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

[Silver Pines]

   I have faith in the power of America to assimilate our immigrants and turn them into responsible citizens. 

@Jazzhead, they must do that themselves.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Next up:  forcing a preacher or a priest to marry gays.

There is no end when one starts down this vicious cycle.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

You would determine what is acceptable for individuals to believe based on the community?
As for economics, what happened to letting the market decide. If people disagree, they won't spend their money there, either, and the business won't do well.
You would put them in the position of being governmentally coerced into selling out their core beliefs or fine them for not doing so?

You are sounding a lot like a tyrant.

Is the whole community homosexual, or only a small minority?
Do we get to vote on who 'does' your wife, too? Or just who has to sell flowers to whom?

Or are the newlyweds wannbe flower arrangers who thought they could take over a local business?

As far as homosexuality goes, The Almighty made his opinion known and not just through scriptures . Ask the modern day residents of Sodom and Gomorrah--oh, you can't... Those towns got the zot long ago.

[Norm Lenhart]

You would determine what is acceptable for individuals to believe based on the community? You would put them in the position of being governmentally coerced into selling out their core beliefs? Is the whole community homosexual, or only a small minority? Or are the newlyweds flower arrangers who thought they could take over a local business?

Since homosexuals are at the absolute most, 3% of the population, I get the feeling that if the community ruled that all homosexuals were to be thrown out of the community entirely, someone wouldn't be touting  rule by the community anymore. We already know he does not adhere to the standard of the community when muslims are involved. He calls the community 'bigots' for doing exactly what he suggests.

Quite the corner he backed his VERY situational ethics into.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Since homosexuals are at the absolute most, 3% of the population, I get the feeling that if the community ruled that all homosexuals were to be thrown out of the community entirely, someone wouldn't be touting  rule by the community anymore. We already know he does not adhere to the standard of the community when muslims are involved. He calls the community 'bigots' for doing exactly what he suggests.

Quite the corner he backed his VERY situational ethics into.

If Islam takes us over, that 3% will not be thrown out, they will be thrown off like this guy.

[Norm Lenhart]

If Islam takes us over, that 3% will not be thrown out, they will be thrown off like this guy.

All the more ironic as he is a militant defender of islam and muslims on this forum.

[INVAR]

All the more ironic as he is a militant defender of islam and muslims on this forum.

I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend kindof thing.

It is illustrative that he a rabid supporter for all the things that are corrosive, anathema, abhorrent or an abomination to Conservative Christian principles.

[Smokin Joe]

I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend kindof thing.

It is illustrative that he a rabid supporter for all the things that are corrosive, anathema, abhorrent or an abomination to Conservative Christian principles.

Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just the enemy of your enemy.
Shared enmity is often a poor basis on which to build friendship.

[INVAR]

Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just the enemy of your enemy.
Shared enmity is often a poor basis on which to build friendship.

I don't think 'friendship' is what they have in mind.  Using the other to help 'burn it all down and blow it all up' is what they have in mind.  Meanwhile, the other other is happily using them as useful idiots to achieve the same ends, but with a very different end-game on the agenda.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think 'friendship' is what they have in mind.  Using the other to help 'burn it all down and blow it all up' is what they have in mind.  Meanwhile, the other other is happily using them as useful idiots to achieve the same ends, but with a very different end-game on the agenda.

Ironic, isn't it, that both justify their often similar means by very different ends?

[Jazzhead]

You would determine what is acceptable for individuals to believe based on the community?
As for economics, what happened to letting the market decide. If people disagree, they won't spend their money there, either, and the business won't do well.
You would put them in the position of being governmentally coerced into selling out their core beliefs or fine them for not doing so?

You are sounding a lot like a tyrant.

Is the whole community homosexual, or only a small minority?
Do we get to vote on who 'does' your wife, too? Or just who has to sell flowers to whom?

Or are the newlyweds wannbe flower arrangers who thought they could take over a local business?

As far as homosexuality goes, The Almighty made his opinion known and not just through scriptures . Ask the modern day residents of Sodom and Gomorrah--oh, you can't... Those towns got the zot long ago.

I'm sorry, SJ,  that you consider my views tyrannical.  As I see it,  this is simply a clash between one person's individual right and another's.    The store owner's religious freedom is precious, but so is the right of the consumer to not be denied service for cruel and arbitrary reasons (that is, based on the color of his skin or sexual orientation).   Whose right should trump the other?    I know whose right you favor;  but should that be the basis for decision? 

