Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

[bodecea]

[
So, you believe that one doesn't have to follow business laws when they have a business license.....

Laws that violate the Constitution are not valid laws. You of the Soros army have utter contempt for the 1st amendment, but it is the law of the land, despite your contempt.

You know that PA laws have come up for Constitutional review and have been declared Constitutional. You DID know that, right? However, there is a way to get rid of PA laws in your state, CA. Petition your congressmen in Sacremento to repeal them. Have you done that? Or are you just whining but taking no action?

Oh...and "Soros"....we know what you are really hinting at.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

I'm sure the Mormons would love to do that. THe thing is, most of the world thinks they are weirdos...

But back to my point... you homophobes are going be in the same closet the racists find themselves in, and we'll all be better off for it.

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.

I think they were enforced fairly. Mr. Wifebeater had every opporunity to admit his mistake and apologize. He instead outed this family and subjected them to threats... and he got slapped down worse than his wife that time she burnt his toast.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Again

Homophobe = Self-loathing, latent homosexual.

 

[danielpalos]

Not really. You offer to do flowers for weddings.
They are having a wedding.
With Two Dudes.
Deal with it.

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

You have to be able to obey, Ten simple Commandments from a God, for me to take you seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

So this florist hates gay people?

the right wing is always willing to "throw capitalism under the bus" if they can advance their socialism on a national basis.

 

[JoeB131]

[I call shennigans then....California has orientation in our PA laws.

Having heard her story before, she runs another kind of business and the portrait painting is just a sideline for her. So the PA laws didn't apply to her.

 

[martybegan]

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?

I'm sure the Mormons would love to do that. THe thing is, most of the world thinks they are weirdos...

But back to my point... you homophobes are going be in the same closet the racists find themselves in, and we'll all be better off for it.

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.

I think they were enforced fairly. Mr. Wifebeater had every opporunity to admit his mistake and apologize. He instead outed this family and subjected them to threats... and he got slapped down worse than his wife that time she burnt his toast.

Can you show one post I have made that shows I am homophobic? My issue is with government power and federalism. It's the process, not the outcome.

Again with your lies and suppositions. You are full of shit, and a liar.

 

[bodecea]

[I call shennigans then....California has orientation in our PA laws.

Having heard her story before, she runs another kind of business and the portrait painting is just a sideline for her. So the PA laws didn't apply to her.

If she has no license, no foul.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

[I call shennigans then....California has orientation in our PA laws.

Having heard her story before, she runs another kind of business and the portrait painting is just a sideline for her. So the PA laws didn't apply to her.

If she has no license, no foul.

No business license as an artist, no place of business as an artist. no advertising. Just two outraged and greedy lesbians who read too many newspapers. And an attorney also who assumed too much.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

I'm sure the Mormons would love to do that. THe thing is, most of the world thinks they are weirdos...

But back to my point... you homophobes are going be in the same closet the racists find themselves in, and we'll all be better off for it.

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.

I think they were enforced fairly. Mr. Wifebeater had every opporunity to admit his mistake and apologize. He instead outed this family and subjected them to threats... and he got slapped down worse than his wife that time she burnt his toast.

Aside from your libelous and slanderous opinion, do you have any evidence of wife beating?

 

[Marianne]

The best solution would be if homosexuality will be prohibited again. Otherwise faggots are getting more and more impudent.



Lawyers for a Christian florist vow a vigorous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a state supreme court ruled unanimously Thursday that their client violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

All nine justices ruled for the state of Washington and plaintiffs Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed and against Baronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion.

The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Stutzman, begs to differ.

“They’re wrong,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued Stutzman’s case before the Washington state Supreme Court.

“We’re deeply disappointed with today’s court decision,” Waggoner told WND and Radio America. “The First Amendment protects Baronelle’s rights as a small business owner and a creative professional. She has loved and respected everyone who has walked into her store. She served this gentleman (Ingersoll) for nearly 10 years and simply declined an event, one ceremony that was a religious ceremony because of her religious convictions.”


