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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
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, 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.


That sounds like an opinion. You should have no problem with Christians full stop, they built the foundations of these western principles of freedom and tolerance that allow you to share your opinion freely.

Its not her religious beliefs that are under attack, its her God given right to practice them, and abide by them that is under attack.




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy
"Homosexual brutally executed, just for being gay"


Homosexual brutally executed? Is that like death by fisting or something?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OneManArmy
"Homosexual brutally executed, just for being gay"


Homosexual brutally executed? Is that like death by fisting or something?


By a sex in the city marathon, plus the 2 movies directors cut, rinse and repeat.

Awful way to die.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
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.



You can believe what you want to believe or have your own opinions. The Constitution is explicit in that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. The law is directed at the government, not at the individual. The government is forbidden from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There is no express or implied Constitutional requirement that an individual must prove their religious beliefs, or that they are acting in accordance with them, to government agents with guns.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

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?


Jews have been discriminated against for centuries. CENTURIES!!!
Have you never read about WW2? Being refused business was the least of their problems.
Only yesterday I heard a jewish bloke describing being spat at and told to eff off, just for wearing his skullcap.

As for your last point, its not hardcore christians, its hardcore control freaks. Psychopaths who use the ignorance of others for their own gain. It was here before religion, and it will be here long after. The same type of people that use God to persuade people to commit suicide or murder, or illegal wars on sovereign countries.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
You can believe what you want to believe or have your own opinions. The Constitution is explicit in that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. The law is directed at the government, not at the individual. The government is forbidden from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There is no express or implied Constitutional requirement that an individual must prove their religious beliefs, or that they are acting in accordance with them, to government agents with guns.



Okay, so you can refuse to serve someone because of your religious beliefs but you can practically make up those beliefs on the spot because no one's going to fact check you?

Cmon now Jamie, your losing the battle with logic here. Just admit that if you're going to go into business, you cant discriminate against people for BS reason's and then claim your religious freedom is under attack.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: deadeyedick

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


This is really simple. Washington State passed a law. The florist thinks the law's requirement violates her Constitutional right to the free expression of her religion.

There are no Supreme Court rulings that have ever declared a person is required to violate their own religious beliefs and be forced to sell anything to gays.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OneManArmy
"Homosexual brutally executed, just for being gay"


Homosexual brutally executed? Is that like death by fisting or something?


LMAO, its funny because its wrong on so many levels.

See I do have a sense of humour, its just a bit "strange".



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

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.


No she does not get that right.

If you don't want to abide by the laws of owning a business. Then don't do it.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
The Constitution is explicit in that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion.


She is free to exercise her religion. No one is stopping her from going to church, praying, worshiping, witnessing, or anything that constitutes the free exercise of religion. No one has made any laws that prevent her from practicing her religion.

She CHOOSES to sell flowers to the public. By state law, she cannot discriminate against someone because they're gay. Period.

All this other blah,blah,blah you insist on bringing into the discussion is just a distraction and disinformation.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

Christians claim to follow the Bible, the bible does not condone this, nor does it tell her to do this. You cannot just claim something is your religious belief and then it suddenly becomes ok, if you cannot prove it is actually part of your RECOGNIZED religion.

So once again, prove to me where, in Christianity it is written, that she must turn a gay man away from buying flowers or she has committed a sin against her religion, as Christianity is the religion she claims to follow. How is this a Christian belief that is being tred upon?

If she claims to follow Christianity, it is following the traditions of Christian religion that is protected, which when it comes to homosexuality, thanks to Christ's reformation of the church, only means, you yourself participating in homosexuality is sin, past that it is the province of God not the Christian to pass judgement.

Is the law forcing her to have lesbian sex? If not, is not intruding upon her religious beliefs and rights in the least.

Also, seeing as Christ liked saying things like, "let he who was without sin cast the first stone" don't expect God to close the gates on the gay man anytime soon for being gay, nor having too harsh a judgement.

If God loves and accepts the gay man despite his sin, why can't she?

Wonder if she ever ate shellfish...
edit on PMThu, 15 Jan 2015 14:25:12 -060015America/Chicago1032015Thursdayf by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Jamie1
You can believe what you want to believe or have your own opinions. The Constitution is explicit in that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. The law is directed at the government, not at the individual. The government is forbidden from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There is no express or implied Constitutional requirement that an individual must prove their religious beliefs, or that they are acting in accordance with them, to government agents with guns.



Okay, so you can refuse to serve someone because of your religious beliefs but you can practically make up those beliefs on the spot because no one's going to fact check you?

Cmon now Jamie, your losing the battle with logic here. Just admit that if you're going to go into business, you cant discriminate against people for BS reason's and then claim your religious freedom is under attack.


Of course that's what it means. You can make up religious beliefs on the spot. The government, my declaration of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, is forbidden from making any laws that would prohibit you from making up religious beliefs on the spot.

Is it more logical to have government agents aim guns at an old lady and threaten to take her money or put her in a cage unless she sells flowers to 2 guys for their wedding? It's sick.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973


Change doesn't always come instantly. But things are getting easier for gay folk and we need to be grateful for that. I guess the younger generations coming through haven't seen the changes that I have - my country go from homosexuality being illegal through legalisation, then civil unions and finally marriage. They simply don't realise how far we have come in less than half of my lifetime.



