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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Can the state force a Muslim artist to draw a cartoon of Mohammed?


Only if he draws it for one customer and refuses to draw it for another.

If he never draws it for anyone, no problem.




edit on 15-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Jamie1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Can the state force a Muslim artist to draw a cartoon of Mohammed?


Only if he draws it for one customer and refuses to draw it for another.

If he never draws it for anyone, no problem.





That reasoning makes no sense.

It presupposes the Muslim cartoonist either follows his religion all the time, or else the state will force him to act against his religion.

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.

Should the state also force doctors to perform abortions? Put doctors in a cage at gunpoint if they refuse to do so?

How is this moral, ethical, or legal?

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?



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

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I went a good part of life walking wherever I went, didn't get a driver's license till I was pregnant with my third child and ever after that I walked alot. What can I say I liked walking, but got to tell ya something. If I needed something and had walked miles for it just to find out someone wouldn't sell it to me because of some stupid bias toward me I would have been rather upset!!
You don't want to sell to certain groups of people okay!!! You put a sign on your door with big bold letters stating it and you put ads in the paper announcing it!!! I would be happy with that. At least then you wouldn't be inconveniencing others with a wasted trip.

Besides that way we would all know who the bigots were and could just avoid those places.

If the christains feel that they should be allowed deny services like this then can the restaurant owners decide they don't want to serve them their after sunday service meals??? I mean if things are still like I remember then it can be a major inconvenience to a restaurant to have 10-20 people show up all at once singing their praises to god expecting to all be able to sit as a group and discuss religion so loud that they drive off the regular heathens that come in everyday!



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   

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.


Do you understand the difference between laws and rights? .

None of the laws you allude to grant anybody a "right" to participate in commerce. The laws only ban discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, etc.

Want proof?

If a shop owner simply finds somebody offensive, say for not wearing appropriate clothing, or for being rude, they can tell them to leave. If they suspect they stole something previously they can ban them from their store. You don't have a right to be provided services or goods anywhere. The shop owner just can't discriminate based on gender, race, religion, etc.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Yes, dear, that's what I said in my first paragraph. The law says you can't be discriminatory when engaging in public commerce. That means you can't freely exercise your religion - when your religion says you must discriminate.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Jamie1

Yes, dear, that's what I said in my first paragraph. The law says you can't be discriminatory when engaging in public commerce. That means you can't freely exercise your religion - when your religion says you must discriminate.


No, it doesn't say that at all.

That's because The Constitution says that Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There are laws written and passed by states all the time that the Supreme Court overturns because they are unconstitutional. That's why the florist has a lawyer and is litigating this case.

Case in point: abortion.

Before Roe v Wade the laws defined abortion as illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional right to privacy trumped the state laws that made abortion illegal.

The florist is making the same argument. She didn't deny the gay guy service. He was a long time customer. She simply didn't want to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs about gay marriage.

The Civil Rights Acts does not mention sexual orientation. It will be up to a judge to decide if the florist has the right to defy the state law on discriminating based on sexual orientation because of her religious beliefs.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1



The Civil Rights Acts does not mention sexual orientation. It will be up to a judge to decide if the florist has the right to defy the state law on discriminating based on sexual orientation because of her religious beliefs.


Well according to the title of the OP, a judge HAS ruled that the florist has no right to defy state law on discriminating because of her religious beliefs.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
If a shop owner simply finds somebody offensive, say for not wearing appropriate clothing, or for being rude, they can tell them to leave. If they suspect they stole something previously they can ban them from their store. You don't have a right to be provided services or goods anywhere. The shop owner just can't discriminate based on gender, race, religion, etc.


This case is based on STATE LAW, not the civil rights act or the Constitution.

Washington State Law



Washington State Law Prohibits Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation

The law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on the following:

Race • Honorably discharged veteran or military status • Color • HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C status • National Origin
• Pregnancy or maternity • Sex • Sexual orientation or gender identity • Creed • Use of a guide dog or service animal by a person with a disability


A business owner can refuse to serve an INDIVIDUAL for specific reasons (dirty, drunk, disorderly, etc.), but they cannot refuse service based on the group a customer belongs to, as listed above. Not all states share this law, but if you're going to have a business, you need to obey the business laws of that state.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
As a gay person who lives this, I'm just saying it's better to take a leaf from the Christian's own bible and use it against them


I'm with you. That's what I'd do. I'd leave the establishment and either do without or find a way to make flowers happen. I'd get someone else to order them if it came to that. I wouldn't force the issue.