  I understand that some conservatives view the word "community" as a trigger word,  but seriously,  when a situation like this exists - one person's right conflicting with another's - what's wrong with choice being made by the community (that is, by the peoples' elected representatives, consistent, of course, with the Constitution?)

My original post on this thread was,  I thought,  quite modest and reasonable -  while I agreed with the court that the couple' rights had been violated by the florist,  I was pleased that the court did not see fit to punish the florist by imposing a ruinous fine.   The florist's position was based on her good faith belief,  and that was,  I thought, acknowledged by the court in limiting the fine to mere $1,000.

But the community HAD spoken on the matter,  and the florist is obliged to conduct her for-profit business by its rules - rules that allow you to provide and profit from whatever lawful service you choose, so long as you act consistent with the rules proscribing unlawful discrimination. 

This is no limitation of an individual's religious freedom.   There is a vast area of life and interaction where the Christian can deny and even bully the homosexual.  The Christian can choose to not practice homosexuality itself,  can deny friendship and assistance to a homosexual,  can cast a homosexual from his house and family,  and can write and speak out about the depravity and spiritual doom of the homosexual.  How is the Christian's freedom to shun and condemn the homosexual not vast and spiritually satisfying?   

The only thing he can't do, says the community, is run a for-profit business and practice unlawful, arbitrary discrimination.   That's it, that's all.     

As I noted above,  the florist whose conscience cannot abide her provision of flowers for the celebration of a civil contract can simply choose not to provide flowers for weddings.   Then her conscience can be clear, and her customers will have no basis for complaint.   

[Smokin Joe]

I'm sorry, SJ,  that you consider my views tyrannical.  As I see it,  this is simply a clash between one person's individual right and another's.    The store owner's religious freedom is precious, but so is the right of the consumer to not be denied service for cruel and arbitrary reasons (that is, based on the color of his skin or sexual orientation).   Whose right should trump the other?    I know whose right you favor;  but should that be the basis for decision? 

  I understand that some conservatives view the word "community" as a trigger word,  but seriously,  when a situation like this exists - one person's right conflicting with another's - what's wrong with choice being made by the community (that is, by the peoples' elected representatives, consistent, of course, with the Constitution?)

My original post on this thread was,  I thought,  quite modest and reasonable -  while I agreed with the court that the couple' rights had been violated by the florist,  I was pleased that the court did not see fit to punish the florist by imposing a ruinous fine.   The florist's position was based on her good faith belief,  and that was,  I thought, acknowledged by the court in limiting the fine to mere $1,000.

But the community HAD spoken on the matter,  and the florist is obliged to conduct her for-profit business by its rules - rules that allow you to provide and profit from whatever lawful service you choose, so long as you act consistent with the rules proscribing unlawful discrimination. 

This is no limitation of an individual's religious freedom.   There is a vast area of life and interaction where the Christian can deny and even bully the homosexual.  The Christian can choose to not practice homosexuality itself,  can deny friendship and assistance to a homosexual,  can cast a homosexual from his house and family,  and can write and speak out about the depravity and spiritual doom of the homosexual.  How is the Christian's freedom to shun and condemn the homosexual not vast and spiritually satisfying?   

The only thing he can't do, says the community, is run a for-profit business and practice unlawful, arbitrary discrimination.   That's it, that's all.     

As I noted above,  the florist whose conscience cannot abide her provision of flowers for the celebration of a civil contract can simply choose not to provide flowers for weddings.   Then her conscience can be clear, and her customers will have no basis for complaint.

You indicate that the florist must, in your mind, provide services for anything that is considered by one of the participants a 'wedding'. Suppose the person marries their pet goat? Their car? In the eyes of a Christian those mockeries of the sacrament of marriage are no less so than the idea that two men or two women can be married.

You would force someone to do business with that they are religiously opposed to.
You would use the state to dictate whom they must serve.
You would invent a "right" to do business at that establishment, for any purpose or demand the establishment not do business at all--because the proprietors wanted to engage in their enumerated Right to practice their religious beliefs.
What's more, you would trump that enumerated right, and interpose the State between the proprietors and their God, citing a 'right' that isn't even extant. It is not that they would not sell these people flowers, but that they would not cater to an event considered abomination in God's eyes. Ask people to choose between the State and The Almighty, and those who have considered the duration of earthly existence versus eternity will opt for their God every time.
You would think it "generous" of the government to fine them only a thousand dollars for not doing so.
And you are redefining the concept of marriage, otherwise you would not equate that civil ceremony with a 'wedding'. To a devout Christian who believes that God would find such an arrangement an abomination, participation is not an option.

