Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[PratchettFan]

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Like it or lump it, the will of the people is still subject to certain consitituional guarantees. The people pass laws, the laws get challenged, the courts rule on the merits of the challenge pertaining to the law, and if those laws violate the Constitution or not. That is how our system works.

Allowing gays access to marriage in no way prevents hertosexual males and females from fulfilling their genetic roles. Do think people are going to stop marrying and having children if gays marry? Clearly they are not.

Actually, and I've told this story before, there are many who are afraid of that very thing. I heard on the radio years ago, the President of the CWA (Concerned Women of America) state that if gay marriage was legalized women would divorce their husbands in DROVES to marry each other. Now...........................what an interesting thing to say.

Can't say I'd blame them. I would never marry a man.

 

[dblack]

that state by state approach will not work, and it will lead to legalization of multiple marriage and all other forms of human groupings being called marriages.

a constitutional amendment would fix it forever and fix it clearly and precisely.

Gays don't want a vote on an amendment because they know they would lose. They lost twice in the left wing state of california.

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Then the law fining the florist was established by the will of the people. What is your problem then?

My problem with it is, as I've stated, that it violates fundamental liberty. Does the will of the people make that "OK" in your view? I'm mean, I assume you don't think it is such a violation, but are you suggesting that those of us who do should simply accept it because there was vote?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

that state by state approach will not work, and it will lead to legalization of multiple marriage and all other forms of human groupings being called marriages.

a constitutional amendment would fix it forever and fix it clearly and precisely.

Gays don't want a vote on an amendment because they know they would lose. They lost twice in the left wing state of california.

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Then the law fining the florist was established by the will of the people. What is your problem then?

LOL! You can't hide a Foreign National Brit. "IT's THE LAW! And the LAW IS THE LAW and NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW IS... AS A SUBJECT OF HER MAJESTY! You MUST OBEY!"

Here's the American perspective on that:

ROFLMNAO! STFU!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID:

"total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not."

Wrong.

The courts determine whether the people have acted in a manner consistent with the Constitution and its case law, where when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, the Federal courts invalidate those measures as authorized by Articles III and VI.

Measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws are repugnant to the Constitution, and have been invalidated accordingly.

It is incumbent upon to people to enact in good faith measures that comport with the Constitution and its case law, and when they fail to do so, the people are alone responsible for un-Constitutional measures being struck down.

REDFISH SAID:

"as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not."

Ignorant, hateful nonsense.

It's this sort of social conservative authoritarianism that's anathema to our fundamental tenets of individual liberty and self-determination, where citizens cannot be compelled to 'conform' to some subjective, ridiculous perception of “different genetic roles in human behavior,” individuals decide for themselves the course of their lives, not 'genetic roles.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then if the Christian proprietors go bankrupt from lack of customers, let THAT be their punishment and not some Rainbow Reicht forcing their dogma down their throats using the courts as a piping bag.

Except they don't go bankrupt. Their businesses increase. In every case. That includes Sweet Cakes where gays used actual violence against customers and vendors.

Well I think that was my hidden point. It seems that every time the LGBT jackboots trample another Christian, the numbers of backlash protestors increase.

The free market will settle this question. Let Christians put a sign above their door saying they don't do gay weddings as a matter of faith and principles and let them "lose all that money" when the droves of Christians supporters patronize their courageous and decent shop.

No, your point isn't 'hidden,' your ignorance, hate, and stupidity are plain for all to see.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Like it or lump it, the will of the people is still subject to certain consitituional guarantees. The people pass laws, the laws get challenged, the courts rule on the merits of the challenge pertaining to the law, and if those laws violate the Constitution or not. That is how our system works.

Allowing gays access to marriage in no way prevents hertosexual males and females from fulfilling their genetic roles. Do think people are going to stop marrying and having children if gays marry? Clearly they are not.

what you say is true. However, what you are missing is that every one of our laws was made by "the will of the people", either by direct vote or by vote of their elected representatives. The constitution was enacted by the will of the people and can be changed by the will of the people.

a majority opinion cannot override existing law, but it can cause that law to be changed.

the people have the authority to decide on the definition of marriage, and should do so to clear this up once and for all.