But the legal right exists and just because someone chose a different path than I would doesn't make it "wrong". If ANYONE who is a victim of discrimination chooses to turn the other cheek, that's fine. And if they choose to take the route that Rosa Parks took, and stand up and say, I'm not going to take this anymore, well, I support them in doing so, especially since (unlike Rosa Parks) the law is already on their side.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

To act like a victim, cry poor me and get the law involved.

OR

To see the florist for who she is; an ignorant fool, walk out the door (after maybe expressing freedom of speech and telling her what was thought of her) and going to another service provider.



Or the 3rd option they took
To act not like the victim, but rather the hammer and report their asses for discrimination (against the law), and take their business elsewhere...not before shining a bright light on that florist so everyone in the nation knows what sort of bigots work there.

It is not a sign of weakness to destroy those whom have insulted you when they deserve it.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
If my life is not endangered, why should I waste good energy fighting over something petty like flowers for my wedding day?


YOU shouldn't. If you don't want to fight that battle, then don't. But the only reason you can now live openly with your partner and psychotic cat is that those before you FOUGHT to gain more societal acceptance. They stopped hiding. They came out, announced who they were, telling the world, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!"

Not everyone is going to feel the same way about it as you do.

You keep saying their wedding was ruined over this. Why do you say that?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
If a shop owner simply finds somebody offensive, say for not wearing appropriate clothing, or for being rude, they can tell them to leave. If they suspect they stole something previously they can ban them from their store. You don't have a right to be provided services or goods anywhere. The shop owner just can't discriminate based on gender, race, religion, etc.


This case is based on STATE LAW, not the civil rights act or the Constitution.

Washington State Law



Washington State Law Prohibits Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation

The law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on the following:

Race • Honorably discharged veteran or military status • Color • HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C status • National Origin
• Pregnancy or maternity • Sex • Sexual orientation or gender identity • Creed • Use of a guide dog or service animal by a person with a disability


A business owner can refuse to serve an INDIVIDUAL for specific reasons (dirty, drunk, disorderly, etc.), but they cannot refuse service based on the group a customer belongs to, as listed above. Not all states share this law, but if you're going to have a business, you need to obey the business laws of that state.


Since the incorporation cases of the early 1900's in the supreme court, Constitutionally protected rights are also considered to apply to state and municipal governments as well, which is why the state cannot keep ten commandments on the grounds of a state courthouse under the First Amendment as well.

IMHO, these laws are applied unequally and only protect thought and exercise that is agreed with but not others.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
People say that here and now, but I'd wager if a news article came out about a Muslim forced to sell pork


No one is forcing the florist to sell anything that she doesn't already sell! You're twisting the issue. If the Muslim doesn't sell pork, NO ONE is saying they should be forced to.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Since the incorporation cases of the early 1900's in the supreme court, Constitutionally protected rights are also considered to apply to state and municipal governments as well, which is why the state cannot keep ten commandments on the grounds of a state courthouse under the First Amendment as well.


OK. I don't see the relevance.



IMHO, these laws are applied unequally and only protect thought and exercise that is agreed with but not others.


Like what? What is not protected? If a Satanist owns a flower shop and a Christian wants flowers for a "Religious Revival for Jesus", the Satanist is obligated by law to sell them to the Christian.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

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 is.

Orientation is a protected minority in this state.


edit on 15-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18882633]

You keep saying their wedding was ruined over this. Why do you say that?


Because I worked as a jeweller for many years.

If I had a dollar for the amount of times I was told I was ruining someone's wedding when the smallest thing went slightly wonky, like the rings arriving a day late in spite of the fact the wedding was weeks away I'd have a nice little nest egg.

Weddings are more stress than anything else for a lot of people and they fixate on little things, hyperventilate and turn them into Big Things.

Which us what this couple did.

I maintain it was a crappy thing for the florist to do, but how long did it have to drag through the courts and how much did they pay in lawyers fees to prove she was wrong, and how many people at the wedding even noticed the flowers compared to the level of angst that was reached in obtaining them?

Technically they had the law on their side, but what a lot of effort to go to just to make an angry lady provide a few roses.




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join