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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Oh, so you're just speculating - I thought you may have read something.

Actually, the state is suing the florist, too, so even if the couple were completely uninvolved, the florist would be in court. The couple is being represented by the ACLU. I really doubt their wedding was ruined.


originally posted by: markosity1973
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?


The trial is set for March 23rd of this year, so it hasn't been in court yet. She did not provide flowers for the wedding, so there was no angst in obtaining them. I'm sure they got flowers elsewhere, just as the Colorado couple got their cake elsewhere.



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.


It's not to try to make her provide roses. It's to prevent discrimination in business. A business that refuses service because one is black, white, a Jew, a Christian, etc., is breaking the law.




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

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.
edit on AMThu, 15 Jan 2015 11:00:06 -060015America/Chicago1032015Thursdayf by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Here is the original story. The state is suing for not adhering to state anti discrimination law.

The ACLU is suing in behalf of the couple.

www.tri-cityherald.com.../2013/03/06/2300728_richland-flower-shop-turns-away.html


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



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace




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


I'm not sure I understand any of this - it's very confusing for us not-religious types

Did Jesus say not to sell flowers to gay folks - or did Jesus say not to be gay?

I always thought Jesus said to love everybody and to treat them as they would be treated themselves

I'm pretty sure I heard him say his father would sort things out later - you know - after everyone is croaked

It's a very confusing religion...

:-)

edit on 1/15/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: :-)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

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

About the only people he let rustle his jimmies was the money changers.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: EternalSolace




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


I'm not sure I understand any of this - it's very confusing for us not-religious types

Did Jesus say not to sell flowers to gay folks - or did Jesus say not to be gay?

I always thought Jesus said to love everybody and to treat them as they would be treated themselves

I'm pretty sure I heard him say his father would sort things out later - you know - after everyone is croaked

It's a very confusing religion...

:-)


People like to pick and choose things from the old testament and use them to excuse their personal bigotry and claim discrimination against their beliefs anytime someone calls them on it. They claim to be Christians, but completely choose to ignore Christ's teachings when it suits them. What I find most sad about all this is, you never really hear Jews hating on gays and sinners like Christians do, and they only have the old testament and none of Jesus teachings about love, tolerance, and leaving the judgement of sin to God.

If anything she should be grateful, the state is actually enforcing her religious beliefs.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I'll bet they called several places before they found one that would pay for their wedding via a law suit. What a joke these freaks are becoming. Just go find a place that is "gay friendly." No, we want to sue someone and make a spectacle of our gayness.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? WHAT IF JESUS WAS GAY?


I think he would continue to respect the rights of the store to refuse service to anyone. Then he would not lift a finger to help as the store began to crumble days later. He might say the only thing i dislike more than a straight florist are judges.

This is clearly social programming.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Money changers been rustling some jimmies big time lately... :-)

Figures Wall Street would be what heralds in the Apocalypse - I just knew it wasn't gonna be lepers, petty thieves or whores!


edit on 1/15/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

breaking what law?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

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?


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



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
If gays are so much accepted as they say they are why are they suing everyone into actually accepting who they are? Makes no sense to me.. I doubt the polls are as close to the approval as the MSM would like us to believe. Actually I don't think many care one way or the other until they start pulling stunts like this or they push their LGBT agenda on 5 year olds..



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: truckdriver42
If gays are so much accepted as they say they are why are they suing everyone into actually accepting who they are?


The state is suing.

State made a law. She is refusing to follow the law.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

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



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

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?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join