Different State, Same Result: Washington court rules against Christian florist in gay wedding case

[jmyrlefuller]

The difference, of course, is that in many states and localities it's as against the law for a business owner to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate on the basis of race.   

Laws that are against both the First Amendments of religious protections (of which every state also has the same protections in their constitutions as well) and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on involuntary servitude.

There is literally no right to force someone to serve you against your religion, and it is unconstitutional to create such a right.

[Bigun]

Probably. I don't recall Jesus making any promises that following Him would be easy.

My reading tell me that he did just the opposite and on many occasions!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Laws that are against both the First Amendments of religious protections (of which every state also has the same protections in their constitutions as well) and the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition on involuntary servitude.

There is literally no right to force someone to serve you against your religion, and it is unconstitutional to create such a right.

I don't agree with this crap, but I wouldn't say you have a right not to serve someone. If you do then nearly all civil rights laws are kaput.

[Free Vulcan]

Well, the legal issue is driven by the status of a group as protected.   If I were a baker I'd tell that neo-Nazi to eff off.   But then again,  I fail to see how a request to provide flowers for a wedding is anywhere near the offense of asking for a cake with a slogan urging the killing of Jews.   

But therein lies the problem...that's not equality! If you have protected classes, then you have the govt picking and choosing who's equal, and who's religious objections are valid.

If you want to be true to the 14th amendment, what must apply to one must apply to all, not to what the govt decides is in or out.

[XenaLee]

I don't agree with this crap, but I wouldn't say you have a right not to serve someone. If you do then nearly all civil rights laws are kaput.

If you own your own business, and you have a customer walk in that demands to be waited on or served and that is a complete @sshole, does the government have the right to force you to wait on or do business with that person?

[INVAR]

It is better to obey God than men.

I will NEVER submit to demands that I violate my faith simply because they say I am 'discriminating'.  We fought a bloody revolution for far less, and killing tyrants and their agents was a necessity if liberty was to exist at all on these shores.

Tyrants and their cheerleaders will always couch their tyranny under the slogan of 'freedom for all' and attempt to pass themselves off as 'reasonable'.  These same tools tell us that we cannot force a woman to carry her baby to term and that she has an inalienable right to kill her infant, but in the next breath gleefully applaud the courts FORCING Christians to violate their faith in order to provide a product or service to celebrate evil.

They are just tools of Satan, and need to be seen and treated as such.

[INVAR]

If you own your own business, and you have a customer walk in that demands to be waited on or served and that is a complete @sshole, does the government have the right to force you to wait on or do business with that person?

Only if you are Christian.

Then the government can be used to force you to do whatever the wicked want.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

If you own your own business, and you have a customer walk in that demands to be waited on or served and that is a complete @sshole, does the government have the right to force you to wait on or do business with that person?

Well I should say you don't have an absolute right not to serve someone. For example, on account of race.

[Bigun]

Well I should say you don't have an absolute right not to serve someone. For example, on account of race.

Why don't I have that right?

[XenaLee]

Well I should say you don't have an absolute right not to serve someone. For example, on account of race.

I disagree.  My ex runs his own business related to rv and auto repair services.  He now will not "serve" people he calls gypsies.  Why?  Because in the past, every time he has provided services for these types, he has had trouble collecting, has gotten stiffed on payment (they skipped town without paying) and has basically lived to regret it for one reason or another.  And yeah, it's a racial AND a cultural thing.  Since doing business with these gypsies in the past has negatively affected his bottom line/profit, he has every right to refuse to provide his services to them. 

[INVAR]

I disagree.  My ex runs his own business related to rv and auto repair services.  He now will not "serve" people he calls gypsies.  Why?  Because in the past, every time he has provided services for these types, he has had trouble collecting, has gotten stiffed on payment (they skipped town without paying) and has basically lived to regret it for one reason or another.  And yeah, it's a racial AND a cultural thing.  Since doing business with these gypsies in the past has negatively affected his bottom line/profit, he has every right to refuse to provide his services to them.

And it will be said that your husband has no right to practice discrimination, regardless of his own biases and his behavior makes him an institutional racist.   He therefore should be forced to provide his service to anyone who asks, regardless of their ability to pay or if they violate his conscience, or suffer fine, penalty, prison or all of the above.

He must serve whom the Big State and their cheerleaders say he must serve.

That is the kind of country these people have argued for and wanted.

[Bigun]

And it will be said that your husband has no right to practice discrimination, regardless of his own biases and his behavior makes him an institutional racist.   He therefore should be forced to provide his service to anyone who asks, regardless of their ability to pay or if they violate his conscience, or suffer fine, penalty, prison or all of the above.

He must serve whom the Big State and their cheerleaders say he must serve.

That is the kind of country these people have argued for and wanted.

The right to discriminate is, at root, nothing more than the right to survive on this planet!

[Jazzhead]

A business should have the right to refuse business to anyone. The right to worship as one chooses is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, as is the freedom of assembly. The right to be queer is not. For the law to require that someone operate their business in a manner they find religiously offensive is an abrogation of a fundamental right.

