Go Fund Me acct for Washington state florist who refused to serve gay wedding

[Skylar]

Here's a practical solution.

If you have a moral objection to serving a particular client then you have to arrange that they receive the same service for the same price from someone else. If you won't bake for a gay couple, then you have arrange for their cake to be made by someone else of equivalent skill and at the same price.

As long as the same goods or services are provided, it seems a reasonable comprimise.

You're an idiot. They're supposed to go out of their way to put money in a competitors pockets so some narcissistic faggot doesn't get his feeling hurt? Since when did sexuality become more sacred than the Constitution?

Its not a matter of 'getting their feelings hurt'. Treating your customers fairly and equally is a statutory obligation in many states for those doing business with the public.

And asking a cake baker to bake cake is hardly 'narcissistic'. I don't think that words means what you think it means.

My suggestion would allow a baker to meet both their statutory obligations as well as those of their own conscience. And it costs them nothing but a little time. As they would have refused the cake anyway. Meaning that they wouldn't have gotten the money for making the cake in either circumstance.

And since when did PA laws violate our constitution? If you can ignore any law you don't like because of a religious objection, then all laws become voluntary. That's not the system we use nor have ever used.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm still waiting on this proof you claim to have....hint: put up or shut up. I'm already weary of your blather

I already gave you one. Luke and Matthew contradict each other on the circumstances of Jesus' birth. They also contradict each other on Jesus' lineage and where his family came from.

That screams, "Made up character", not "Historical figure whose life can be verified".

For instance, we know exactly what year Julius Ceasar was born (July 100 BCE) and the exact day he died (March 15, 44 BCE). We have coins and statues with his images, the writings of contemporary figures who spoke of him, changes in the physical world as a result of his non-miraculous actions.

So again, where's the evidence of Jesus? All we have a lot of stories, most of which came up centuries later.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm still waiting on this proof you claim to have....hint: put up or shut up. I'm already weary of your blather

I already gave you one. Luke and Matthew contradict each other on the circumstances of Jesus' birth. They also contradict each other on Jesus' lineage and where his family came from.

That screams, "Made up character", not "Historical figure whose life can be verified".

For instance, we know exactly what year Julius Ceasar was born (July 100 BCE) and the exact day he died (March 15, 44 BCE). We have coins and statues with his images, the writings of contemporary figures who spoke of him, changes in the physical world as a result of his non-miraculous actions.

So again, where's the evidence of Jesus? All we have a lot of stories, most of which came up centuries later.

That's no proof, use that science you moon bats love so much. You know like globull warming and the fudging of data? LMAO

 

[fujin]

Eventually, all businesses will be gone if nonsense like this continues...it is a complex issue, and both sides have rights here. However, the couple can get their flowers elsewhere, and florists (cake makers, farm owners) should not be used for their religious beliefs.

 

[JoeB131]

That's no proof, use that science you moon bats love so much. You know like globull warming and the fudging of data? LMAO

actually, that's pretty solid proof. I was trying to dumb it down for you, but whole armies of scholars have gone over the works and have concluded that Luke and Matthew were just making shit up when they ran out of material to plagarize from Mark's gospel and a lost book called the "Q Document".

So really, all you have are a bunch of oral traditions about Jesus people wrote down centuries later. The same can be said of King Arthur or Robin Hood or Paul Bunyun. No real evidence and a mish mash of whatever the original story was.

 

[Iceweasel]

Here's a practical solution.

If you have a moral objection to serving a particular client then you have to arrange that they receive the same service for the same price from someone else. If you won't bake for a gay couple, then you have arrange for their cake to be made by someone else of equivalent skill and at the same price.

As long as the same goods or services are provided, it seems a reasonable comprimise.

You're an idiot. They're supposed to go out of their way to put money in a competitors pockets so some narcissistic faggot doesn't get his feeling hurt? Since when did sexuality become more sacred than the Constitution?

