't sell pork. It's very simple. Its not and never will part of your business.

Sexual orientation is not a choice. Being a Nazi or white supremists is.

Orientation is a protected minority in this state.

And that's the problem--we have protected classes. This is not good for a society that strives to be classless. Nor is it Constitutional, IMHO. Discrimination it seems is okay, as long as you don't like who is being discriminated against and make mental gymnastics to justify it.

No, it's not a problem.

We are not a democracy where you can bully a minority.

Yes you can, as long as it is the right minority.

How is not wanting to business with someone "bullying" anyone? Given that bullying comes from a position of power with the big guy bullying the little guy, it seems that it is the state and the ACLU doing the bullying here.

You're referring to Christians being bullied, aren't you?

No, a small shop owner. Why? Is that what makes this cool in your eyes, that it's a Christian? I'm not Christian nor pro Christian, just anti-big brother.

Only when they force their belief on me through politics.

Belief is not the same as discrimination against an orientation. Belief is a choice you make. Orientation is a natural born birthright.

She does not have the choice to discriminate, just because she believes it's wrong.

But you seem to have no problem forcing your beliefs on her through politics.

originally posted by: Puppylove
And if everyone decided not to serve gays, would that be fine by you? How about pharmacists, grocery stores, car dealerships, ect? Would every business saying, screw you to homosexuals be alright?

Yes this is an extreme unlikely thing at this point, but by saying she should have that right, you're saying completely not letting gays purchase anything ANYWHERE is alright.

It wasnt that long ago that is exactly how it was.
And in many countries thats exactly how it still is.

Look what happened to the war hero Alan Turing. A true genius.

Its funny how social attitudes change and adapt. Everything is fluid, nothing is constant. We are so easily led by our emotions.

Im just pointing that out. Im not saying its right or wrong, only saying thats just the way it is.

a reply to: OneManArmy

I wouldnt have called that a discussion with Buddha, Id call it "thinking".

Maybe try not being so literal - and looking at some things with humor

This is just Christian bashing. To be honest. I recognize it very well, its fed to me on a weekly basis, and I have been hearing it for a couple decades now. Extreme left wing atheists using the cover of gay rights to push an anti christian agenda.

The hatred that comes from certain other groups - we are all fed that as well, and fairly regularly

Colorado church refuses to hold lesbian’s funeral after dispute over ‘affectionate’ photos

“Pastor Ray Chavez and New Hope Ministries Cancelled the funeral of our friend 15 minutes after it was to have begin,” they said on a Facebook page announcing the protest. “Her casket was open, flowers laid out and hundreds of people sitting in the pews.”

How is this in any way shape or form something that would ever come from someone that professes to follow the words of Jesus Christ ? Who would ever do this to another human being - dead or alive? What about their loved ones?

Does it seem like Christian bashing to be upset about this story? Should we just look the other way when people demand the right to exclude, humiliate and discriminate against people that are people first - no matter what else they may be?

I bet no religious person can imagine what it would be like to be refused service because of the religion they subscribe to, the irony comes in the fact that religion is actually a lifestyle choice and being homosexual isnt haha

Here's a headline that would cause uproar:

"Homosexual florist is sued for not selling flowers to customer's because of their religion"

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis


Does it seem like Christian bashing to be upset about this story? Should we just look the other way when people demand the right to exclude, humiliate and discriminate against people that are people first - no matter what else they may be?

Firstly sorry for being blunt, I didnt mean for it to come across that way. I do have a sense of humour in here somewhere.
Honest.

But back to the question.

No, the agenda is christian bashing, the emotion is the expected response.
Its a case of how angry are you on a 1 to 10?
And everybody is supposed to scream 12.

Its propaganda. Gays have rights, there are laws against discrimination. Time to move on.
But no, lets keep kicking Christianity while its down.

Its like feminism, it has been corrupted by sick twisted man hating lesbians. The feminist battle for equality is mostly won, but the feminazi crazies keep making stuff up, like "rape culture" or the "patriarchy", they skew statistics to say women get payed less than men, but when you compare like for like, women actually get paid MORE than men.

