Flower Power: Christian Florist Rejects Attorney General’s Offer

originally posted by: retiredTxn
I went to The Kelly File Facebook page and watched the video of her interview. There were over 6000 comments on this one issue. Of course, the usual lunatics are there, but I found many comments from people who claim to be gay, supporting her position.

Many of those comments are making the same points that have been spoken (and refuted) here. It doesn't mean they're right. One says she has the right to refuse service to anyone - Not true. Some see it as her rights against his - Not true. Another claims that it's the same as making a Muslim serve pork - Not true.

And I'm sure some gay people do support her. That's irrelevant. Gay people don't all think with one mind any more than all black people or all women do.

None of that is relevant. She broke the law. If she was selling peyote because her religious beliefs supported it, it would still be breaking the law. Would she get so much support for acting on her religious beliefs in that case? I don't think so.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Hey, Txn. Regarding your discussion with Tangerine, as I see it, there are two angles to this case. One is the emotional, sympathetic angle and the other is the legal angle. I have a few words about each.

Great discussion!

I agree with most everything you have said. Saying the judge ruled against her beliefs, was a bad choice of words on my part. It's getting harder to form thoughts and get them to paper, so to speak.

I don't even know if she will find any remedy under the law, as it stands now. But, her pursuit of that end, which you say you agree with, is most important now. I appreciate your comments and responses. We may never agree on everything, but that's what our country is about.

Yes, I tend to show empathy in this or similar situations. It mainly stems from spending too many years at the bottom of the food chain. Now that my situation has improved greatly, and I am way farther up the food chain than ever expected, I still root for the little guy. I'm rambling too much.

Mostly I hate to see this woman vilified and condemned. This case started out being she refused to create flower arrangements for a same sex couple and their wedding, and now it's turned into a case where they only wanted to purchase some "twigs, stems, and vases" and they intended to do the actual arrangements. She just happened to be the only one not aware of their "intent".

I just wait for the final outcome.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Many of those comments are making the same points that have been spoken (and refuted) here. It doesn't mean they're right. One says she has the right to refuse service to anyone - Not true. Some see it as her rights against his - Not true. Another claims that it's the same as making a Muslim serve pork - Not true.

I didn't say they were right, only commented on the surprising number of gays supporting her.

And I'm sure some gay people do support her. That's irrelevant. Gay people don't all think with one mind any more than all black people or all women do.

None of that is relevant. She broke the law. If she was selling peyote because her religious beliefs supported it, it would still be breaking the law. Would she get so much support for acting on her religious beliefs in that case? I don't think so.

Never said all gays think alike, or that any of it was relevant. Just thought it was interesting. C'mon, I know you and others here are taking this strictly as she broke the law, she has to pay her debt to society. Relax, I'm not the enemy.

May I ask, is there any law you have ever questioned the validity or effectiveness of? Do you think there is any law that is not just?

originally posted by: retiredTxn
Yes, I tend to show empathy in this or similar situations.

I tend to show empathy in situations I'm passionate about and not so much when I disagree. I think we're all like that. I sympathize with her, because of how I was raised, and the fact that I understand how it feels to hold deeply religious views myself. But I sympathize AND empathize with the couple. Not because I'm gay (I'm not), but because I know what it feels like to experience discrimination based on on religious beliefs.

I think I feel much the same way about the couple as you do about the florist. And that's understandable.

they only wanted to purchase some "twigs, stems, and vases" and they intended to do the actual arrangements. She just happened to be the only one not aware of their "intent".

I didn't know that. I thought they wanted flowers. Where did you read about that?

I'll answer your other post later. The Dog Whisperer is on.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

In the Judge's order on summary judgement petitions. I too was unaware of that.

originally posted by: retiredTxn
Relax, I'm not the enemy.

I'm sorry that my communication style sometimes comes across far more confrontational or harsh that I intend it to be... I don't feel like you're "the enemy" at all. I wasn't trying to confront you. I was just putting my thoughts out there. I really appreciate your participation here because even though we disagree, you're cool about it and I've learned a lot from reading your posts. These are the kind of discussions I come to ATS for... those where I disagree, but can have an adult, reasoned and civil discussion without all the name-calling, assumptions and other crap. Reaching common ground is what it's all about and I think we've done that here.