Its not a matter of 'getting their feelings hurt'. Treating your customers fairly and equally is a statutory obligation in many states for those doing business with the public.

And asking a cake baker to bake cake is hardly 'narcissistic'. I don't think that words means what you think it means.

My suggestion would allow a baker to meet both their statutory obligations as well as those of their own conscience. And it costs them nothing but a little time. As they would have refused the cake anyway. Meaning that they wouldn't have gotten the money for making the cake in either circumstance.

And since when did PA laws violate our constitution? If you can ignore any law you don't like because of a religious objection, then all laws become voluntary. That's not the system we use nor have ever used.

Yes, when states have overwritten the US Constitution there are extra protections for certain classes of people. Never before has a sex life been included.

It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide how "fair" someone else should be and what "fair" means. Your definition of fair didn't drift down from the heavens.

My suggestion is people wake up or we are all going to be in deep shit and no one will want to operate a business open to the public when a small very vocal minority is allowed to destroy their lives because they get butt hurt when people think gender matters.

 

[JoeB131]

Eventually, all businesses will be gone if nonsense like this continues...it is a complex issue, and both sides have rights here. However, the couple can get their flowers elsewhere, and florists (cake makers, farm owners) should not be used for their religious beliefs.

No, it's not complicated at all. Bake the cake or provide the flowers. there's no issue of rights involved. Businesses aren't people and the don't have rights.

 

[Skylar]

Here's a practical solution.

If you have a moral objection to serving a particular client then you have to arrange that they receive the same service for the same price from someone else. If you won't bake for a gay couple, then you have arrange for their cake to be made by someone else of equivalent skill and at the same price.

As long as the same goods or services are provided, it seems a reasonable comprimise.

You're an idiot. They're supposed to go out of their way to put money in a competitors pockets so some narcissistic faggot doesn't get his feeling hurt? Since when did sexuality become more sacred than the Constitution?

Its not a matter of 'getting their feelings hurt'. Treating your customers fairly and equally is a statutory obligation in many states for those doing business with the public.

And asking a cake baker to bake cake is hardly 'narcissistic'. I don't think that words means what you think it means.

My suggestion would allow a baker to meet both their statutory obligations as well as those of their own conscience. And it costs them nothing but a little time. As they would have refused the cake anyway. Meaning that they wouldn't have gotten the money for making the cake in either circumstance.

And since when did PA laws violate our constitution? If you can ignore any law you don't like because of a religious objection, then all laws become voluntary. That's not the system we use nor have ever used.

Yes, when states have overwritten the US Constitution there are extra protections for certain classes of people. Never before has a sex life been included.

Over written the constitution according to who? Remember, you're nobody in terms of constitutional meaning or interpretation. So if all you have is your personal opinion, I genuinely have no fucks to give.

It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide how "fair" someone else should be and what "fair" means. Your definition of fair didn't drift down from the heavens.

Intrastate commerce is unquestioningly within the authority of a state. And they have every power to establish minimum standards of fairness and conduct in business.

You disagree. Please see above about the great fuck famine of 2015.

My suggestion is people wake up or we are all going to be in deep shit and no one will want to operate a business open to the public when a small very vocal minority is allowed to destroy their lives because they get butt hurt when people think gender matters.

My suggestion is to get up off your fainting couch, wipe the running eye liner from your cheeks and take a deep breath. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little. And commerce will not collapse if subject to PA laws.

How do we know? PA laws have existed for decades. And commerce is fine.

 

[Steinlight]

she wasn't discriminating OldSchool , she was just exercising her Rights . I see it as an exercise in Free Association !!

which again, you lose when you start a business that promises to provide a service.

Exactly, I Remember that extra clause in the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law impeding the free exercise of religion, except in your business. Good point.

 

[Iceweasel]

Here's a practical solution.

If you have a moral objection to serving a particular client then you have to arrange that they receive the same service for the same price from someone else. If you won't bake for a gay couple, then you have arrange for their cake to be made by someone else of equivalent skill and at the same price.

