Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

[JoeB131]

Where I come from a wedding is one man and one woman. Any other combination dies not qualify as a wedding.

The laws of the united states say otherwise.

Deal with it.

 

[Nosmo King]

The fact is, no one is keeping these florists from attending their church. No one is preventing them from worshipping their God.

But they cannot use their religion as a shield to commit acts of bigotry. They cannot twist a loving, forgiving and beautiful faith to serve an essentially evil purpose.

What would prevent other so-called Christians from denying service to African American customers? What would prevent anyone from saying they have a religious objection to any group so they might deny them service, doll out unwarranted and unnecessary humiliation?

This act violates their beliefs, which by definition is sinning. What is forcing the customers to use that florist? The party with the easiest remedy to the rights violations should be required to yield. In this case you have many sources of flowers.

What compelled this couple to use this florist? Could it be the quality of their work? Are you saying that a fair solution is for these customers to settle for less?

The florist is un business to provide flowers. If they provide flowers for an adulterer, are they then sinning. If they provide flowers for the wedding of a mafia princess, and they know the payment will be made in money gained illegal, are they then sinning. Is it a requirement that merchants and vendors provide a 'mercantile impermatur' to legitimize a wedding? Will the florists be made to actually participate in the wedding? Will they officiate the ceremony? Will they smash a small goblet and shout "Mozel Tov!"? Are they expected to show up at the reception with a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper? Is there a Florist/Bride dance?

These particular florists are using faith as an aegis to provide legal cover for bigotry. Just as they are perverting Christianity to serve an evil purpose, they now seek to pervert the constitution to deny what every other citizens takes for granted, namely equal justice under law.

No one should use religion as an excuse to avoid doing something distasteful. A simple refusal should be enough. The Christian provider is required to commit a sin without cause or justification other than the principle of making someone knuckle under.

A simple refusal is discrimination. Why? Because the business of a florist is floral design. They provide similar services to other customers. Presuming a customer is wearing a shirt and shoes and can and will pay the bill, refusing service because they happen to be Gay is, indeed, discrimination.

And conducting business for a florist is not committing a sin. Where did this peculiar dogma come from? I am a Christian and have been for sixty years. Never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with Gay customers. Suddenly, some folks identifying themselves as Christians have popped up to twist that beautiful, forgiving and loving faith to serve a vile purpose. As a Christian, I am appalle.

 

[martybegan]

over 70 years of "separate but equal" said otherwise, but that was found to be wrong, and unconstitutional. Precedent is helpful, but shouldn't be used as a crutch.

Except that it was really obvious that Jim Crow was wrong and mean-spirited.

You guys have yet to give me a good reason why Public Accomedation Laws are a bad thing...

You don't want to deal with group X, don't be in a business group X might want to use.

Heck, I don't like Mormons, but I can't refuse them service.

ruining someone's livelihood over not baking a cake is wrong and mean-spirited, you just don't see it because you are an anti-religious curdmudgeonly asshat.

PA laws are a good then when applied to actual public accommodations, not to "every time money changes hands"

And until recently the idea that SSM would happen was not in the realm of reality. Why should someone not be able to do what they want because of 3% or so of the population, especially when it comes to a easily replaceable service?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So this florist hates gay people?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The fact is, no one is keeping these florists from attending their church. No one is preventing them from worshipping their God.

But they cannot use their religion as a shield to commit acts of bigotry. They cannot twist a loving, forgiving and beautiful faith to serve an essentially evil purpose.

What would prevent other so-called Christians from denying service to African American customers? What would prevent anyone from saying they have a religious objection to any group so they might deny them service, doll out unwarranted and unnecessary humiliation?

This act violates their beliefs, which by definition is sinning. What is forcing the customers to use that florist? The party with the easiest remedy to the rights violations should be required to yield. In this case you have many sources of flowers.

What compelled this couple to use this florist? Could it be the quality of their work? Are you saying that a fair solution is for these customers to settle for less?

The florist is un business to provide flowers. If they provide flowers for an adulterer, are they then sinning. If they provide flowers for the wedding of a mafia princess, and they know the payment will be made in money gained illegal, are they then sinning. Is it a requirement that merchants and vendors provide a 'mercantile impermatur' to legitimize a wedding? Will the florists be made to actually participate in the wedding? Will they officiate the ceremony? Will they smash a small goblet and shout "Mozel Tov!"? Are they expected to show up at the reception with a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper? Is there a Florist/Bride dance?

