Judge Rules Against Christian Florist Who Refused to Provide Flowers for Gay Wedding

a reply to: OneManArmy

backbone I have properly working feet I don't!!
how much inconvenience should others have to put up with for a person's "religious freedom" to act with righteous bias toward another human being????

as far as the banks bailouts that is just our political mafias and gangs ripping us off more if you don't like it well what can I say vote for candidates that aren't of the two main parties??

a reply to: Jamie1

but not serving a women unless she is covered from head to toe would in my opinion be sexual discrimination. since he wouldn't be expecting a man to dress in a similar fashion would he?

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Jamie1

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.

That's a valid point. For those people who call for "there aught to be a law" for this or that that displeases them, remember that ultimately men with guns will enforce that law and people could die. Remember that Eric Garner died, ultimately, because his fellow New Yorkers demanded that those nasty cigarettes have an excessive tax imposed upon them.

Be careful what you wish for when you cry, "there aught to be a law."

And I have zero desire to live in your world of anarchy.

Just so we're ckear.

So not having checks and balances to restrict government power equals anarchy?

Anarchy is varied in its definitions. Yep, I've read up on it. Definitely not black and white.

I live in a society. A society of rules and laws.

Been in enough discussions with Navy Doc to know we don't agree politically. But, we have our good days too

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: My_Reality

Do you realize you keep referring to gay "lifestyle"? Do you understand how wrong that is?

Lifestyle is what you've chosen for a career, if you like sports cars or trucks, if you like Mexican food or Sushi, if you prefer an apartment or a private home, if you choose to raise a family or not, etc etc.

Orientation is the natural born sexual attraction, whether it be to same sex, opposite sex, or of the trans groups.

This woman was sent a letter from the state stating she was in violation of the states anti-discrimination law. She was given every opportunity to comply. She refused.

America is a secular country. While we have religious freedom, religion is not law.

Not one lawsuit of a business in a state with sexual orientation defined as discrimination has won their lawsuit for religious reasons.

Did you know she's trying to change her story? Now she's saying she misunderstood. That they just wanted to buy loose flowers to make their own arrangements. Too late.

I don't care if she some sweet gramma. I'm a gramma too.

She had a CHOICE. She made her CHOICE. She will now live with her CHOICE.

Getting married is lifestyle. The florist didn't provide flowers for the wedding, not because of orientation.

Have any of these cases been heard by the Supreme Court?

If the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that a belief about contraception was an inalienable religious freedom, it would follow that beliefs about homosexuality will be given equal, if not greater weight. Homosexuality is considered a "sin" by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, right?

Hobby Lobby.

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

Ginsburg

That's all I have to say on that.

a reply to: Jamie1

they also consider going into debt a sin
seems like our gov'ts go out of their way to encourage us to do that one and don't hear many complaining about it
griping at us about being in debt ya but not about how the gov't is manipulating everythings so so many of us have very little choice but to go into debt!

a reply to: Jamie1

Dear Jamie1 -

Go - fish

:-)

originally posted by: Annee
Hobby Lobby.

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

Ginsburg

That's all I have to say on that.

Not forcing a company to pay for birth control is not legislating women's reproductive rights.

Any women is still free to have sex and bear children.

There is no Constitutional "right" to force somebody else to pay for her birth control.

Where do you come up with that? Is there something in the Constitution that you're interpreting to mean that anybody has right to force somebody to pay for their birth control?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Jamie1

Dear Jamie1 -

Go - fish

:-)

Have you been pondering the Buddha walking up to the florist, aiming a gun at her, and telling her he will shoot her, put her in a cage, or take her money unless she sells flowers to the gay men for their wedding?

Would everyone still have the same opinion on this if it was about an interracial couple?

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

a reply to: Jamie1

first isn't no one forcing anyone to buy their birth control!
the gov't has seen fit to force companies to provide insurance plans for their employees and have written up standards as to what they insurance should include. birth control is one of those services.
for some people getting pregnant and carrying a baby full term can cause serious medical problems....
please explain to me, without any "god says", "sin" or any other religious whatever why such people should be covered for viagra but not to be covered for something that is necessary to keep them healthy! your religion should not be allowed to endanger another human being!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Jamie1

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.

That's a valid point. For those people who call for "there aught to be a law" for this or that that displeases them, remember that ultimately men with guns will enforce that law and people could die. Remember that Eric Garner died, ultimately, because his fellow New Yorkers demanded that those nasty cigarettes have an excessive tax imposed upon them.

Be careful what you wish for when you cry, "there aught to be a law."

And I have zero desire to live in your world of anarchy.

Just so we're ckear.

So not having checks and balances to restrict government power equals anarchy?

Anarchy is varied in its definitions. Yep, I've read up on it. Definitely not black and white.

I live in a society. A society of rules and laws.

Been in enough discussions with Navy Doc to know we don't agree politically. But, we have our good days too

Its good to be able to have an argument with someone and nobody takes it personal.
Thats what debate is about.

and if the supreme court was concerned about people's religious rights I kind of think they would have made a move to ensure that the PEOPLE didn't have to provide the birth control coverage not businesses..
if you had a minor daughter you would still be required to provide her with insurance that includes birth control!

