Flower Power: Christian Florist Rejects Attorney General’s Offer

What a silly cow, dictating what you do with her flowers once you buy them.


At lease this thread isn't about gay cakes anymore, gay flowers, let me think can we give them a name...hmmm, Pansies?

a new testament divorce is very restricted. it doesn't allow for putting off your marriage due to difference of religion. it doesn't allow for putting off your marriage for anything other than adultery, and THEN, the person who commited the adultery is not suppose to marry ever again.

now how's a florist going to verify THAT? and where does it end?

Florist:
"You lied to your parents when you were 7 years old! Sorry, no flowers fer you!"

Customer:
"Okay, thanks Holy Spirit for setting me straight. Bye."

a reply to: EvillerBob

When do Muslim clerks at 7-11 get to refuse to sell cigarettes, beer and pork products that is against their religion?

It's going to be a fun day in America when we all get to discriminate based on whatever sect of a religion we follow isn't it?

customer walks in to florist shop. she's draped in finery, is clearly wealthy, is 200 lbs over weight and has a big bag of doritos and a 2 liter coke in her hands. she tells the florist she needs flowers for her wedding. biblically, this woman is a glutton and a "rich man". and it is plainly evident. the florist will be encouraging the wedding of a person who is not following biblical teaching about the sin of amassing great wealth and being gluttonous.

is the florist going to provide this woman with flowers? everyone here knows the answer to that.

Which Bible verse says that someone shouldn't sell someone flowers?


2nd.

p.s. oh there is one other condition for separation in the new testament, but not a divorce, just a separation, and that is if your spouse doesn't want to live with you anymore. however, neither of you are free to look for a new spouse/sex partner, or it immediately becomes adultery.

who here wants to bet she has provided flowers for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of adulterous people ?
it's just not logical to pick out homosexuals in particular, for her "no flowers based on sin", restriction. somebody help that lady quick. probably too late, as she will likely be drummed out of business now for not exercising her common sense.

Sometimes I think these people do this on purpose for the attention that will be created for their bigoted business.


She'll probably start and online delivery service that will cater to many with the same values ideology...



All the bigots in her area will flock to the shop for their flowers.



Good for business.

I'd bet there is more bigots around her area to buy flowers than homosexuals.

This is stupid to me, The article cleary says this was a longtime customer. Was this customer newly gay? She's taken the money multiple times previously. She's a fool and I hope she loses her business.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I don't want to live in a world that forces the compliance of its citizens. We might not agree with this florist, but I also don't think forcing her to comply to your belief system is the right thing either.

The customer isn't forcing her to comply with his belief system... She doesn't have to approve of gay marriage. She has sold this very customer flowers before and didn't consider herself to be "complying with his belief system", even though she's always known he was gay.

In fact, the florist is the one forcing HER belief system on her customers.

The government forces the compliance of its citizens whenever the law is involved. And the fact is, the law says a business owner cannot discriminate against this man because of who he sleeps with. That's business and state law. If she's not willing to follow the law, then she needs to pay a fine, just as ANY of us would.

If you drive a car, but refuse to get a license, because it's against your belief system, the law will eventually catch up with you and make you comply with the law or face punishment. That's all that's going on here.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: EvillerBob

When do Muslim clerks at 7-11 get to refuse to sell cigarettes, beer and pork products that is against their religion?

It's going to be a fun day in America when we all get to discriminate based on whatever sect of a religion we follow isn't it?

Well, if the owners of 7-11 decided to stop selling cigarettes, beer or pork products because they disagreed on religious grounds, who are we to override the decision? Complain about it, by all means. Point out what a silly business decision it is, certainly. Force them by law? That's a step too far.

If the florist shop was owned by someone else who didn't object (which is a closer analogy to the scenario you have presented) then my position would be that she should either follow the directions of the business owner or consider alternative employment.

originally posted by: undo
customer walks in to florist shop. she's draped in finery, is clearly wealthy, is 200 lbs over weight and has a big bag of doritos and a 2 liter coke in her hands. she tells the florist she needs flowers for her wedding. biblically, this woman is a glutton and a "rich man". and it is plainly evident. the florist will be encouraging the wedding of a person who is not following biblical teaching about the sin of amassing great wealth and being gluttonous.

is the florist going to provide this woman with flowers? everyone here knows the answer to that.