As long as the same goods or services are provided, it seems a reasonable comprimise.

You're an idiot. They're supposed to go out of their way to put money in a competitors pockets so some narcissistic faggot doesn't get his feeling hurt? Since when did sexuality become more sacred than the Constitution?

Its not a matter of 'getting their feelings hurt'. Treating your customers fairly and equally is a statutory obligation in many states for those doing business with the public.

And asking a cake baker to bake cake is hardly 'narcissistic'. I don't think that words means what you think it means.

My suggestion would allow a baker to meet both their statutory obligations as well as those of their own conscience. And it costs them nothing but a little time. As they would have refused the cake anyway. Meaning that they wouldn't have gotten the money for making the cake in either circumstance.

And since when did PA laws violate our constitution? If you can ignore any law you don't like because of a religious objection, then all laws become voluntary. That's not the system we use nor have ever used.

Yes, when states have overwritten the US Constitution there are extra protections for certain classes of people. Never before has a sex life been included.

Over written the constitution according to who? Remember, you're nobody in terms of constitutional meaning or interpretation. So if all you have is your personal opinion, I genuinely have no fucks to give.

It isn't up to you or anyone else to decide how "fair" someone else should be and what "fair" means. Your definition of fair didn't drift down from the heavens.

Intrastate commerce is unquestioningly within the authority of a state. And they have every power to establish minimum standards of fairness and conduct in business.

You disagree. Please see above about the great fuck famine of 2015.

My suggestion is people wake up or we are all going to be in deep shit and no one will want to operate a business open to the public when a small very vocal minority is allowed to destroy their lives because they get butt hurt when people think gender matters.

My suggestion is to get up off your fainting couch, wipe the running eye liner from your cheeks and take a deep breath. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little. And commerce will not collapse if subject to PA laws.

How do we know? PA laws have existed for decades. And commerce is fine.

According to the Constitution! We have freedom of religion and association. We were never compelled by the government to associate with sexual identities we don't want to. That's WHY states write in those laws, duh!

My suggestion is that you go fuck yourself. People are starting to wake up to what is going on, you can look at those donations as a protest vote, because that's exactly what they were.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly, I Remember that extra clause in the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law impeding the free exercise of religion, except in your business. Good point.

except that's not the wording. You probably got a bad translation, Fritz.

"

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

No one is prohibiting your religion, you just can't use it as an excuse to break other established laws.

You can't ignore the laws on murder because your religion demands human sacrifices.

You can't discriminate against gays beacuse your religion doesn't like the poopy sex.

 

[Missourian]

Because when they discriminate against a gay wedding, they are discriminating based on who they are, not what they are doing.

Look, this is really kind of sad. You've lost the wedding argument, but you are fighting very hard for this last bit of bigotry you can hold on to.

You're barking up the wrong tree, Joe. I was convinced long ago that opposing gay marriage wasn't any of my business. I didn't agree with it on religious principle, but, it didn't really involve me, or the government, so I had no right to force my prerogative on others.

Posted this over two years ago.

Has anyone ever changed your opinion on a topic on this forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​

​

And it is with that same rationale I am arguing here. Don't force your prerogative on others.

No law should force anyone to participate in an activity that violates their religious convictions.

We are only asking to the same consideration that the gay community asked from folks like me...to live and let live.

 

[tinydancer]

Eventually, all businesses will be gone if nonsense like this continues...it is a complex issue, and both sides have rights here. However, the couple can get their flowers elsewhere, and florists (cake makers, farm owners) should not be used for their religious beliefs.

No, it's not complicated at all. Bake the cake or provide the flowers. there's no issue of rights involved. Businesses aren't people and the don't have rights.

Meant to catch you on the other post you made. Herein lies the new legal nightmare JoeB131.

SCOTUS expanded RFRA to include "closely held for-profits" when they ruled for Hobby Lobby.