These particular florists are using faith as an aegis to provide legal cover for bigotry. Just as they are perverting Christianity to serve an evil purpose, they now seek to pervert the constitution to deny what every other citizens takes for granted, namely equal justice under law.

No one should use religion as an excuse to avoid doing something distasteful. A simple refusal should be enough. The Christian provider is required to commit a sin without cause or justification other than the principle of making someone knuckle under.

A simple refusal is discrimination. Why? Because the business of a florist is floral design. They provide similar services to other customers. Presuming a customer is wearing a shirt and shoes and can and will pay the bill, refusing service because they happen to be Gay is, indeed, discrimination.

And conducting business for a florist is not committing a sin. Where did this peculiar dogma come from? I am a Christian and have been for sixty years. Never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with Gay customers. Suddenly, some folks identifying themselves as Christians have popped up to twist that beautiful, forgiving and loving faith to serve a vile purpose. As a Christian, I am appalle.

No one has said that Christians are prohibited from commerce with homosexuals. Christians shall not commit a sin rhemselves. Participating in a same sex wedding is committing a sin. The Christian should not be compelled to commit that sin.

 

[JoeB131]

ruining someone's livelihood over not baking a cake is wrong and mean-spirited, you just don't see it because you are an anti-religious curdmudgeonly asshat.

Um... Mr. Wife-Beater ruined his wife's livelihood, not the gay couple who were invited by Mrs. Wife Beaten to use their services for this purpose. He then published their names and addresses in an open forum and subjected them to threats. THAT'S why they were fined as heavily as they were.

You see, the fine didn't ruin their livelihood. The fact the community stopped doing business with their bigoted asses did. Not that it matters, Mr. Wife-beater is enjoying his moment in the sun as the poster-boy for religious bigots.

PA laws are a good then when applied to actual public accommodations, not to "every time money changes hands"

Except 50 years of law says otherwise. My opinion, I've driven half an hour to go to a business where i was personally invited by the owner, only to be subjected to a homophobic rant by an employee in front of my mom, is certainly an imposition on my time and person.

And until recently the idea that SSM would happen was not in the realm of reality. Why should someone not be able to do what they want because of 3% or so of the population, especially when it comes to a easily replaceable service?

This issue had nothing to do with SSM, which was still illegal in OR at that time. They were there to buy a cake for a commitment ceremony, after being invited by Mrs. Wife-beaten to that very purpose.

 

[Anathema]

The laws of the united states say otherwise. Deal with it.

I have not, do not, and never will see a need to follow an Immoral law, regardless of who puts it in place.

 

[JoeB131]

I have not, do not, and never will see a need to follow an Immoral law, regardless of who puts it in place.

absolutely right. No one is going to make you gay marry. You are going to have to keep your latent homosexual tendencies to yourself.

You do realize that it's been scientifically proven that most homophobes are latent, self-hating homosexuals, right?

Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.

The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

 

[martybegan]

ruining someone's livelihood over not baking a cake is wrong and mean-spirited, you just don't see it because you are an anti-religious curdmudgeonly asshat.

Um... Mr. Wife-Beater ruined his wife's livelihood, not the gay couple who were invited by Mrs. Wife Beaten to use their services for this purpose. He then published their names and addresses in an open forum and subjected them to threats. THAT'S why they were fined as heavily as they were.

You see, the fine didn't ruin their livelihood. The fact the community stopped doing business with their bigoted asses did. Not that it matters, Mr. Wife-beater is enjoying his moment in the sun as the poster-boy for religious bigots.

PA laws are a good then when applied to actual public accommodations, not to "every time money changes hands"

Except 50 years of law says otherwise. My opinion, I've driven half an hour to go to a business where i was personally invited by the owner, only to be subjected to a homophobic rant by an employee in front of my mom, is certainly an imposition on my time and person.

And until recently the idea that SSM would happen was not in the realm of reality. Why should someone not be able to do what they want because of 3% or so of the population, especially when it comes to a easily replaceable service?

This issue had nothing to do with SSM, which was still illegal in OR at that time. They were there to buy a cake for a commitment ceremony, after being invited by Mrs. Wife-beaten to that very purpose.

Then let the community handle it. Keep government out of cases of butt hurt vs. butt hurt.

and your typical unsubstantiated claims are getting tiresome.

If you can't make your point without making shit up, it isn't much of a point.

