It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
She is right to claim that the Washington State law is unconstitutional if she believes the stature forces her to violate her religious beliefs.


Then she needs to bring a lawsuit against the state. That's how this stuff works.



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


If she believes her first amendment rights have been violated, she should contact the ACLU. They have lots of experience protecting religious rights violations. (But this isn't one.)



Her religion does not endorse men marrying each other.


No one is asking her to marry them, or to marry someone of the same gender, or to participate in the wedding or anything like that. She is being asked to sell them flowers. That is all.



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.


Barbaric, isn't it? It happens to people who break the law.



You prefer having police aim guns at people and force them to do things against their religious beliefs?


Selling flowers is not against her religious beliefs.




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
She is right to claim that the Washington State law is unconstitutional if she believes the stature forces her to violate her religious beliefs.


Then she needs to bring a lawsuit against the state. That's how this stuff works.



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


If she believes her first amendment rights have been violated, she should contact the ACLU. They have lots of experience protecting religious rights violations. (But this isn't one.)



Her religion does not endorse men marrying each other.


No one is asking her to marry them, or to marry someone of the same gender, or to participate in the wedding or anything like that. She is being asked to sell them flowers. That is all.



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.


Barbaric, isn't it? It happens to people who break the law.



You prefer having police aim guns at people and force them to do things against their religious beliefs?


Selling flowers is not against her religious beliefs.


Yes, you argue the States' side of the case.

Her side of the case is she DID sell flowers to the guy.

She believes selling flowers for a gay wedding would be contributing to immorality as defined by her religion.

She believes she is protected by the 1st Amendment's declaration that the government can make no law prohibiting her from freely exercising her religion.

The State of Washington sued her, and she hired a lawyer to counter-sue.

The ultimate question will be answered by some judge or judges:

Is it legal in this case to have government agents aiming guns at a women to force her to do something they believe is against her religious beliefs?

The case will potentially be a big deal, because the decision we create a de facto set of religious beliefs that the government implicitly endorses.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Rosa Parks was a criminal too.

Taken at gun point to jail for breaking the law.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Yup, you guys sure do have some complicated stuff going on in that country of yours.

Attack on your freedom of religion rights... attack on your gay rights... attack on your freedom of speech rights... attack on your freedom of gun ownership rights... attack on your muslim rights... attack on your black rights...

By gawd, how the hell are you folks surviving all this chaos down there ?!

Forget all this law breaking stuff for a day or two and come to Canada for a vacation. Build a snowman, drink a beer, eat a bacon sandwich, watch a hockey game, put your feet up and chillax.

Me thinks all this stress is causing your sphincters to be wound up tighter than a snare drum !



You deserve a break today...




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
Yes, you argue the States' side of the case.

Her side of the case is she DID sell flowers to the guy.


It is not. She had sold flowers to him before, but in the legal CASE, she refused.



She believes selling flowers for a gay wedding would be contributing to immorality as defined by her religion.


I'm sorry if that's what she believes. She cannot USE her business to judge and disapprove of gay marriage. I posted the legal definition of religious beliefs and it does not include discrimination.



She believes she is protected by the 1st Amendment's declaration that the government can make no law prohibiting her from freely exercising her religion.


She may believe that, but she is mistaken.



The case will potentially be a big deal, because the decision we create a de facto set of religious beliefs that the government implicitly endorses.


It won't be a big deal. There are several cases that have set precedent. In each case, the business owner was found to be in the wrong.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I have to disagree. This woman treated them honestly and with respect. It is true, this couple asked her to provide services toward a wedding. She listened to the details and told them she would not be able to provide her services in this instance. She didn't make any snide or insulting comments. She didn't suggest that the reason she denied the request was due to their lifestyle. She denied to offer her services due to the details of the wedding. The wedding. I believe that is the important part. There is no law stating that she must accept any and all job offers. She has the right to decline her services if all parties can't reach agreeable terms.

At this point the issue should have been resolved. Instead this couple has insisted, forcefully, that she ignore her beliefs, her lifestyle, to provide for them. That isn't fair treatment. It may seem silly to us but what if being forced to provide for these two causes her suffering?

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Regarding the other thing you mentioned. I don't have any complaints toward you in that regard. I appreciate your willingness to converse.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

It won't be a big deal. There are several cases that have set precedent. In each case, the business owner was found to be in the wrong.


Actually you're 100% wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that the company could not be forced by the ACA to provide contraceptives because it was against their religious belief.

I'm sure if the florist takes her case to the Supreme Court they will cite the Hobby Lobby case as precedent.

Do you know of any other cases heard by the Supreme Court that ruled individuals or businesses were forced to do business with gays against their religious beliefs?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Rosa Parks was a criminal too.

Taken at gun point to jail for breaking the law.


So? Your point?

Facts are facts.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1


If hobby lobby refused service of their goods to gay customers, it would be comparable.
This woman sold flowers - that's all she sold - she refused to sell them to gay people, that is discrimination.
Nobody would stop her practicising her religion in her personal life, but your religion does not trump state law.
By refusing to serve these gay folks, she's breaking the law.

