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: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
Have any of these cases been heard by the Supreme Court?


No. You don't know how law works, do you?

The previous cases have been settled at the state level and the business owners have not appealed. (Update: The baker in Colorado has recently appealed to the appellate court. Source)

They wouldn't have a chance! They have CLEARLY broken state laws. This kind of thing has never gone to the Supreme Court.



Jake Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop hopes to win at the appellate level after being told that he must serve couples wedding cakes and take a diversity course.

Phillips is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed the appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals last Wednesday.


The Hobby Lobby case is ENTIRELY different and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this. Like I said, a distraction and disinformation.
edit on 1/16/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Ginsburg


That's all I have to say on that.


Ginsburg rocks!

and that's all I have to say about that :-)




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

actually it does..
at their core is the issue of weather BUSINESSES (not people mind you) can operate their business in a way that they view as acceptable to their religious viewpoints (whatever they may be)
no matter how off the wall a belief is.
of course they probably should look at how the mainstream population is affected by these beliefs, weather the beliefs would deny people of their basis beliefs, ect. but in my opinion hobby lobby put that standard way out in the ballpark on that with their decision. a gay couple could make due without a perfect wedding cake they could improvise. Some women rely on birth control to stay healthy and functional and to have that removed from an insurance policy because of someone's bias at least to me is quite offensive! It kind of gives me the impression that women's health just isn't that important to them.
but like I said there's alot of belief systems out there and they should all be treated equally (even those of us who have adopted their own little set of rules to run on that don't quite fit into any of the mainstream religions. And well that is gonna be quite difficult to handle isn't it??

oh and by the way we the people still have the gov't trampling over our religious rights left and right with the gov't and businesses telling us to do things that tug on our heart so this has nothing to do with our freedoms


edit on 16-1-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Hobby Lobby.

5 ultra conservative religious MALE judges legislating women's reproductive rights.

Ginsburg


That's all I have to say on that.


So the law is the law and the decisions of the courts are the rule except when you disagree with them?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Would everyone still have the same opinion on this if it was about an interracial couple?

Because you know for a long time a lot of people thought interracial relationships were a sin as well so it is the same reasoning.


Heck. Until recently interracial marriage was against STATE LAW! I wonder if those who support state laws mandating what people do now, would, under the same principle, support those laws then or would laud someone who violated said law under moral principles.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc


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


Eric Garner died because he was improperly and illegally restrained - not because he was being punished for a crime

He died before he was ever charged or prosecuted. Are you saying that people should fear the cops when they break the law because this is what's likely to happen - they'll probably just end up killing you?


And he would never have been approached nor detained nor arrested nor had an interaction with the police had that not been the law.

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.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: stargatetravels
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.



But that's not what she did. She does not refuse to sell flowers to gay people--in fact she has done so before. She does not discriminate against a certain class, she has sold them flowers before. In this case she did not discriminate a group, but a specific act she had religious objections to--a wedding.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But that's not what she did. She does not refuse to sell flowers to gay people--in fact she has done so before. She does not discriminate against a certain class, she has sold them flowers before. In this case she did not discriminate a group, but a specific act she had religious objections to--a wedding.



She wasn't refusing to sell flowers to a wedding, she was refusing to sell flowers to gay people because she didn't think they should be getting married.

That's discrimination.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In this case she did not discriminate a group, but a specific act she had religious objections to--a wedding.


Does she sell flowers for other weddings? Yes. So, the fact that the couple is gay is the only difference. The Colorado baker (Jack Phillips) tried the same argument and lost.
edit on 1/16/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What about a Jewish deli that refused to provide brisket for a Nazi rally or a black person who refused to provide barbecue for a Klan rally?


What the people do with the product is none of the seller's business. The people at the grocery store don't ask me what I'm making with the food I'm buying. The cashiers at Home Depo don't sell to me based on what I'm going to DO with the items I buy there. As a citizen, I have the right to buy stuff. Period.


If it isn't a life threatening situation you shouldn't have to do anything for anyone. Maybe you SHOULD do something for someone based on societies morals, but if you are as good as forced to do so, it is WRONG.

Gay people have rights believe it or not. But so should Christians. Quit all the forcing of anyone to do anything okay?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Businesses should be able to refuse service to whoever they want unless it's a life threatening situation. Why would people waste their time and energy to sue someone that doesn't want their money?

Every store owner should be allowed to say : "Get out, I don't want your money."
Anyway, why would someone want to give their hard earned money to someone that doesn't want it?

I don't understand people...
edit on 16-1-2015 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique
If it isn't a life threatening situation you shouldn't have to do anything for anyone.


So, people shouldn't be forced to obey the law? People shouldn't be forced to refrain from killing others? Or stealing stuff? Okay. Each has his own opinion.



Gay people have rights believe it or not. But so should Christians.


Christians have just the same rights as gay people (and everyone else) have. Maybe even a few the rest of us don't have.


Quit all the forcing of anyone to do anything okay?


I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, okay?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: theMediator


Every store owner should be allowed to say : "Get out, I don't want your money."


There was a time when minorities could be refused service in restaurants. Would you support that now?

Do you ever fantasize about a time machine so you can transport back to the 1960's? Wait! That's when things started to get in an uproar about that kind of thing... so to be on the safe side, ya better make it the 1950's. (kidding)

"A rose by any other name is still a rose". Likewise, Human Beings.


edit on 1/16/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

But it isn't down - it still holds all the cards. Who do you think has the most money, the most lobbyists - and the most lawyers?