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

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

I was a senior in high school when the Civil Rights Act was past.

It's very surreal to me that this happened in my lifetime.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Jamie1

first isn't no one forcing anyone to buy their birth control!
the gov't has seen fit to force companies to provide insurance plans for their employees and have written up standards as to what they insurance should include. birth control is one of those services.
for some people getting pregnant and carrying a baby full term can cause serious medical problems....
please explain to me, without any "god says", "sin" or any other religious whatever why such people should be covered for viagra but not to be covered for something that is necessary to keep them healthy! your religion should not be allowed to endanger another human being!

Forget Viagra. I don't think anybody has a right to have their Viagra paid for either.

So I want to understand the logic here.

A woman goes on a date. She wants to have sex. She invites a guy home. They take their clothes off. They have foreplay. That's not enough. She wants to have intercourse. Without a condom. She completes the sex act.

A few weeks later she discovers she's pregnant.

And now she blames somebody else's religion for her being pregnant.

Are you serious?

...and there I was thinkin' all florists were gay...

Å99

a reply to: OneManArmy

Firstly sorry for being blunt, I didnt mean for it to come across that way. I do have a sense of humour in here somewhere.
Honest.

I'm sorry too - it's always a little mean to say someone is humorless. Have you noticed how touchy everyone is lately? I know it's hard to tell when people are being funny in here sometimes. Humor doesn't always read very well. Especially when it seems like we're all jumping each others, er - crap :-)

Its propaganda. Gays have rights, there are laws against discrimination. Time to move on.
But no, lets keep kicking Christianity while its down.

But it isn't down - it still holds all the cards. Who do you think has the most money, the most lobbyists - and the most lawyers? How many Christians hold positions in our government - at both the state and federal level? How many Christians are there in the USA?

Some of the things done in the name of Christianity are wrong. Discrimination is discrimination. Should we allow Christians special privileges? It's not time to move on. Gay people are citizens - like everyone else. There's no reason for anyone to treat them differently

Let me ask you something - do you think this woman also turns away adulterers? Fornicators? Idolators? People who eat shrimp? Gosh - maybe she does - I guess I don't really know :-)

Christians don't have to indulge in homosexual behavior. They don't have to approve of it - but if they have a business that's open to the public - they have to serve the public. That's all of us - and that's the law

If you want to work at changing that law you can try. If you succeed, do you think you'll like living with the result?

Its like feminism, it has been corrupted by sick twisted man hating lesbians. The feminist battle for equality is mostly won, but the feminazi crazies keep making stuff up, like "rape culture" or the "patriarchy", they skew statistics to say women get payed less than men, but when you compare like for like, women actually get paid MORE than men.

Not touching that - I can see where this leads and I'm not sure we can find common ground here. Feminazi crazies notwithstanding, I'm not sure you understand feminism in a way that allows you to be sympathetic

I'm sorry that you see this struggle for people to be treated equally as an attack on Christianity - I really do. There have been a lot of Christians in my life - none of them seem to be upset about equality or homosexuality. Two of my dearest friends were so Christian one wanted to become a minister - the other a priest. They both had to leave all that behind because they would have to choose between being in the church or being gay - and one of those two choices isn't really a choice

The world is changing OneManArmy - I feel your pain. In some ways for the better - in some ways it gets worse - and none of us is ever going to agree on which is which

a reply to: CranialSponge

:-)

A moose once bit my sister...

a reply to: NavyDoc

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

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

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

a reply to: Jamie1

how do you know the women is going out on a date? Maybe she is married and really doesn't want the sex just a peacefull home and it wouldn't be that peaceful if her hubby didn't have the sex. Or maybe the guy has this guy for a preacher:

A Texas evangelical pastor has highlighted the importance of sex for married Christians, calling it God's superglue for marriage. Ed Young of the Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, is preaching more sex to his congregation. He and his wife, Lisa, will be participating a 24-hour experiment to underline the importance of regular sex between married Christian couples. They call it the "Sexperiment,” which also the name of their latest book.

www.christianpost.com...

and who knows maybe those times when this preacher isn't preaching at the congregation to have more sex his is preaching the old line of "wives submit to you husbands" and all that!

and if the truth be told the whole ruling doesn't really address the issue does it? It just shifts the burden for the birth control coverage off of the companies profit and loss statements and onto the taxpayer's budgets. So if there is really any sin well it passes it onto everyone.. including the owners of the business who if they have any minor daughters will have to still provide that coverage they object to to them!

and I don't want to hear how they should just buy the stuff themselves when they are being forced to buy an outrageous insurance policy since if I am gonna pay out that kind of money I expect the coverage to cover something that is this important to most females!

and well how do you know that any person one person who might be affected by a merchant who refuses to sell something on religious grounds has the opportunity to find what they need elsewhere? I suppose next the taxpayers will get to foot the bill so the person can travel to the closest business a few towns over will sell it to them?

Who knows where the heck this will stop? There are quite a few religions in this country and even more different ways to interpret them. It's quite possible that sooner or later we will all be affected by someone's belief system!