 

[JoeB131]

Then let the community handle it. Keep government out of cases of butt hurt vs. butt hurt.

and your typical unsubstantiated claims are getting tiresome.

If you can't make your point without making shit up, it isn't much of a point.

Hey. That's a great idea. Let's get the government out of any kind of justice.

If someone murders you, don't expect the police to investigate and prosecutors to prosecute. Just wait for the angry community to figure out who did it and let them form a lynch mob!!!!

Better yet, let's get rid of all those health codes. If Mr. Wifebeater wants to bake cakes with rat turds in them because he isn't keeping the story clean, we need to just wait for him to get enough bad Yelp reviews to put him out of business. Not wait for the bad old government to come in and make him clean up his act with their fascistic sanitation rules! So a few kids get poisoned in the process, but that's 'Freedom' baby.

Sorry, guy. IN commerce, the rule is "Caveat Vendor". The seller of services has the burden of providing the service he promises, not the buyer making sure he does it.

They knew what the law was, they chose to break it.

 

[martybegan]

Then let the community handle it. Keep government out of cases of butt hurt vs. butt hurt.

and your typical unsubstantiated claims are getting tiresome.

If you can't make your point without making shit up, it isn't much of a point.

Hey. That's a great idea. Let's get the government out of any kind of justice.

If someone murders you, don't expect the police to investigate and prosecutors to prosecute. Just wait for the angry community to figure out who did it and let them form a lynch mob!!!!

Better yet, let's get rid of all those health codes. If Mr. Wifebeater wants to bake cakes with rat turds in them because he isn't keeping the story clean, we need to just wait for him to get enough bad Yelp reviews to put him out of business. Not wait for the bad old government to come in and make him clean up his act with their fascistic sanitation rules! So a few kids get poisoned in the process, but that's 'Freedom' baby.

Sorry, guy. IN commerce, the rule is "Caveat Vendor". The seller of services has the burden of providing the service he promises, not the buyer making sure he does it.

They knew what the law was, they chose to break it.

Get government out of Social justice, let is keep to more serious things, not butthurt v butthurt, which is all these cases are.

and you went right to argumentum ad absurdum with a comparison to murder, an actual crime with actual harm.

and then you went soft and went with the health code argument, which is funny because in some cases health codes are ridiculous, such as the current issue with unpasteurized cheeses not being allowed to be sold here, where it is common everywhere else in the world.

your need to resort to exaggeration is noted, as is its impact on your attempted "points"

 

[L.K.Eder]

You are just stupid aren't you JohnnyApplesock, yes you are.

"When did Jesus mention homosexuality?"

Leviticus 18:22

All versions of The Bible:

Jesus wasn't in Leviticus... That was Moses...

It's in The Bible, sorry buttfucking and sucking your boyfriends dick is against Jesus Christ's teachings and against Biblical teaching.

It's not NORMAL peoples fault that you degenerate buttfuckers are abnormal freaks of nature, you can get psychological help with your mental illness though should you wish.

can you feel the love tonight? jebus is proud.

 

[Anathema]

absolutely right. No one is going to make you gay marry. You are going to have to keep your latent homosexual tendencies to yourself.

You do realize that it's been scientifically proven that most homophobes are latent, self-hating homosexuals, right?

Let me guess..... from the same people who claim homosexuality is natural and that they're human beings? I don't think do.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Get government out of Social justice, let is keep to more serious things, not butthurt v butthurt, which is all these cases are.

and you went right to argumentum ad absurdum with a comparison to murder, an actual crime with actual harm.

and then you went soft and went with the health code argument, which is funny because in some cases health codes are ridiculous, such as the current issue with unpasteurized cheeses not being allowed to be sold here, where it is common everywhere else in the world.

your need to resort to exaggeration is noted, as is its impact on your attempted "points"

I think homophobia is an actual crime, but then again, I've known people who've been fired and beaten up for merely being gay. So I have no problem with government slapping homophobes down, hard.

I'm glad we've got health codes. I'm glad we have public accommodation laws.

 

[JoeB131]

absolutely right. No one is going to make you gay marry. You are going to have to keep your latent homosexual tendencies to yourself.

You do realize that it's been scientifically proven that most homophobes are latent, self-hating homosexuals, right?

Let me guess..... from the same people who claim homosexuality is natural and that they're human beings? I don't think do.

Again, you can't hate something that much without a reason.

