Flower Power: Christian Florist Rejects Attorney General’s Offer

originally posted by: ketsuko
What she is drawing the line at is being asked to take part in a ceremony she finds to be sacrilegious and an affront to God, a mockery.

She is not being asked to take part in the ceremony.

a reply to: Annee

Oh, so back in the days of slavery it was cool for the people who hid slaves in states with fugitive slave laws to be fine but you were OK with the notion that people who hid slaves in states without fugitive slave laws were prosecuted for it?

Just because there is a law doesn't make it right.

And further, state law does not trump the COTUS. She has the freedom to practice her religion and ought not be required to violated her beliefs.

At what point does equality stop trumping liberty?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
What she is drawing the line at is being asked to take part in a ceremony she finds to be sacrilegious and an affront to God, a mockery.

She is not being asked to take part in the ceremony.

Yes she is.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Except in her eyes this is not a wedding.

All the better then. She can sell him flowers for a "party" that is not a wedding.

You are asking her to sin in order to satisfy this customer's desires.

What is the sin of "selling flowers for a gay wedding"? What sin is it?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

Oh, so back in the days of slavery it was cool for the people who hid slaves in states with fugitive slave laws to be fine but you were OK with the notion that people who hid slaves in states without fugitive slave laws were prosecuted for it?

Just because there is a law doesn't make it right.

And further, state law does not trump the COTUS. She has the freedom to practice her religion and ought not be required to violated her beliefs.

At what point does equality stop trumping liberty?

Stay in the present.

I'm not going to resurect the south.

The florist, Barronelle Stutzman, is citing the Washington state Constitution in protecting her. She says:

Washington's constitution guarantees us 'freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.' I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

Source

Too bad she didn't read the rest of that section...

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

In other words, she cannot break the law, regardless of her beliefs. Washington Constitution

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

All in all, we don't really disagree on much here. Just a few minor points is all. So now, I'll tell you where I get all my beliefs on this subject. I am a Christian, and have been for a very long time. But, I do not see this as just a religious argument. I'm more the laid back kind of guy, who will not force my views on anyone else, although will share them in the right situation.

I listen to my son who used to be my middle child, but is now my oldest son since my wife and I adopted twin boys who are now age 3. My oldest son is gay/bi, depending on what day it is. He has read along with me on this thread, and I really have had a few good laughs with him today. He just cannot understand how not agreeing with some of the views expressed here, automatically makes one a radical right wing Christian, gay hating person.

He also believes each and every person should be able to follow their own beliefs, and not have to adhere to what others believe are right because of a law. He said that is akin to coercion, and making one believe only their beliefs are correct. Kind of the opposite to what the laws intent is.

We also discussed whether he believes what has happened in this particular case is good for the LGBT community. He firmly believes this is the opposite kind of attention that the LGBT folks need. He thinks this is more an agenda driven response by the men to gather attention. Same thing for the AG. Why would someone who faces the possibility of this same situation in their future, disagree with those who condemn the florist?

His position is simple from what I see. You can't legislate away peoples beliefs. You can make all the laws you want, but people are still going to have their own beliefs about certain things. And I happen to agree with him on this. Forcing someone to believe the way you do is just as bad as them forcing their beliefs on you. He said something that hit it right on the head. He would rather be accepted into the community rather than forced on the community. He said if he's legislated into acceptance, then he has not gained any respect, but rather disdain for what he has forced on people.

I love my son very much. I would fight for his right to be whoever he is or wants to be. He doesn't want that. He just wants to be himself, and earn his right to do so. God, he is one awesome son.

originally posted by: retiredTxn
You can't legislate away peoples beliefs.

I don't see this as legislating peoples beliefs. They are free to believe whatever they want. This is about legislating their Business Practices.

I assume you have a job, correct. So everyone that you do a job for or work for depending on what you do, do you think and believe what they do??? No, of course not. But do you have to in order to do your job??? No, it makes no difference.

That's what this is about. Believe what you want, but we are going to regulate to a very minor degree how you conduct business. The only reason we have to do that even is because people will use their businesses to marginalize certain groups of people simply for being who they are.

originally posted by: QUANTUMGR4V17Y
There seems to be a huge lack of reading comprehension among the posters of this thread.