Read more at Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

I have a question. When Moochelle Obama's designer said she wouldn't work for Melania Trump why doesn't the left consider that the same? Actually the Christian Florist has even more right because they have a constitutional right to practice their religion whereas the Designer doesn't and just did it out of spite.

Show us the part of the PA law that covers that.

In the case of the florist it's their Constitutional right so it's not even a question of PA law. The Constitution clearly says that no law can be made that prohibits freedom of Religion. As for Moochelles designer that said she wouldn't design for Melania, she has no excuse.

First amendment of the Constitution
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

 

[JoeB131]

Aside from your libelous and slanderous opinion, do you have any evidence of wife beating?

You mean other than she looks like she's about to pee herself every time her husband gets up in front of these bible thumpers and starts ranting about the gay agenda?

Poor woman. Spends her whole life building this business, and her no-account husband ruins it for her in one day.

 

[JoeB131]

Can you show one post I have made that shows I am homophobic? My issue is with government power and federalism. It's the process, not the outcome.

Again with your lies and suppositions. You are full of shit, and a liar.

yes, yes, whenever a homophobe wants to deny a gay person basic human decency, it's always about "the process" or "States rights" or "the constitution" or some other bullshit.

 

[JoeB131]

In the case of the florist it's their Constitutional right so it's not even a question of PA law. The Constitution clearly says that no law can be made that prohibits freedom of Religion. As for Moochelles designer that said she wouldn't design for Melania, she has no excuse.

Except your business doesn't have a first amendment rights.

Businesses aren't people. Businesses have to comply with laws. Thankfully. Otherwise you'd get some nut who won't exterminate the rats in his restaurant because "it's against his religion".

 

[martybegan]

Can you show one post I have made that shows I am homophobic? My issue is with government power and federalism. It's the process, not the outcome.

Again with your lies and suppositions. You are full of shit, and a liar.

yes, yes, whenever a homophobe wants to deny a gay person basic human decency, it's always about "the process" or "States rights" or "the constitution" or some other bullshit.

Then why do I support SSM when it is done through legislative changes to the marriage law, and why do I support PA laws, and their application to gay people, when it involves an actual Public Accommodation?

 

[JoeB131]

Then why do I support SSM when it is done through legislative changes to the marriage law, and why do I support PA laws, and their application to gay people, when it involves an actual Public Accommodation?

Because you don't want to sound like a total asshole.

Either you support gay rights or you don't.

But if you are looking for a carveout for the bigots, then you support the bigots.

This is pretty simple.

 

[martybegan]

Then why do I support SSM when it is done through legislative changes to the marriage law, and why do I support PA laws, and their application to gay people, when it involves an actual Public Accommodation?

Because you don't want to sound like a total asshole.

Either you support gay rights or you don't.

But if you are looking for a carveout for the bigots, then you support the bigots.

This is pretty simple.

The only one being an asshole here is you. I am in favor of the most freedom for the most people, and only getting government involved when a compelling interest involving actual harm is the situation. You seek to use government to bludgeon people you disagree with politically. You are an older version of the twat snowflakes and blac bloc morons we are seeing on campuses and in the streets of progressive cities.

I am more worried about actual, consequential discrimination, and the potential for constitutional overreach. The same logic used for Roe and Obergfell is what gave us Plessey. You are either too ignorant, or too hateful to see that.

 

[JoeB131]

The only one being an asshole here is you. I am in favor of the most freedom for the most people, and only getting government involved when a compelling interest involving actual harm is the situation. You seek to use government to bludgeon people you disagree with politically. You are an older version of the twat snowflakes and blac bloc morons we are seeing on campuses and in the streets of progressive cities

But there was actual Harm. Mr. Wifebeater published the names of the Cryer-Bowmans, along with their address, on social media, and these people and their children were subjected to a bunch of threats by other homophobes merely because they exercised their right under the law.