I'm straight and largely indifferent to the gays. Has no effect on my life, other than the enjoyment I get watching Christians squirm when they don't get their way on this.

 

[Nosmo King]

The fact is, no one is keeping these florists from attending their church. No one is preventing them from worshipping their God.

But they cannot use their religion as a shield to commit acts of bigotry. They cannot twist a loving, forgiving and beautiful faith to serve an essentially evil purpose.

What would prevent other so-called Christians from denying service to African American customers? What would prevent anyone from saying they have a religious objection to any group so they might deny them service, doll out unwarranted and unnecessary humiliation?

This act violates their beliefs, which by definition is sinning. What is forcing the customers to use that florist? The party with the easiest remedy to the rights violations should be required to yield. In this case you have many sources of flowers.

What compelled this couple to use this florist? Could it be the quality of their work? Are you saying that a fair solution is for these customers to settle for less?

The florist is un business to provide flowers. If they provide flowers for an adulterer, are they then sinning. If they provide flowers for the wedding of a mafia princess, and they know the payment will be made in money gained illegal, are they then sinning. Is it a requirement that merchants and vendors provide a 'mercantile impermatur' to legitimize a wedding? Will the florists be made to actually participate in the wedding? Will they officiate the ceremony? Will they smash a small goblet and shout "Mozel Tov!"? Are they expected to show up at the reception with a toaster oven wrapped in silver paper? Is there a Florist/Bride dance?

These particular florists are using faith as an aegis to provide legal cover for bigotry. Just as they are perverting Christianity to serve an evil purpose, they now seek to pervert the constitution to deny what every other citizens takes for granted, namely equal justice under law.

No one should use religion as an excuse to avoid doing something distasteful. A simple refusal should be enough. The Christian provider is required to commit a sin without cause or justification other than the principle of making someone knuckle under.

A simple refusal is discrimination. Why? Because the business of a florist is floral design. They provide similar services to other customers. Presuming a customer is wearing a shirt and shoes and can and will pay the bill, refusing service because they happen to be Gay is, indeed, discrimination.

And conducting business for a florist is not committing a sin. Where did this peculiar dogma come from? I am a Christian and have been for sixty years. Never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with Gay customers. Suddenly, some folks identifying themselves as Christians have popped up to twist that beautiful, forgiving and loving faith to serve a vile purpose. As a Christian, I am appalle.

No one has said that Christians are prohibited from commerce with homosexuals. Christians shall not commit a sin rhemselves. Participating in a same sex wedding is committing a sin. The Christian should not be compelled to commit that sin.

They aren't participating. They're vendors of wares.

 

[martybegan]

[
Get government out of Social justice, let is keep to more serious things, not butthurt v butthurt, which is all these cases are.

and you went right to argumentum ad absurdum with a comparison to murder, an actual crime with actual harm.

and then you went soft and went with the health code argument, which is funny because in some cases health codes are ridiculous, such as the current issue with unpasteurized cheeses not being allowed to be sold here, where it is common everywhere else in the world.

your need to resort to exaggeration is noted, as is its impact on your attempted "points"

I think homophobia is an actual crime, but then again, I've known people who've been fired and beaten up for merely being gay. So I have no problem with government slapping homophobes down, hard.

I'm glad we've got health codes. I'm glad we have public accommodation laws.

it figures you are a fan of ThoughtCrime, it reinforces my view of you as a asshole twat-hack.

How about we make anti-mormonism a crime?

So you think people who WANT to buy unpasteurized cheeses should be forced to not be able to?

Again, argumentum ad absurdum, I don't want to abolish health codes, or PA laws, what I want them to be is enforced fairly, and with the minimal force required to accomplish their goals. You want to use them as a Social Justice Widget to get society to act your way. You are a selfish prick, nothing more or less.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Muzzies must sell pork !!!!!!!!! Lol

 

[Anathema]

Again, you can't hate something that much without a reason.

I'm not a Christian. I'm against homosexuality because I believe it is an a front to human decency and morality, not as a religious issue.

 

[there4eyeM]

What a ridiculous cause to be fighting over! Christians should know there is only one 'sin' that can't be forgiven, and it has nothing to do with homosexuals or silly changes of meaning for a word. Struggle to make 'marriage' mean between people of the same sex? Why? Struggle to make preparing flowers for such an event a religious issue? Why?
Still, I'm glad they're taking it to court; may as well take this to its absurd extreme and get a determination about it.