Kia ora my friend. We have, indeed, come a long way in a short time and it is very heartening to see. While we still have a way to go, we are setting a good example for others to follow.

We very nearly had a gay leader of a major political party. Muldoon would be rolling in his grave.

Ka kite ano,




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneManArmy

Jews have been discriminated against for centuries. CENTURIES!!!
Have you never read about WW2? Being refused business was the least of their problems.
Only yesterday I heard a jewish bloke describing being spat at and told to eff off, just for wearing his skullcap.


Okay, so Jews beings refused service in Nazi germany is a very good point, but let me add to it. Jews were made a scapegoat in germany in order to bring support for hitler's socialist party. This was done so that the jew's, who owned the majority of business and thus, held a lot of wealth within germany, could have all of their property and possessions confiscated by the state without other's protesting such a disgusting act. Those that flee'd germany were not discriminated against in their new countries, for example the UK. Jew's are still not discriminated against here. And my point remains, i have never read a news story of someone being refused service because of their religion.


As for your last point, its not hardcore christians, its hardcore control freaks. Psychopaths who use the ignorance of others for their own gain. It was here before religion, and it will be here long after. The same type of people that use God to persuade people to commit suicide or murder, or illegal wars on sovereign countries.


In the specific case of Uganda, it is hardcore christian fundie's who have polluted those people with their hate for homosexuals. They fund politicians to pass such disgusting law's because they think they're going to make some sort of utopia in an african country. Im not going to discriminate though, its well known that muslims are also making a play a control the hearts and minds of those living on the african continent, they're doing just as much damage with their hate speech and religious texts.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Jamie1
You can believe what you want to believe or have your own opinions. The Constitution is explicit in that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. The law is directed at the government, not at the individual. The government is forbidden from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There is no express or implied Constitutional requirement that an individual must prove their religious beliefs, or that they are acting in accordance with them, to government agents with guns.



Okay, so you can refuse to serve someone because of your religious beliefs but you can practically make up those beliefs on the spot because no one's going to fact check you?

Cmon now Jamie, your losing the battle with logic here. Just admit that if you're going to go into business, you cant discriminate against people for BS reason's and then claim your religious freedom is under attack.


Of course that's what it means. You can make up religious beliefs on the spot. The government, my declaration of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, is forbidden from making any laws that would prohibit you from making up religious beliefs on the spot.

Is it more logical to have government agents aim guns at an old lady and threaten to take her money or put her in a cage unless she sells flowers to 2 guys for their wedding? It's sick.


So i can legally claim that i cant serve black people because my religion forbids it?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Jamie1
You can believe what you want to believe or have your own opinions. The Constitution is explicit in that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. The law is directed at the government, not at the individual. The government is forbidden from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There is no express or implied Constitutional requirement that an individual must prove their religious beliefs, or that they are acting in accordance with them, to government agents with guns.



Okay, so you can refuse to serve someone because of your religious beliefs but you can practically make up those beliefs on the spot because no one's going to fact check you?

Cmon now Jamie, your losing the battle with logic here. Just admit that if you're going to go into business, you cant discriminate against people for BS reason's and then claim your religious freedom is under attack.


No, Jamie is 100% correct. Freedom in its true sense, is the right to do just what you describe.
Your losing the battle for freedom and giving in to government tyranny. For misguided righteous reasons.
Freedom is the right to have a religion for each hour of the day, should you so choose. And be an athiest on a Monday if you like. You can worship slugs, if that floats your boat. Thats the point of freedom. As long as it harms no one else or infringes on the freedom of others.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Actually a religion has to be recognized by the state, there is a process by which a religion becomes official, you actually cannot make up a religion on the spot. If your religion is not officially recognized, the laws that protect freedom of religion do not apply to them.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc

originally posted by: Jamie1
You can believe what you want to believe or have your own opinions. The Constitution is explicit in that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion. The law is directed at the government, not at the individual. The government is forbidden from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

There is no express or implied Constitutional requirement that an individual must prove their religious beliefs, or that they are acting in accordance with them, to government agents with guns.



Okay, so you can refuse to serve someone because of your religious beliefs but you can practically make up those beliefs on the spot because no one's going to fact check you?

Cmon now Jamie, your losing the battle with logic here. Just admit that if you're going to go into business, you cant discriminate against people for BS reason's and then claim your religious freedom is under attack.


Of course that's what it means. You can make up religious beliefs on the spot. The government, my declaration of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, is forbidden from making any laws that would prohibit you from making up religious beliefs on the spot.

Is it more logical to have government agents aim guns at an old lady and threaten to take her money or put her in a cage unless she sells flowers to 2 guys for their wedding? It's sick.


So i can legally claim that i cant serve black people because my religion forbids it?


You can claim it, but that claim would be in conflict with the Civil Rights Act which expressly prohibits discrimination against people based on race or skin color.

You might want to research the multitude of Supreme Court decisions on the topic.




top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join