I am more worried about actual, consequential discrimination, and the potential for constitutional overreach. The same logic used for Roe and Obergfell is what gave us Plessey. You are either too ignorant, or too hateful to see that.

Uh, no, not really. actually, all the court did in Roe and Obergfell was reflect where the country already was. the myth you wingnuts like to tell about Roe was that no abortions were happening before it. Reality. Just as many abortions were performed before Roe as after. they just put unworkable laws out of their misery.

Now, if the Wifebeaters don't want to serve icky gay people, they have a redress. Don't be in a business where icky gay people might show up and ask for the service you offered. Or at the very least, don't actually invite the icky gay people to use your shop, like Mrs. Wifebeater did, only to have your husband subject their mom to an insane homophobic rant.

 

[martybegan]

The only one being an asshole here is you. I am in favor of the most freedom for the most people, and only getting government involved when a compelling interest involving actual harm is the situation. You seek to use government to bludgeon people you disagree with politically. You are an older version of the twat snowflakes and blac bloc morons we are seeing on campuses and in the streets of progressive cities

But there was actual Harm. Mr. Wifebeater published the names of the Cryer-Bowmans, along with their address, on social media, and these people and their children were subjected to a bunch of threats by other homophobes merely because they exercised their right under the law.

I am more worried about actual, consequential discrimination, and the potential for constitutional overreach. The same logic used for Roe and Obergfell is what gave us Plessey. You are either too ignorant, or too hateful to see that.

Uh, no, not really. actually, all the court did in Roe and Obergfell was reflect where the country already was. the myth you wingnuts like to tell about Roe was that no abortions were happening before it. Reality. Just as many abortions were performed before Roe as after. they just put unworkable laws out of their misery.

Now, if the Wifebeaters don't want to serve icky gay people, they have a redress. Don't be in a business where icky gay people might show up and ask for the service you offered. Or at the very least, don't actually invite the icky gay people to use your shop, like Mrs. Wifebeater did, only to have your husband subject their mom to an insane homophobic rant.

And the florists were probably subject to the same type of threats by people supporting the couple, but you are OK with that, because you hate said florists.
And you keep accusing him of wifebeating with no backup, that is slander.

The Court isn't supposed to reflect what the country is or was, its supposed to follow the constitution. If the country wants a radical change, the amendment process is the proper avenue, not getting 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to create some jiggery pokery.

The reasons why a person doesn't want to do something is irrelevant. What matters is government should only intervene when there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of those they are forcing, and only use the minimal force required to achieve their goal.

And the 'harm" you listed above, you were probably cheering on when Memories Pizza got the same treatment. That makes you a rank hypocrite.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And look what happened to all of those ancient societies, especially Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece and before the latter two collapsed after they were all buttfucking each other they then began buttfucking children, which is where the LGBTQ Crowd want Western society to go next, legalising paedophilia, most Militant Gay men have always coveted little boys buttocks.

Throughout history once Homosexuality has been promoted, raping children has always been the next promotion on the agenda.

Um... Okay. The Roman Civilization lasted 200 years after it accepted Christianity. It was a Christian Empire when it fell. So that argument doesn't really hold water.

And how come you Christian nuts can't talk about gay rights without throwing in pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia or some other thing no one was actually talking about? Is it because your arguments against gays boil down to.

1) I think it's icky.(when it's two dudes)

2) My imaginary friend in the sky says it's bad.

Neither hold much weight in the 21st century.

The bigger question is why you think those other things are ignored when it comes to the rights of mature willing companions.

Don't they have rights to be recognized also?

If marriage equality is so important to you then the rights of all mature willing companions should be recognized and all mature willing companions should be allowed to form marriage groups as they see fit so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Discriminating hypocrites are those who believe in violating the 14th Amendment by granting special privileges to a specific minority group while ignoring other minority groups who have the same right to recognition by the law.

*****CHUCKLE*****