That's what made it such a landmark decision.

And that's why I said lawyers are going to be lining their pockets up and coming on the State level.

"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.
It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to closely held corporations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

 

[JoeB131]

You're barking up the wrong tree, Joe. I was convinced long ago that opposing gay marriage wasn't any of my business. I didn't agree with it on religious principle, but, it didn't really involve me, or the government, so I had no right to force my prerogative on others.

Posted this over two years ago.

I think that's kind of irrelevent to the point. We would become a lawless society if we started letting people disobey whatever laws they wanted because of "Religious" beliefs that are largely contrived.

 

[JoeB131]

Meant to catch you on the other post you made. Herein lies the new legal nightmare JoeB131.

SCOTUS expanded RFRA to include "closely held for-profits" when they ruled for Hobby Lobby.

That's what made it such a landmark decision.

No, that's what made it a bad decision. The courts are going to have to real that shit back in, pretty soon.

I mean, what's to stop a Satanist from practicing human sacrifice?

 

[tinydancer]

Here's a practical solution.

If you have a moral objection to serving a particular client then you have to arrange that they receive the same service for the same price from someone else. If you won't bake for a gay couple, then you have arrange for their cake to be made by someone else of equivalent skill and at the same price.

As long as the same goods or services are provided, it seems a reasonable comprimise.

You're an idiot. They're supposed to go out of their way to put money in a competitors pockets so some narcissistic faggot doesn't get his feeling hurt? Since when did sexuality become more sacred than the Constitution?

Its not a matter of 'getting their feelings hurt'. Treating your customers fairly and equally is a statutory obligation in many states for those doing business with the public.

And asking a cake baker to bake cake is hardly 'narcissistic'. I don't think that words means what you think it means.

My suggestion would allow a baker to meet both their statutory obligations as well as those of their own conscience. And it costs them nothing but a little time. As they would have refused the cake anyway. Meaning that they wouldn't have gotten the money for making the cake in either circumstance.

And since when did PA laws violate our constitution? If you can ignore any law you don't like because of a religious objection, then all laws become voluntary. That's not the system we use nor have ever used.

The pity of this situation of the florist who's like 70 years old and stands to lose her business and her home over this did refer the couple to another florist who could accomodate them.

Another angle to this sad story though is she had faithfully served them for years. She never discriminated against them. And she tried to make them understand this was only about the wedding.

But they sued her along with the government and the AG is out for blood.

As you can see though, she didn't refuse because they were gay. It was in her beliefs she would be participating in the sin of a same sex marriage.

I've heard several lawyers on this and they are very clear on the difference between not serving a gay customer being clear cut discrimination vs the belief that the business owner would be participating in a sin if they provided for a same sex marriage.

 

[Missourian]

You're barking up the wrong tree, Joe. I was convinced long ago that opposing gay marriage wasn't any of my business. I didn't agree with it on religious principle, but, it didn't really involve me, or the government, so I had no right to force my prerogative on others.

Posted this over two years ago.

I think that's kind of irrelevent to the point. We would become a lawless society if we started letting people disobey whatever laws they wanted because of "Religious" beliefs that are largely contrived.

Not at all. I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against. But I this a person of faith is entitled under the Constitutional right to freedom of expression, to opt out of activities that violate their religious convictions.

If you want a cake for a gay wedding ceremony, by all means the Christian baker should be obligated to bake it for you. But the photographer should not be obligated to attend a gay wedding that they have a religious objection to.

It's a classic, 'your rights end where mine begin'.

 

[Skylar]

Here's a practical solution.

If you have a moral objection to serving a particular client then you have to arrange that they receive the same service for the same price from someone else. If you won't bake for a gay couple, then you have arrange for their cake to be made by someone else of equivalent skill and at the same price.

As long as the same goods or services are provided, it seems a reasonable comprimise.

You're an idiot. They're supposed to go out of their way to put money in a competitors pockets so some narcissistic faggot doesn't get his feeling hurt? Since when did sexuality become more sacred than the Constitution?