She will lose as all the others have.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I just want to thank you for providing a great example regarding the behavior I mentioned in my 1st post on this thread. By dismissing everything I say as excuses, insisting that you know more than me and refusing to discuss any of it you prove my point. I'm not being smug. I think it's unfortunate that these kinds of attitudes prevent dialog whether it be meaningful or not.

I don't believe you are trying at all to see this from the point of view of the florist. Her personal religious beliefs may be hard for us to understand but that does not mean it is insignificant. Consider for a moment the implications to her lifestyle. You say she is discriminating against this couple but the flip side of the coin is this couple is forcing her to be an unwilling participant in a ceremony she has no desire to be a part of. While you dismiss her past business dealings with this couple as irrelevant I believe that is the evidence that proves she is innocent. She wants no part of the wedding proceedings. Has nothing to do with the lifestyle of the couple. As a businesswoman she has a right to refuse to be a part of a ceremony if it does not fit her professional work ethic and style.

Yes, yes. One could argue that I am being just as blind regarding this couple. Perhaps I am. What stands out to me is the fact that the couple is the one on the attack. But I'll stop there. I wouldn't want to see all this get dismissed with a drive-by sentence quote!



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Rosa Parks was a criminal too.

Taken at gun point to jail for breaking the law.


So? Your point?

Facts are facts.



The point?

Because a state creates a law doesn't mean it's Constitutional.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels

...but your religion does not trump state law.




False. Your religion trumps state law when the Supreme Court says it does. It even trumps Federal Law like in the Hobby Lobby case if the Supreme Court rules the state has created a law that prohibits your free exercise of religion.

The bigger question is why would you want to have government agents aiming guns at a florist to force her to sell flowers for a gay wedding if the florist doesn't want to because of her religion?

Very twisted and sick.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Well as I mentioned, refusing service of goods based on the customers gender, race, sexual orientation or what have you is hugely different from not including contraception in a healthcare package.
This florist will lose, we can argue back and forth about it all we like but the florist is wrong and should not be in business.
Hopefully she will not discriminate and just serve all her customers equally.
She will lose this case and justice and equality will prevail.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.


So not having checks and balances to restrict government power equals anarchy?

It really is a black and white world you live in, the real world is made of shades of grey, thats why scales represent the balance of justice.
I wouldnt like to live in a world of knee jerk reactionaries that can be manipulated in an instant by an over domineering state that pulls at their heart strings with well researched techniques of mind control. Whipping the masses up into a mob like mentality frothing at the mouth for "something must be done!!".
But I do.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
so if you were on your last drop of gas and pulled into a gas station and found an islamic guy at the counter refusing you service because you were a scantily clad (in his view) women who was causing a hormone crisis in him which his religion says he should avoid you would have no problem if he refused you service and kick you out of his store???

what the heck you could just walk the ten miles down the highway to the next gas station right???



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

The bigger question is why would you want to have government agents aiming guns at a florist to force her to sell flowers for a gay wedding if the florist doesn't want to because of her religion?

Very twisted and sick.



How the law is enforced is an entirely separate issue.
Neither this woman or her religion are special. If she runs a business then she serves everyone regardless of their, or her beliefs or she quits her business.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
so if you were on your last drop of gas and pulled into a gas station and found an islamic guy at the counter refusing you service because you were a scantily clad (in his view) women who was causing a hormone crisis in him which his religion says he should avoid you would have no problem if he refused you service and kick you out of his store???

what the heck you could just walk the ten miles down the highway to the next gas station right???


And bankers bonuses are fair?

Life is unfair sometimes, people need to get a damned backbone.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Well as I mentioned, refusing service of goods based on the customers gender, race, sexual orientation or what have you is hugely different...


You've mistakenly included "sexual orientation" with gender and race. Sexual orientation is not covered by the Civil Rights Act. Gender and race are.

It has nothing to do with the contraception and everything to do with the government forcing at the end of a gun a person to violate their religious beliefs.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
so if you were on your last drop of gas and pulled into a gas station and found an islamic guy at the counter refusing you service because you were a scantily clad (in his view) women who was causing a hormone crisis in him which his religion says he should avoid you would have no problem if he refused you service and kick you out of his store???

what the heck you could just walk the ten miles down the highway to the next gas station right???


It is very common, and legal, for businesses to refuse service to people based on what they are wearing.

There is no unalienable right to walk into a business and force the owner to do business with you.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: My_Reality

Do you realize you keep referring to gay "lifestyle"? Do you understand how wrong that is?

Lifestyle is what you've chosen for a career, if you like sports cars or trucks, if you like Mexican food or Sushi, if you prefer an apartment or a private home, if you choose to raise a family or not, etc etc.

Orientation is the natural born sexual attraction, whether it be to same sex, opposite sex, or of the trans groups.

This woman was sent a letter from the state stating she was in violation of the states anti-discrimination law. She was given every opportunity to comply. She refused.

America is a secular country. While we have religious freedom, religion is not law.

Not one lawsuit of a business in a state with sexual orientation defined as discrimination has won their lawsuit for religious reasons.

Did you know she's trying to change her story? Now she's saying she misunderstood. That they just wanted to buy loose flowers to make their own arrangements. Too late.

I don't care if she some sweet gramma. I'm a gramma too.

She had a CHOICE. She made her CHOICE. She will now live with her CHOICE.




top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join