If the 14th amendment made it clear then we would not be embroiled in this huge controversy right now.

No one is seeking to 'change' the definition of marriage – same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

And the 14th Amendment makes it abundantly clear: all persons are entitled to equal protection of (equal access to) the law, including marriage law.

 

[bodecea]

The last 4 times gay marriage was voted on, by the public or the state legislators it passed and your side lost.

I really don't have a "side". I think gay marriage is damaging to society, but I am fully willing to abide by the will of a majority of the people. I just want the people to decide, not one or two judges.

You free to believe gay marriage damages society but the public and courts are not buying it. The will of the people is entirely irrelevant if that will is violating the U.S. Constitution. Besides, you cannot even demonstrate how gay marriage damages society.

total horseshit! the constitution was established by the will of the people, every law on our books was established by the will of the people. This is a representative democratic republic. The people and their elected representatives decide what is legal and what is not.

as to damaging society. males and females have different genetic roles in human behavior. Deviating from those genetic roles damages the fabric of socielty. and, I don't care a flip whether you agree with me or not.

Then the law fining the florist was established by the will of the people. What is your problem then?

LOL! You can't hide a Foreign National Brit. "IT's THE LAW! And the LAW IS THE LAW and NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW IS... AS A SUBJECT OF HER MAJESTY! You MUST OBEY!"

Here's the American perspective on that:

ROFLMNAO! STFU!

There are two ways here to LEGALLY eliminate bad law....get it repealed or file a lawsuit to have it declared unConstitutional. See?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws are repugnant to the Constitution, and have been invalidated accordingly.

The Founders of the US and the Framers of the USC, hung homosexuals... And not just faceless homosexuals from far away burgs... they hung their neighbors, people they had grown up with, did business with, went to church with... saw every single day. People they knew PERSONALLY to be otherwise good citizens, but who through their behavior demonstrated a perversion in their reasoning which demonstrated that they were unworthy of trust.

So, enough of that bullshit. There is no "RIGHT" to demand that the entire culture's institutional nucleus must be redefined to accommodate those suffering mental disorder and there is sure as HELL nothing in the US Constitution that requires it.

The assertion is absurd on its face.

 

[bodecea]

Measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws are repugnant to the Constitution, and have been invalidated accordingly.

The Founders of the US and the Framers of the USC, hung homosexuals... And not just faceless homosexuals from far away burgs... they hung their neighbors, people they had grown up with, did business with, went to church with... saw every single day. People they knew PERSONALLY to be otherwise good citizens, but who through their behavior demonstrated a perversion in their reasoning which demonstrated that they were unworthy of trust.

So, enough of that bullshit. There is no "RIGHT" to demand that the entire culture's institutional nucleus must be redefined to accommodate those suffering mental disorder. The assertion is absurd on its face.

Ah..another of those "you should be thankful we don't hang you like they used to" posts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then if the Christian proprietors go bankrupt from lack of customers, let THAT be their punishment and not some Rainbow Reicht forcing their dogma down their throats using the courts as a piping bag.

Except they don't go bankrupt. Their businesses increase. In every case. That includes Sweet Cakes where gays used actual violence against customers and vendors.

Well I think that was my hidden point. It seems that every time the LGBT jackboots trample another Christian, the numbers of backlash protestors increase.

The free market will settle this question. Let Christians put a sign above their door saying they don't do gay weddings as a matter of faith and principles and let them "lose all that money" when the droves of Christians supporters patronize their courageous and decent shop.

No, your point isn't 'hidden,' your ignorance, hate, and stupidity are plain for all to see.

HEY! Straw Reasoning from an Advocate of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle...

How positively TYPICAL!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No. You don't understand me. Perhaps you're just strawmanning, but on the outside chance that you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'll elaborate.

