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

[truth_seeker]

Just curious, if you (any of you, I'm not singling out anyone) were a baker and the best cake decorator in town, what would you do if a neo-Nazi came in and wanted to order a cake for Hitler's birthday that depicted a crematory and the words, "Happy Birthday, Adolph. Finish the job."? Of course, neo-Nazis are not a protected class now, unlike homosexuals, but is there an analogy there somewhere? 

How about a couple of illegal immigrants, ask a baker to make a wedding cake with two flags?

US flag with an X over it, and a Mexican flag.

I would assume a baker might disagree with the requested message. But could he refuse them?

How about a Christian medical doctor, refusing to perform genital mutilation on a teen aged muslim female?

[EC]

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

Odd thing is that, as you know I really don't care either way about homosexual marriage - not my business what other people do. Certainly not my sin.

I just got ticked at the statement about "bizzare belief."

[Jazzhead]

Would the court have been equally hasty to fine Muslim florists?

I would hope so. 

[INVAR]

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?

Because the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.  It doesn't matter if they are Muslim or an Atheist - it's still a man and woman being joined together, and that is what God created and intended from the beginning.

Acknowledging an abomination as being legitimate and forcing business owners and everyone else to accept it - is a gross violation of our right of free exercise of religion, association, and conscience.

Providing flowers to Muslims or Atheists who are man and woman getting married, does not violate the institution God ordained.

Providing them to two homosexuals who are violating the institution as God ordained it - does.

[Sanguine]

Because the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman.  It doesn't matter if they are Muslim or an Atheist - it's still a man and woman being joined together, and that is what God created and intended from the beginning.

Acknowledging an abomination as being legitimate and forcing business owners and everyone else to accept it - is a gross violation of our right of free exercise of religion, association, and conscience.

Providing flowers to Muslims or Atheists who are man and woman getting married, does not violate the institution God ordained.

Providing them to two homosexuals who are violating the institution as God ordained it - does.

My point was, that those who refuse to acknowledge God and/or worship other gods, are equally abhorrent.  Why pick one abhorrence and ignore two others?  My examples are in the 10 Commandments; "gay marriage" is not, giving more weight to my examples.

[Jazzhead]

I would assume a baker might disagree with the requested message. But could he refuse them?

In my view, yes.   All the baker needs to do is to post a sign saying that he reserves the right to edit or refuse any written messages on a cake.   Even without such a sign, I'd argue he's within his rights to refuse an offensive message.  That has nothing to do, IMO,  with prohibited discrimination.   

How about a Christian medical doctor, refusing to perform genital mutilation on a teen aged muslim female?

Again, in my view, yes.   

[Jazzhead]

Because the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman. 

Gay marriage is civil marriage, not religious marriage.   God and the Bible have nothing to do with it.   

[Free Vulcan]

I would hope so.

But they don't, and that is the problem. The govt forces very unequal equality.

[INVAR]

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.

Boy are you in for a big shock at The Judgment.

if you choose to serve the general public, then you submit to the community's rules

And that dear sir is the very impetus for imposing the Mark of the Beast.

Nice to know you approve.

you can't justify a$$holery by claiming your behavior is "religious".   

It's a$$holery in your worldview for anyone to simply to act on biblical tenets and beliefs if you disagree with them.  It's why you and your master applaud the efforts to criminalize biblical faith and belief.

[Jazzhead]

Odd thing is that, as you know I really don't care either way about homosexual marriage - not my business what other people do. Certainly not my sin.

I just got ticked at the statement about "bizzare belief."

Bizarre in my opinion, because a gay civil marriage is merely a contract that has nothing to do with religious marriage as defined in the Bible.  My apologies, EC, if you were offended. 

[Smokin Joe]

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.

See my post above.

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".   

The beliefs have been laid out in scripture for over two thousand years. No one is inventing anything to be an "a$$hole", they are sticking with long held beliefs in concert with their religion. In fact, merely not providing flowers is a tolerant peaceful approach to the whole situation. Would Muslim florists be forced to provide flowers? Muslims still believe in the death penalty for homosexuality, and that only goes back 1400 years.

Who are you, or anyone else, for that matter, to tell them what they can or cannot believe? Are you going to rewrite such longstanding beliefs? If so, and you seem adamant about that, you are in favor of the Courts, an arm of government, making an establishment of religious doctrine. A clear violation of the First Amendment.

[Jazzhead]

Boy are you in for a big shock at The Judgment. 

I don't think He'll take kindly to your bigotry, either.

[Jazzhead]

Who are you, or anyone else, for that matter, to tell them what they can or cannot believe? Are you going to rewrite such longstanding beliefs? If so, and you seem adamant about that, you are in favor of the Courts, an arm of government, making an establishment of religious doctrine. A clear violation of the First Amendment.

They can believe whatever they want.   They can be as bigoted as they want, and justify it by pointing to some holy book.  I don't care.   I'm no saint, I have prejudices, too. 

 All I'm saying is that if they are in business to make money selling things to the public, they must abide by the community's rules.   