May I ask, is there any law you have ever questioned the validity or effectiveness of? Do you think there is any law that is not just?

Yeah, you already asked me that and I answered in this post:

Yes, I absolutely feel that some laws are unjust. And if I break them, I make damn sure not to get caught. If I decide to take a stand publicly, I will likely go through some trouble before it's all over. But if she wants to take this stand, I support her in doing so. It's our right. But she may lose.

I understand the emotional nature of both parties. But in THIS case, I support the law. I don't think any business should have the right to refuse service because of a group that the customer belongs to. I don't see this case as "violating her beliefs", which is what so many say. So, she doesn't agree with gay marriage. That's OK. But making flowers for a gay wedding does not change the fact that she doesn't agree with it. Therefore, her belief is not violated.

a reply to: Metallicus

I wonder what the reaction would be if all LGBT owned businesses told Christians that they are not welcome?

Come on now, be honest. You and I both know there would be outrage and condemnation about discriminating against people based on their religious belief.

Seems to me we're going to see exactly this playing out in Arkansas. I believe they've just passed a law allowing businesses, employers, medical staff to all refuse to serve people under this notion of "freedom", and there are already allegiances being made with LGBT businesses and RATIONAL MORAL AND ETHICAL people turning the discrimination on the Christians.

Within a couple of months we'll likely see screams of "UNFAIR!!!!!" from the right wing, when they discover they can only eat in one restaurant.

Get to the back of the bus, BIGOT.

Last line directed to the bigots, not the OP. Just to clarify.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Even harsher, how do you think they will respond when a Muslim business owner insists on strict Sharia observance within their store?

Or refusal to serve anyone who is out of compliance?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Rocker2013

Even harsher, how do you think they will respond when a Muslim business owner insists on strict Sharia observance within their store?

Or refusal to serve anyone who is out of compliance?

I hope all businesses there have the names of every politician who supported the law, then the people can get together and refuse service to each and every one of them on the grounds of religious conviction.

I would be one of the first business owners in Arkansas to put a big poster in my window with the photos and names of all who supported this hate law with the statement that they will not be served.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Seems to me we're going to see exactly this playing out in Arkansas. I believe they've just passed a law allowing businesses, employers, medical staff to all refuse to serve people under this notion of "freedom", and there are already allegiances being made with LGBT businesses and RATIONAL MORAL AND ETHICAL people turning the discrimination on the Christians.

Within a couple of months we'll likely see screams of "UNFAIR!!!!!" from the right wing, when they discover they can only eat in one restaurant.

I hate what I've just found out upon researching this. The new law passed, and here's what it says...

A county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.

Arkansas SB 202

What are the protected classes in Arkansas State Law, you ask? I'll give you a hint... Religion is one of them.

Arkansas Civil Rights Law of 1993

The Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA) was the first civil rights act in Arkansas covering discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, gender, or the presence of any sensory, physical, or mental disability.
...
The act covers nondiscrimination in the areas of employment, accommodations, property transactions, and credit and contractual transactions, as well as the right to vote and participate fully in the political process.

So, the LGBT community is not going to be able to use it against the religious people. Not that I think they should, but this SB 202 could be found to be unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment, which says, in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It will be interesting to watch. Thanks for bringing it up. I was totally unaware of it.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, you already asked me that and I answered in this post:

Thank you for your kind words. Today, I seem to be jumping too quick.

Yes, I do remember that now. Sorry about asking twice. Tomorrow will be better, I hope.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I commented on this bill earlier in this thread. No way it will pass muster in it's first test in court.
No purpose in it. Everyone's tax dollars at work.

a reply to: retiredTxn

I sure hope you're right. If one group has protected status, it seems ALL groups should or it violates the 14th.

I see NO NEED for you to apologize for anything at all! I have really enjoyed our discussions. Have a good day, today.