In the USA at a guess I would say AIPAC, and the jewish lobby.
The powerful people are the ones you cannot criticise.

Im not a christian, although I was brought up in a christian country. I have absorbed so much christianity, that cannot be denied. But, I am not a christian. There are too many contradictions in organised religion for my liking.
I was apparently given free will, so I do like to exercise that "god" given right, and believe based on evidence and experience and sometimes intuition. And admit that I can be wrong, and am willing to change my opinions based on the changing facts.

Humour in text is really hard sometimes. Especially subtle humour and sarcasm.
As for the quote and reason you called me humourless in the first place, I was actually agreeing with you, measuring yourself up to a sound moral compass is a noble cause, and its how I try to live my life also. I try to be honest, sometimes honesty isnt appreciated, but Id rather be hated for the truth than loved for lies, I certainly avoid using others as a step ladder to advance my own plans.
My goal is to leave this mortal coil with my honour and integrity intact, then I will personally feel I have tried my best to live an honest life and hopefully will have nothing to regret. I think that would coexist pretty well with a Buddhist ideology.

As for feminism, I do understand the cause and am very sympathetic to it. If you ask even some of the leading "feminists" they would agree that a sinister group of man hating females has indeed taken the good cause of feminism and gone militant, they seek more than equality and actually seek superiority. Heres syncronicity....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Feminism = good, feminazis = bad. Feminazis are to feminism what ISIS is to Islam.
Just like militant homosexuals that use their freedom of sexuality to play politics, just like this whole story here.

My whole point in a nutshell is this.. homosexuals are free to engage in marriage, free to buy what they like where they like. The law defines these rights. On that basis, people should be wholly free to disagree with it, if they so wish. Even if it does make them "dinosaurs". Thats equality of expression. Nothing more, nothing less.
edit on 20151America/Chicago01am1amFri, 16 Jan 2015 11:22:45 -06000115 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

edit on 20151America/Chicago01am1amFri, 16 Jan 2015 11:37:38 -06000115 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

But their being gay was the only reason she refused.
As Benevolent Heretic said, she does flowers for other weddings so she is singling out this couple for the fact that they're gay.

Everyone can twist and turn and use semantics to try and appear clever it's all irrelevant.
She broke the law, she will lose any case or any appeal and this is just and right and we should celebrate this.
It means every customer, every individual has the right to the same service and experience that every other customer has.
Nobody would stop this woman having her beliefs and living by them - she will be protected by law, but she chose to open a business and she has to treat every customer equally.

Nobody went in to her home and ripped down her crucifix or dragged her to a gay wedding and made her watch.
She runs a florist, she serves everyone.
It really is simple.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
So even if doing something makes someone feel uncomfortable about their faith, they still have to do it, for someone else, at the expense of themselves?

The business they own means that they suddenly don't have the right to say no?

Someone, I forget who to be honest, said something along the lines of 'So everyone should be allowed to kill or do whatever they want, no one should be forced not to commit crime?'

That is a null response to my first comment as it relies as false assertions about what I actually said. No. You shouldn't be forced to do anything, even obey the law. You should be prevented from doing things that harm other people. But you can't prevent an inaction. They didn't do anything overtly harmful to the person at all. Yet they have now been forced to do something (or as good as) against their will.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. False liberalism is a bitch.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
Have any of these cases been heard by the Supreme Court?


No. You don't know how law works, do you?

The previous cases have been settled at the state level and the business owners have not appealed. (Update: The baker in Colorado has recently appealed to the appellate court. Source)

They wouldn't have a chance! They have CLEARLY broken state laws. This kind of thing has never gone to the Supreme Court.



Jake Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop hopes to win at the appellate level after being told that he must serve couples wedding cakes and take a diversity course.

Phillips is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed the appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals last Wednesday.


The Hobby Lobby case is ENTIRELY different and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this. Like I said, a distraction and disinformation.


Yes, I know how the cases work.

If a business would appeal on the grounds that the state law was unconstitutional, then it could make it to the Supreme Court.

The Hobby Lobby case is very similar. A business owner argued that a law would force him to do something against his religion. He won.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

The Hobby Lobby case is very similar. A business owner argued that a law would force him to do something against his religion. He won.


Well, I think the Hobby Lobby business owner argued that a law would force him to PAY for something against his religion.

The florist sells flowers for money. She's not paying for the gay wedding is she?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Jamie1

The Hobby Lobby case is very similar. A business owner argued that a law would force him to do something against his religion. He won.


Well, I think the Hobby Lobby business owner argued that a law would force him to PAY for something against his religion.

The florist sells flowers for money. She's not paying for the gay wedding is she?


That makes it even weirder.

The SOCUS might say the law FORCES somebody to take money even if doing so is against their religious beliefs.

Since the government gives tax discounts to married men and women, couldn't the florist do the same thing? Men and women couples get discounts? Just like how our taxes work.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

When you apply for a business license you agree to the terms and conditions of the town, city, county along with the State it's to be issued from. If your business is to be open to the public, those terms mean the ENTIRE public.

It was always this way.

It used to be though that the only protected group, the only group with rights, the only group deemed as the public... were white, male, Christian, straight... as time went on, it was skin color that was protected and part of the public, then gender, then religion, then disabilities and now we're on to sexuality.

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.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join