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
I bet no religious person can imagine what it would be like to be refused service because of the religion they subscribe to, the irony comes in the fact that religion is actually a lifestyle choice and being homosexual isnt haha

Here's a headline that would cause uproar:

"Homosexual florist is sued for not selling flowers to customer's because of their religion"

You are joking right?

How about Jews?

Or Muslims that cannot get a job for the demonisation in the media?

If you think this story is a travesty, how about Ugandas "Kill the gays" law of 2014?.... yes 2014
You dont get sued, you get executed.
"Homosexual brutally executed, just for being gay"

originally posted by: Puppylove
And if everyone decided not to serve gays, would that be fine by you? How about pharmacists, grocery stores, car dealerships, ect? Would every business saying, screw you to homosexuals be alright?

Yes this is an extreme unlikely thing at this point, but by saying she should have that right, you're saying completely not letting gays purchase anything ANYWHERE is alright.

Great example. Let's think this through.

The Constitution was created to protect unalienable rights, like the right to exercise your religion, even if your religion was in the minority. It's an absolute right that the majority cannot take from you.

There is no right declared in the Constitution that guarantees that those practicing their religion can be forced, at the point of gun by the government, to sell you anything.

In fact, requiring somebody to do so is the exact opposite of what the Constitution protects individuals against -being forced to do things against their religious beliefs by an overreaching government.

The Civil Rights Act was a rare exception to this principle, and did not include sexual orientation as something protected from discrimination.

a reply to: Jamie1

Prove to me that selling flowers to gays is against Christian beliefs please.

There's a difference between one's religious beliefs being discriminated against, and using the cover of one's religion, wrongly to discriminate.

I argue that, no her religious beliefs are in fact, not being discriminated against and she is in fact doing a disservice to the religion she claims to follow in her actions, and literally spitting in the face of Christ the most important person upon which the religion itself is founded.

I have no problems with people being Christian, if they actual you know, follow Christ.

Her religious beliefs are not being discriminated against, she is instead, using the cover of her religion to wrongly to discriminate. There is a difference.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
So is forcing an individual business owner to provide a service against their religious beliefs.

She sells flowers. If it's against her religious beliefs to sell flowers, she's in the wrong business.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
I bet no religious person can imagine what it would be like to be refused service because of the religion they subscribe to, the irony comes in the fact that religion is actually a lifestyle choice and being homosexual isnt haha

Here's a headline that would cause uproar:

"Homosexual florist is sued for not selling flowers to customer's because of their religion"

You are joking right?

How about Jews?

Or Muslims that cannot get a job for the demonisation in the media?

If you think this story is a travesty, how about Ugandas "Kill the gays" law of 2014?.... yes 2014
You dont get sued, you get executed.
"Homosexual brutally executed, just for being gay"

Im not entirely sure of the point you're making here...

Ive never read a news story where a person is refused service in a business because of their religion..

Im well aware of Uganda's "Kill the gay's" law - Ugandan's have been infiltrated by hardcore Christians like much of Africa. They're being taught that witches exist and should be burned alive as the bible instructs...

Still, what's your point?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

actually, Jesus preferred to walk in the midst of criminals, prostitutes, and the diseased.

Yes. The flower shop owner refused because of her "relationship with Jesus". If she actually followed Jesus, she'd gladly sell the flowers to the gay couple. Jesus wasn't in the habit of turning away sinners...

originally posted by: SpiramirabilisShould we just look the other way when people demand the right to exclude, humiliate and discriminate against people that are people first - no matter what else they may be?

Nobody is saying look the other way. You have the right to go protest whatever you want.

There is a difference between protesting, and having the government compel people to act against their religious beliefs at the point of a gun.

You realize all these laws that are passed always come down to that, right? "Do what we tell you, or eventually we'll send people with guns to come take your money or put you in a cage."

So you believe it's ok for a government agent to point a gun at some fringe Christian funeral home director and force them to do what the majority wants them to do?

Doesn't seem very Buddha like. Buddha was all about your personal truth, not forcing your truth on other people. In fact, Bhuddha implied that forcing your views on others was tantamount to violence.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Well, for one, the law of Washington State. I posted it earlier here: www.abovetopsecret.com...