There is no issue with reading comprehension. You're just trying to argue with people even more dogmatic than the florist.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Not only do I thankyou and appreciate the conformation and you sharing something personal of that nature....but I gotta thankyou for my first reply on here my brother! I've been reading stuff on this site for close to 10 years (including some of yours), but just signed up a couple days ago.
Anyway, after reading your response, I come to realize, in my life, I have spent some quality time with hundreds of 'Christians'. Literally, a handful of them are what I, in my opinion, would classifying as a true 'Christian'. I could not count how many times I have witnessed contradiction.
And botherway, my older brother is a 'Metal head'! I have seen the targets on his back, and chest in his high school years alone (mid to late 80's).
(Before I hit this reply tab down here...I'd like to apologize ahead of time if did something wrong here in this reply. Not only am I using a cell phone....but after signing up here....I see the look of this site looks totally different, and don't know yet what mist of these tabs are for. I'll get it sooner or later I reckon'.)
Thanks again man!

originally posted by: retiredTxn
He just cannot understand how not agreeing with some of the views expressed here, automatically makes one a radical right wing Christian, gay hating person.

I cannot understand that either. I do not make that assumption. Far too many people jump to shove someone in a box, if you know what I mean.

He also believes each and every person should be able to follow their own beliefs, and not have to adhere to what others believe are right because of a law.

In a world full of love and honor, I would agree with that. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where people would refuse to do business with a person, simply because they're black (or gay). Does your son think that's an OK belief to have? In the civil rights era, religious people used bible verses to justify discrimination against blacks. MLK's answer to that was for the religious to look deeper into their religion.

"When Martin Luther King, Jr., confronted racism in the white church in the South, he did not call on Southern churches to become more secular. Read his sermons and 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' and see how he argued. He invoked God's moral law and the Scripture. He called white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to realize what the Bible really teaches. He did not say 'Truth is relative and everyone is free to determine what is right or wrong for them.' If everything is relative, there would have been no incentive for white people in the South to give up their power. Rather, Dr. King invoked the prophet Amos, who said, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream' (Amos 5:24). The greatest champion of justice in our era knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity"

.

Source

We also discussed whether he believes what has happened in this particular case is good for the LGBT community. He firmly believes this is the opposite kind of attention that the LGBT folks need. He thinks this is more an agenda driven response by the men to gather attention. Same thing for the AG. Why would someone who faces the possibility of this same situation in their future, disagree with those who condemn the florist?

We all have our own opinions. I don't know how old your son is, but he may change his mind when confronted with it himself. And I agree, in the short term, it's not good for the LGBT community. But what Rosa Parks did wasn't "good" for blacks in the short term, either. But she (and others like her) paved he way for the civil rights movement. In the long term, what she did was good for blacks.

You can't legislate away peoples beliefs. ... He would rather be accepted into the community rather than forced on the community. He said if he's legislated into acceptance, then he has not gained any respect, but rather disdain for what he has forced on people.

No one is trying to change this woman's mind or beliefs. She is free to believe whatever she wants, but her BUSINESS is not free to act outside the law. Of course, I'd rather people be accepted for who they are. But equal treatment under the law is in our constitution. Individuals can discriminate, but legally, businesses cannot.

God, he is one awesome son.

Sure sounds like it.

This kind of behavior by Christians is all to common and very disgusting. Makes me sad there are people like this in the world.

Thanks Abraham, for making so many of us humans stupid and brainwashed.

Blah.

originally posted by: mOjOm

I don't see this as legislating peoples beliefs. They are free to believe whatever they want. This is about legislating their Business Practices.

I assume you have a job, correct. So everyone that you do a job for or work for depending on what you do, do you think and believe what they do??? No, of course not. But do you have to in order to do your job??? No, it makes no difference.

That's what this is about. Believe what you want, but we are going to regulate to a very minor degree how you conduct business. The only reason we have to do that even is because people will use their businesses to marginalize certain groups of people simply for being who they are.

I don't think anyone should be able to legislate my business practices, because in doing so they are forcing me to do something I believe is wrong. In this case, that is what is at question. She did not marginalize any group, she sat down with her customer and explained why she felt she could not do what he asked. Right or wrong, that is her belief. If she chooses to extend that belief to her business, that is her right.