Very good point. Yes, it's likely she is picking and choosing what beliefs to uphold. Christians as a rule tend to treat the Bible a bit like a buffet.

To refer back to my post, however, while I pointed out that I could see the arguments in her favour, my actual decision to support her was not based on religious beliefs but on a much more fundamental question - why should anyone be able to use the law to force a business into a transaction they don't want to make?

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
When do Muslim clerks at 7-11 get to refuse to sell cigarettes, beer and pork products that is against their religion?

I appreciate your point, but it's not the same circumstance. This florist is refusing the customer because of who the customer is (gay). A Muslim clerk would be refusing because of the PRODUCT, and he would refuse to sell it to ANYONE. Refusing to sell a product is not discriminating (You can't discriminate against a product). Selling that product, but refusing to sell it to women (for example) is discrimination.

The florist is refusing the CUSTOMER and the Muslim clerk is refusing the PRODUCT. If the clerk sold cigarettes to some people but not to others, that would be discrimination.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

In fact, the florist is the one forcing HER belief system on her customers.

Because he can't get married without flowers?

There are two scenarios. She doesn't sell him the flowers, or she sells him the flowers.

1) She doesn't sell him the flowers. She isn't acting contrary to her beliefs, he isn't prevented from getting married.
2) She does sell him the flowers. She has been forced to act contrary to her beliefs, he isn't prevented from getting married.

Who exactly is the only person to have any negative outcome from this? Who is the only one that has to act against their belief system?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
This florist is refusing the customer because of who the customer is (gay).

Actually, the florist has served, and will continue to serve, the customer, knowing that he is gay.

What she is refusing to do is to provide flowers for a specific event.

What if the wedding was being organised by someone else who was straight? If she refused to sell a straight man flowers because they were going to be used in a gay wedding, would she still be refusing because of "who the customer is"?

I watched this woman during her interview on "The Kelly File" last night. She is a 70 year old woman who believes marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what she claims is her reason for refusing to providing flowers for this wedding. She says she sat down and explained this to the long time customer, and that was it.

In this litigious world we live in, everybody jumps to sue rather sitting down and talking. The customer never came back to try and work something out, he just sued because HIS beliefs were confronted. HER beliefs do not matter, yet HIS do. Yep, that's equal protection under the law.

Why is it so important she change her business practices and personal beliefs, while he does not have to change his? Maybe understanding this 70 year old woman has her beliefs and he has his, so move on to the next florist. So many unwilling to compromise, but demanding others compromise and do it their way.

Lawd, we in a heap of trouble!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My point was that Muslim clerks are forced to do things against their religion daily. But no one bats an eye because they don't hold the same views.

I agree it's not the same exactly but where do we draw the line?

It says in the bible to stone adulterous women. Can I now claim religious freedom and stop serving women who've been divorced and remarried? According to some here I should have that right.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
She has been forced to act contrary to her beliefs

Selling flowers isn't against her belief system. That's ALL she's being asked to do. She has AGREED to sell flowers to the public. She's not being asked to attend the wedding, approve of the wedding, approve of people being gay or anything. Just sell flowers.

Who exactly is the only person to have any negative outcome from this?

A customer walks into a place of business to make a purchase and is refused because of who he is... That person has suffered a "negative outcome". 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.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
Actually, the florist has served, and will continue to serve, the customer, knowing that he is gay.

If he was straight, she would happily sell him flowers for his wedding. It's because he is gay that she is refusing.

What she is refusing to do is to provide flowers for a specific event.

What the customer does with the flowers is none of her business. Her business license does not permit her to judge the event where the flowers will be used.

What if the wedding was being organised by someone else who was straight? If she refused to sell a straight man flowers because they were going to be used in a gay wedding, would she still be refusing because of "who the customer is"?

I don't know the specifics of the law, so I don't know. My guess would be that it would still be discrimination, as the ultimate customer is gay. These little "what if" scenarios don't really apply to the legal case at hand and appear to be a simple distraction.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

I totally agree with you. I just wanted to point out the difference, so as not to cause confusion.

I am very familiar with the legalities (if not the specifics) of the cases (cake, photographer, flowers, etc.) as regards refusing to serve gay people.

If the customer were religious, and the business owner refused to serve Christians, we'd see a WHOLE different set of arguments from some people here, no doubt. But the law would still apply and I would be on the side of the customer.