I don't believe that, SJ. A gay wedding is not a religious wedding. It is a purely civil contract, and in the eyes of God its celebration is no different than the celebration of a birthday.
By what intricate contortion of logic do you equate that which is natural (birth generally a cause for joy in the Bible) and necessary to the procreation of the species to that which is the 'celebration' of legally binding two homosexuals in a relationship God considers "abomination", acts both unnatural and which cannot lead to progeny?
What you don't want to admit is that regardless of whether the participants consider the "gay wedding" of great religious significance or like getting their teeth cleaned, in this case, the people you would force to provide services or be penalized are the ones whose viewpoints matter. Obviously the persons engaging in the act don't have any objections, it is those providing the service whose objections to participation, however peripherally, in something they consider a mockery of a sacrament and which their God has, again, clearly expressed His displeasure toward, whose opinions and beliefs matter.
I believe the florist's motivation is animus toward homosexuals that may well have its genesis in what she believes the Bible says. But lots of good Christians don't bully gays about their abominableness. Some will even welcome their neighbors and extend them respect and the hand of friendship.
Wow. First off, I can't know their animus, should such even exist. Have you never simply refused to participate in something you found offensive? There is no bullying involving gays, here, except gays bullying Christians into providing a service for an act they have a moral objection to, or punishing them for not doing so.
These florists haven't refused to do business with the gays, it isn't a hatred thing, it is just this one ceremonial act they refuse to have ANY part in.
You assume an animus toward people that exists for the act, and now would extend the penumbra of 'bullying' to include nonparticipation.
Do you see where that is going?... first state enforced "tolerance", now state enforced participation? What's next? You literally want people to be forced to cater to something they find offensive on religious grounds.
If this florist says she sells flowers for weddings, then she should stop acting like a jerk and serve her customers.
"Jerk"? It is the owner's shop. The owner should be able to decide who they will and won't do business with, or the circumstances under which they will engage in trade, for whatever reason they choose. If the marketplace (the base of customers in that area) find that offensive, she will go out of business or do poorly. If not, she may prosper. It is no business of the State. However, I think there is a responsibility on the part of customers to not ask that which they know the shop owner might find offensive. I wouldn't go to a Kosher or Halal butcher and demand they butcher my hog, for instance--and then sue if they didn't.
You speak of decency, where is the respect for the religious belief of the owners of the shop?
All she really needs to do, I'd think, is advertise that she sells flowers for religious weddings only. There - a perfectly reasonable solution that avoids lawyers, not to mention folks like me labelled as tyrants and haters of Christians.
That would never work, and you know it. All they need is a gay pastor from some progressive 'church', and the whole thing is in motion again, with the lawyers tapped into the vein--not to mention atheists who might find their heterosexual nonreligious civil union excluded--and would sue, too.
If they advertised for "heterosexual weddings only" we know where that would go--the same court to be decreed offensive to the same protected class.
What you have effectively embraced is the owners own the business but the State decides who they will do business with. That's fascism, plain and simple.