So, you are saying it is OK for the government to tell everyone how to run their business, because some people somewhere may possibly use their business to marginalize certain groups for being who they are? This is not the start of a big conspiracy to deny flowers for gay weddings. But I'm curious how every so often, this same scenario keeps popping up. Maybe it's a conspiracy by gay activists to force an agenda on the rest of us? Almost as if someone seeks out a small Mom and Pop business and feels them out first. Hmmmm.

Seriously I see some of your point, but community pressure will work much better than legislation or regulations. Me personally, I don't want to do business with someone who doesn't agree with my lifestyle. No laws needed, I'll just move on to the next business.

Oh, you were wrong. I do not have a job, I retired ten years ago at the ripe old age of 45.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
A business person who AGREES to sell flowers to the public (citizens of the state) does not suffer negative outcome for refusing to do what they have AGREED to do.

Some very well-established law disagrees with you.

Sellers, simply by virtue of having a shop or display or price listed, do not "AGREE to sell" to anyone outside of very specific or exceptional circumstances that do not apply here. They invite people to make them an offer, which the seller may then choose to accept or decline. It's called "invitation to treat" or "invitation to bargain", depending on where you are, and is a fairly fundamental concept in contract law on both sides of the Atlantic.

So, pretty much any time you are using the word "agree", even when you put it in CAPITALS (in fact, especially when you put it in capitals), you are basing your argument on a belief that is legally, factually, logically, and philosophically incorrect.

Well, speaking first hand as a man who is gay or homosexual (pick a term, I don't use them in my head), I can attest to the fact that I have not been reading along here laughing.

Religious beliefs, as Thomas Jefferson said, are an internal matter. They are a matter of conscience. The relationship between a person and whatever concept of deity (or lack thereof) is completely and utterly personal.

The Constitution very clearly says that there will be no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. How beautiful that is! How perfect!

There will be no religion established by law AND everyone is, by law, free to practice their religion (even if that is no religion).

Rights, are the most important aspect to me in the Constitution, even though I also think it creates one of the most perfect governmental systems in the world as well.

Is this really a question of rights? Is anyone being kept from going to religious services, or praying, or performing rituals, or communing with their deity however they see fit? No, of course not.

The common law regarding public accommodation is an even older concept in English/American law than freedom of religion.

Public accomodation is really equal treatment before the law, which was enshrined as the Fifth Amendment, but since some folks didn't quite get it, we had to fight a war and make it even more clear in the Fourteenth.

Equal treatment. If you serve the public, you serve the public.

No one is being kept from praying, singing hymns, etc. The Bible doesn't forbid selling cakes or flowers or anything else to anyone.

It's simple really. We all have rights.]

a reply to: EvillerBob

Bob, you may want to Google "public accommodation" just for fun.

It's really interesting.

EDIT: Sorry, that's snarky.

Perhaps you would do us a favor and link the "well established law" you're referring to? Because if I'm not mistaken, you're referring to tort and contract law.

You're absolutely right. No one can be forced to contract with anyone, but, decision after decision in the English and American court systems as well as established law states quite clearly that holding a business open to "the public" is , well, an OPEN contract for goods and services.

Yours is a much more informed argument than most though! Good job.

Mark 11:12–20 Jesus hated figs NOT fags

She is a more of a Bible thumper fundie than a true "Christian".

A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and his teachings and from what I have read he did not discriminate.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Some very well-established law disagrees with you.

What law?

It's called "invitation to treat" or "invitation to bargain", depending on where you are, and is a fairly fundamental concept in contract law on both sides of the Atlantic.

That is a totally different issue. It has nothing to do with public accommodation law.

invitation to treat,
an exploratory fact-finding, preliminary step toward entering into a possible agreement with another party, such as a letter asking for more information or an advertisement.

Source

Absolutely off topic.

originally posted by: rupertg
Mark 11:12–20 Jesus hated figs NOT fags

She is a more of a Bible thumper fundie than a true "Christian".

A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and his teachings and from what I have read he did not discriminate.

DO you remember the story about Jesus healing the Centurion's servant? The word used translated "servant" also means "beloved" ... so if that is correct, I think it's quite clear that Jesus didn't hold the same beliefs as many of his followers.

Not everyone agrees with that interpretation though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: EvillerBob

Bob, you may want to Google "public accommodation" just for fun.

It's really interesting.

Hold that thought, because it ties in to something much more intriguing. It's just a bit late here for me to put together a post that addresses it suitably tonight.