[truth_seeker]

I don't think He'll take kindly to your bigotry, either.

What do you feel his views are, with regard to polygamy?

Should a Christian baker be obliged to provide cakes to muslim and Mormon weddings, wherein plural marriage is involved?

Or how about for a muslim marriage, wherein a minor female of say 9 years old age would be the bride?

[Jazzhead]

What do you feel his views are, with regard to polygamy?

Should a Christian baker be obliged to provide cakes to muslim and Mormon weddings, wherein plural marriage is involved?

Or how about for a muslim marriage, wherein a minor female of say 9 years old age would be the bride?

I probably shouldn't have even speculated what God's views may be.  That's hubris, and I regret it  - but I was reacting to a poster who effectively told me I'm going to hell.  I'm fine with whatever my Maker decides, although I hope and pray it's not the same place as INVAR. 

 

[dfwgator]

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".   

The market is perfectly capable of handling this without the government needing to get involved.

[XenaLee]

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

If it's your business that you built from scratch, your hard work, your sweat, your money, etc....

how is it right for anyone, including government, to force you to wait on or serve someone you don't want to serve....for ANY reason?

[INVAR]

My point was, that those who refuse to acknowledge God and/or worship other gods, are equally abhorrent.  Why pick one abhorrence and ignore two others?  My examples are in the 10 Commandments; "gay marriage" is not, giving more weight to my examples.

Because we are discussing the coercion and force being applied to a person of biblical faith to serve and participate in an abhorrent sin.  If a Muslim were using the courts to force Believers to acknowledge and recognize a Shahadda ceremony, then we would have a similar situation as we do with homosexuals forcing us to acknowledge and recognize their perversions.  That hasn't happened yet.  But with the mindset that if you run a business you must abandon your faith and principles in order to operate, that future is a frightening reality.

We are held accountable by God for what WE DO in terms of either condoning, participating in, succumbing to or eschewing sin.  We are not held accountable for the belief and faith of others that we serve who are participating in an institution that God created and ordained if they are not Believers.  For even though they are not Believers, they are still being blessed by the institution God created, even if they do not acknowledge Him.  God does not impart sin to us for serving a man and woman getting married, just because they are not Believers.

Homosexuals on the other hand, are proudly flaunting the middle finger to God in their perversion of the institution and it's purpose.  Serving two homosexuals makes us complicit in serving and condoning that abomination  - and THAT IS an accounting that will be applied to us.  Light reveals what is in the darkness. A light does not hide itself to shine upon sin and reveal it for what it is simply because society and the government or courts order us to hide it under a bushel.

[INVAR]

I don't think He'll take kindly to your bigotry, either.

And you'll be in for another shock at The Judgment on that score as well.

What you call bigotry - God calls 'eschewing evil'. 

To stand against and remain unspotted and unstained from the world's wickedness is part of pure and undefiled religion.  That is richly rewarded from Heaven.

So as I told you - I am HAPPY to be a bigot in your worldview and wear the badge proudly.

[INVAR]

All I'm saying is that if they are in business to make money selling things to the public, they must abide by the community's rules.

The Beast causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark,  the name of the beast or the number of its name. - Revelation 13:16

[EC]

@INVAR

You are one of the few people who consistently argue from faith and scripture who has never, to my knowledge, told God what to do.
You are also scrupulous in keeping a good separation between God's Word and what YOU think.

We won't always agree - fr from it - but that I respect you for.

Figured it needed be said. 

[INVAR]

I was reacting to a poster who effectively told me I'm going to hell.  I'm fine with whatever my Maker decides, although I hope and pray it's not the same place as INVAR.

That makes you a deliberate LIAR now too doesn't it? 

I call you a LIAR because I never told you or anyone else, anywhere at anytime that they were 'going to hell'.  Please provide the board here with the post I made that says you are going to hell and I will retract my charge.  If not - you stand a LIAR.

I do find it amusing that you hope and pray you will not be in the Kingdom of God, simply because I intend to be there.

Given your promotion of things on this board - you may indeed get your wish.

God willing the scales will fall from your eyes before that Day you stand before the Son of Man.

[INVAR]

@INVAR

You are one of the few people who consistently argue from faith and scripture who has never, to my knowledge, told God what to do.
You are also scrupulous in keeping a good separation between God's Word and what YOU think.

We won't always agree - fr from it - but that I respect you for.

Figured it needed be said. 

Well, thanks for that- though I do not think I always hit that mark.

[truth_seeker]

I probably shouldn't have even speculated what God's views may be.  That's hubris, and I regret it  - but I was reacting to a poster who effectively told me I'm going to hell.  I'm fine with whatever my Maker decides, although I hope and pray it's not the same place as INVAR.

Fine but what about cakes for polygamous weddings, and weddings with minor brides?

What about the baker, who turns down those business undertakings?

Where does it end?

[Bigun]

Well, thanks for that- though I do not think I always hit that mark.

Maybe not, but you are rarely out of the 9 ring!