From what I can see, the couple only asked for the service the business advertised it would provide.  Nothing more, nothing less.    What's unreasonable about that?    The "right to worship" has nothing to do with the conduct of business with the general public (which is the sole focus of public accommodation laws).   There is no "abrogation of a fundamental right" to require a business owner to sell what he says he'll sell and not be an a$$hole about it. 

 The florist now advertises no flowers for weddings.   That's what she should have done in the first place - she'd then have been in the right to refuse service and saved $1,000 and a whole bunch of lawyers' bills.     

[Jazzhead]

Only if you are Christian.

Then the government can be used to force you to do whatever the wicked want.

The government did not force this florist to sell flowers for weddings.   That was her free choice.   

I am sick and tired of bigotry masquerading as Christian virtue. 

[EC]

The government did not force this florist to sell flowers for weddings.   That was her free choice.   

No. It has forced her not to.

Good job, right?

[Jazzhead]

No. It has forced her not to.

Good job, right?

It "forced" her only in the sense that she believes, quite bizarrely, that providing flowers for a civil wedding ceremony makes her complicit in "sin".     If one thinks homosexuality is a sin, then by all means, don't practice it.   But if you say you provide flowers for weddings, buck up and do what you say you'll do. 

[EC]

It "forced" her only in the sense that she believes, quite bizarrely, that providing flowers for a civil wedding ceremony makes her complicit in "sin".

Doesn't it? Flowers tend to be rather central to weddings, don't they? Which means the arranger is part of the wedding. Please show me how it doesn't make her complicit in sin, as you are the one who claims her belief is bizzare.

[dfwgator]

They should just declare themselves as a Muslim Florist....problem solved.

[INVAR]

I am sick and tired of bigotry masquerading as Christian virtue.

Well, empower your government friends to put a gun to my head and make me stop then. Go ahead - it's what you really want to do anyway.

I am HAPPY and PROUD to be a BIGOT in your sick, twisted and perverted worldview.

And I give two-poops whether or not you are sick and tired of it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I disagree.  My ex runs his own business related to rv and auto repair services.  He now will not "serve" people he calls gypsies.  Why?  Because in the past, every time he has provided services for these types, he has had trouble collecting, has gotten stiffed on payment (they skipped town without paying) and has basically lived to regret it for one reason or another.  And yeah, it's a racial AND a cultural thing.  Since doing business with these gypsies in the past has negatively affected his bottom line/profit, he has every right to refuse to provide his services to them.

Welp, then if anyone ever gets proof, like maybe from the post, then he's setting himself for a lawsuit. Just saying.

[Bigun]

Doesn't it? Flowers tend to be rather central to weddings, don't they? Which means the arranger is part of the wedding. Please show me how it doesn't make her complicit in sin, as you are the one who claims her belief is bizzare.

The public school indoctrination took on him. You're wasting your time and good cyber ink my brother.

[Sanguine]

Why wouldn't they refuse?

Yeah, I don't get that either.  I hate to in any way even seem to agree with our resident leftist, but if you wouldn't refuse a Muslim or atheist wedding, why do you draw the line at homosexual union? 

[Smokin Joe]

It "forced" her only in the sense that she believes, quite bizarrely, that providing flowers for a civil wedding ceremony makes her complicit in "sin".     If one thinks homosexuality is a sin, then by all means, don't practice it.   But if you say you provide flowers for weddings, buck up and do what you say you'll do.

Implicit in the Christian consideration that marriage is between one man and one woman, one might well find a homosexual civil union is not a marriage. Therefore, the performance of a ceremony invoking that civil union is not a 'wedding' as defined within the belief system. If you look at:

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

or

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

those are pretty clear Old Testament references to the unsuitability of such civil unions within the Christian belief system--not simply forbidden, but an abomination.

Now, in deference to modern times, no one is casting stones--at least Christians aren't, in Islam punishments get more creative when the act is prosecuted.
Would the court have been equally hasty to fine Muslim florists?

[Jazzhead]

Doesn't it? Flowers tend to be rather central to weddings, don't they? Which means the arranger is part of the wedding. Please show me how it doesn't make her complicit in sin, as you are the one who claims her belief is bizzare.

A gay wedding is a private ceremony celebrating a purely civil marriage contract.    Let's posit a different but I think analogous scenario - the florist refuses to sell flowers to a gay person for a birthday celebration.   Neither ought to render the florist complicit in "sin", at least it seems to me.   Neither ceremony mocks God or has any religious connotations whatsoever.

Of course, the beauty of "religious freedom" is that just about any behavior or prejudice toward others can be justified on the basis of "belief".   The fact that the victim may be tangibly harmed appears to mean little to some.   But the community has decided to draw the line when it comes to a public accommodation - if you choose to serve the general public, then you submit to the community's rules - including, as here, that you can't justify a$$holery by claiming your behavior is "religious".   

[EC]

A birthday is not analogous to a wedding.