Its not a matter of 'getting their feelings hurt'. Treating your customers fairly and equally is a statutory obligation in many states for those doing business with the public.

And asking a cake baker to bake cake is hardly 'narcissistic'. I don't think that words means what you think it means.

My suggestion would allow a baker to meet both their statutory obligations as well as those of their own conscience. And it costs them nothing but a little time. As they would have refused the cake anyway. Meaning that they wouldn't have gotten the money for making the cake in either circumstance.

And since when did PA laws violate our constitution? If you can ignore any law you don't like because of a religious objection, then all laws become voluntary. That's not the system we use nor have ever used.

The pity of this situation of the florist who's like 70 years old and stands to lose her business and her home over this did refer the couple to another florist who could accomodate them.

I'm not speaking of a referral. I'm speaking of subcontracting. The florist in question arranges for the work to be done by someone else. Same price, same quality. Arranged by florist asked. Performed by someone else.

The customer should have to do nothing else but order the product.

I've heard several lawyers on this and they are very clear on the difference between not serving a gay customer being clear cut discrimination vs the belief that the business owner would be participating in a sin if they provided for a same sex marriage.

The PA laws regulate action. Not motivation. If you won't serve a gay customer, the reasoning is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Pop23]

I don't see commerce as endorsement.

I'm sure I've sold a car to a homosexual at some point. That's commerce not endorsement.

Apples and oranges Pop. The issue is being forced to be personally involved an act that runs contrary to a persons religious convictions.

It's not selling the flowers, or the cake, or the photography session...it's the personal participation...setting up the flower arrangements, catering, being forced to attend a gay wedding to photograph...you are no longer outside the loop...you are being forced to participate in sinful behavior. That is a blatant violation of religious freedom.

She does not have to attend or participate, simply don't advertise that you are in the business of.......

You are either in business or not in business. If you are, then you must provide the service you advertise.

Don't like the law, then get those that agree with you to the polls, not just once, but every election. It is my understanding that the reason we have the administration we have is that one helluva a lot of evangelical Christians stayed home instead of swallowing their pride and voting Romney.

What you sow, so shall you reap, in this case it means........

ELECTIONS MATTER.

BTW: Do you actually think that a gay couple would hire a florist that told them she thought they were sinners AND much of the money they paid would go to anti gay marriage group? I sure don't.

We simply rely on government way more than we need too.

I don't disagree that we rely on government too heavily.

But I do disagree with your assessment.

A pornographic movie is a protected form of expression, but a caterer can refuse to cater a pornographic movie set for religious or moral reasons.

They could also refuse to cater a pro-abortion event.

How is this any different.

They are not discriminating against the people...but instead refusing to be involved in the event.

Should a gay photographer be forced to photograph a Westboro Baptist Church event?

How about a black caterer forced to set up and feed a Klan "Stepping and Fetching" party?

I oppose all of these. No one should be forced to participate in any event that violates their conscience or convictions.

Business to business is treated differently than individual rights.

Not clear why a pro abortion group would insist an anti abortion caterer would be hired? But my example works there to. Our profits will be sent to Pro Life organization. (Bet the customer declines)

I find photographers a difficult problem. It involves creativity. So there I might agree.

I love the KKK and black caterer example.

Here's your estimated bill which included 150K for additional security and, oh by the way, all profits will be sent to the United Negro College Fund. Placards saying as much will be supplied free of charge.

 

[Katzndogz]

Meant to catch you on the other post you made. Herein lies the new legal nightmare JoeB131.

SCOTUS expanded RFRA to include "closely held for-profits" when they ruled for Hobby Lobby.

That's what made it such a landmark decision.

No, that's what made it a bad decision. The courts are going to have to real that shit back in, pretty soon.

I mean, what's to stop a Satanist from practicing human sacrifice?

Does the state have a compelling reason to prohibit murder?