Discrimination laws don't apply to everyone equally. They don't outlaw all irrational biases - only those that aren't currently in vogue. They designate select groups for special treatment. That's not equal protection.

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

Yes! And it's crucial we understand why that matters. It's far more important that laws aren't biased because they are coercive in nature. You can end up dead or in jail if you defy them. Personal bigots aren't empowered to kill you or put you in jail. All they can do is refuse to bake you a cake.

Or sell you food, or rent you lodging, or employment. While this particular case deals with a luxury item, it is based upon a law which prevents discrimination on necessities. What you are actually arguing is the state has no place in the protection of its citizens from discrimination by other citizens, regardless of how destructive that might be to the welfare of the community as a whole. I certainly can't agree with you on that.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

I don't think anyone was arrested, but yes I do see the difference. In the case of the refusal you are the victim. In the case of the arrest, you are the perpetrator. It is called breaking the law.

Any law which forces one to promote deviancy is illegitimate law. Deviancy is destructive ... and No American is obligated to obey such nonsense.

I have heard that. It is ridiculous. You certainly have the choice to disobey a law, but there are consequences for doing it. You can then explain to the judge why you are not obligated.

Actually it will be explained to a jury, and juries have been known to nullify when they agree the law is unjust.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws are repugnant to the Constitution, and have been invalidated accordingly.

The Founders of the US and the Framers of the USC, hung homosexuals... And not just faceless homosexuals from far away burgs... they hung their neighbors, people they had grown up with, did business with, went to church with... saw every single day. People they knew PERSONALLY to be otherwise good citizens, but who through their behavior demonstrated a perversion in their reasoning which demonstrated that they were unworthy of trust.

So, enough of that bullshit. There is no "RIGHT" to demand that the entire culture's institutional nucleus must be redefined to accommodate those suffering mental disorder. The assertion is absurd on its face.

Ah..another of those "you should be thankful we don't hang you like they used to" posts.

To the lying Leftist:

When were homosexuals hung in this country?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I might see the problem. The 14th amendment says there must be equal protection under the laws. It does not say the laws must make everyone equal. The laws must be applied to everyone equally. A white business owner can't deny service to a black customer and a black business owner can't deny service to a white customer. Equal application of the law. So long as they are applied equally, there is nothing in PA laws which create discrimination. There is no obligation the law must cover every possible group, only that the law is applied equally to everyone.

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

Or sell you food, or rent you lodging, or employment. While this particular case deals with a luxury item, it is based upon a law which prevents discrimination on necessities. What you are actually arguing is the state has no place in the protection of its citizens from discrimination by other citizens, regardless of how destructive that might be to the welfare of the community as a whole. I certainly can't agree with you on that.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

I don't think anyone was arrested, but yes I do see the difference. In the case of the refusal you are the victim. In the case of the arrest, you are the perpetrator. It is called breaking the law.

Any law which forces one to promote deviancy is illegitimate law. Deviancy is destructive ... and No American is obligated to obey such nonsense.

I have heard that. It is ridiculous. You certainly have the choice to disobey a law, but there are consequences for doing it. You can then explain to the judge why you are not obligated.

Actually it will be explained to a jury, and juries have been known to nullify when they agree the law is unjust.

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When were homosexuals hung in this country?

LOL! Most of the 13 colonies had Sodomy listed as a capital crime.

Many had the same policy for adultery and this is because such behavior demonstrated a perverse reasoning, which established that such people could not be trusted; that they were people of low moral character.

Of course, over time, those laws were softened... because 'many people felt that there was no reason to believe that if homosexuality was not a danger to the culture, and those found to be afflicted with such were sent to asylums for most of the 19th century.

Then, those laws were softened on the premise that if they reduced the penalty, there was no reason to believe that it would have an adverse effect on the culture... and so on until today, where in some crazy twist of circumstances... it turns out that the slippery slope of that attitude has resulted in homosexuals demanding that the culture pretend that Sexual Abnormality is perfectly normal and that men should be allowed to "MARRY OTHER MEN".

Naturally, in our own time, there are those who advocate that sexual abnormality IS normal and that adults who pursue children for sexual gratification are actually helping children, by providing them with a loving, caring relationship, where so many children suffer from loneliness and emotional depravity.

So, given the trend regarding such slopes, we are looking at the legalization of the pursuit of children for sexual gratification within this generation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' ...

There is no potential for justice where law stands in diametric opposition of the God-given right and the correlating responsibilities to freely exercise one's religion.

Such laws are not only unjust, any person who obeys such laws is a coward, and unworthy of the rights endowed to them by their creator, thus through their failure to exercise those rights, are certain to lose the means to exercise them.

 

[GreenBean]

Stand your ground,

lol. she might as well just close up shop, she hasn't a leg to stand on.

It's a sad situation and scary when the GAYstapo gets you in their line of fire

bigotry is sad. luckily it's dying out.

Wrong - it's simply being replaced by a more oxymoronic form of simple-minded bigotry. Commonly referred to as Liberalism.

 

[GreenBean]

Measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws are repugnant to the Constitution, and have been invalidated accordingly.

The Founders of the US and the Framers of the USC, hung homosexuals... And not just faceless homosexuals from far away burgs... they hung their neighbors, people they had grown up with, did business with, went to church with... saw every single day. People they knew PERSONALLY to be otherwise good citizens, but who through their behavior demonstrated a perversion in their reasoning which demonstrated that they were unworthy of trust.

So, enough of that bullshit. There is no "RIGHT" to demand that the entire culture's institutional nucleus must be redefined to accommodate those suffering mental disorder. The assertion is absurd on its face.

Ah..another of those "you should be thankful we don't hang you like they used to" posts.

To the lying Leftist:

When were homosexuals hung in this country?

I dunno know if they're hung or not - ask another Faggot.

 

[Katzndogz]

Bigotry is acceptable depending on who is the subject of discrimination. Gays will not stop imposing themselves until every person's rights are subject to their veto or until they are forcibly stopped.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The way I see it, if we're going to protect religious groups and racial minorities from discrimination, we should protect gays too, and fat people and ugly people and stupid people, people with annoying voices, short people, smart people, poor people, rich people, etc, etc. ...

Anything less is just playing favorites and amounts to government parsing out privilege.

And apparently you can't see the profound difference between being refused a service you want, and being arrested by the police.

I don't think anyone was arrested, but yes I do see the difference. In the case of the refusal you are the victim. In the case of the arrest, you are the perpetrator. It is called breaking the law.

Any law which forces one to promote deviancy is illegitimate law. Deviancy is destructive ... and No American is obligated to obey such nonsense.

I have heard that. It is ridiculous. You certainly have the choice to disobey a law, but there are consequences for doing it. You can then explain to the judge why you are not obligated.

Actually it will be explained to a jury, and juries have been known to nullify when they agree the law is unjust.

State and local public accommodations laws are not 'unjust,' which is why they've been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts.

Let's not pretend nothing has changed. Now states are passing public accommodation laws that are forcing people to violate their conscience. That's not going to be upheld as Constitutional.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws are repugnant to the Constitution, and have been invalidated accordingly.

The Founders of the US and the Framers of the USC, hung homosexuals... And not just faceless homosexuals from far away burgs... they hung their neighbors, people they had grown up with, did business with, went to church with... saw every single day. People they knew PERSONALLY to be otherwise good citizens, but who through their behavior demonstrated a perversion in their reasoning which demonstrated that they were unworthy of trust.

So, enough of that bullshit. There is no "RIGHT" to demand that the entire culture's institutional nucleus must be redefined to accommodate those suffering mental disorder. The assertion is absurd on its face.

Ah..another of those "you should be thankful we don't hang you like they used to" posts.

To the lying Leftist:

When were homosexuals hung in this country?

I dunno know if they're hung or not - ask another Faggot.

Ok then. Goodbye.