 Now sit there and tell me you would have used the courts to force Benjamin Franklin to print the invitations.

[Jazzhead]

You indicate that the florist must, in your mind, provide services for anything that is considered by one of the participants a 'wedding'. Suppose the person marries their pet goat? Their car? In the eyes of a Christian those mockeries of the sacrament of marriage are no less so than the idea that two men or two women can be married.

You would force someone to do business with that they are religiously opposed to.
You would use the state to dictate whom they must serve.
You would invent a "right" to do business at that establishment, for any purpose or demand the establishment not do business at all--because the proprietors wanted to engage in their enumerated Right to practice their religious beliefs.
What's more, you would trump that enumerated right, and interpose the State between the proprietors and their God, citing a 'right' that isn't even extant. It is not that they would not sell these people flowers, but that they would not cater to an event considered abomination in God's eyes. Ask people to choose between the State and The Almighty, and those who have considered the duration of earthly existence versus eternity will opt for their God every time.
You would think it "generous" of the government to fine them only a thousand dollars for not doing so.
And you are redefining the concept of marriage, otherwise you would not equate that civil ceremony with a 'wedding'. To a devout Christian who believes that God would find such an arrangement an abomination, participation is not an option.

 Now sit there and tell me you would have used the courts to force Benjamin Franklin to print the invitations.

SJ, I'm not so far down the leftist rathole as to not understand your perspective.   Maybe it's merely the pettiness of the florist's act that offends me.    If a court were to hold that a church must recognize a homosexual union for any purpose whatsoever related to the that church's doctrine or community,  I'd be screaming bloody murder right along side you.    A Catholic hospital should never, for example, be forced to perform an abortion,   and I've also supported laws that keep taxpayer money from funding abortion.   

But a florist who makes money from selling flowers for weddings and other ceremonies?    Her customers aren't mocking her religion;  they've come to her business to obtain her advertised services.   In that context,  refusing to serve gay customers strikes me as petty and cruel.   And, yeah, I can see how such a display of "Christian virtue" might reasonably prompt a customer to seek legal redress.   My neighbors' marriage is not the same as marriage to a goat! 
 

[dfwgator]

But a florist who makes money from selling flowers for weddings and other ceremonies?    Her customers aren't mocking her religion;  they've come to her business to obtain her advertised services.   In that context,  refusing to serve gay customers strikes me as petty and cruel.   And, yeah, I can see how such a display of "Christian virtue" might reasonably prompt a customer to seek legal redress.   My neighbors' marriage is not the same as marriage to a goat! 
 

Most likely they were targeted by these gays because they put themselves out as a Christian company.   You mean to tell me there were no other florists in the area that would have been willing to accommodate them?

[EC]

Why does tolerance (and it's comrade acceptance) always seem to flow one way?

Someone is homosexual, I can accept that they are. It's no skin off my nose. Not a problem.

But the shriller of the yappy homosexuals accepting that someone lives their faith? Nope. Not acceptable.

[Jazzhead]

Most likely they were targeted by these gays because they put themselves out as a Christian company.   You mean to tell me there were no other florists in the area that would have been willing to accommodate them?

"Most likely"?   How do you know that?   I'd say it was more likely the florist was making a political statement at the expense of his customer and the customer, offended,  decided to hit back by asserting his legal rights.   

But I don't know the details of the interaction any more than (I presume) you do.    So what's wrong with old fashioned notions of courtesy and fair play?   For the business owner, show respect for your customers by providing the services you hold yourself out as providing.   For the customer, respect the business owner - including his religious sensibilities - and don't demand a service the business owner doesn't offer to provide.   

[Jazzhead]

Why does tolerance (and it's comrade acceptance) always seem to flow one way?

Someone is homosexual, I can accept that they are. It's no skin off my nose. Not a problem.

But the shriller of the yappy homosexuals accepting that someone lives their faith? Nope. Not acceptable.

EC, it should certainly flow both ways.   And most of the time,  it does (which is the beauty of commerce - an interaction between strangers, where the customer is satisfied and the business owner gets paid.)   

[Silver Pines]

Steven Crowder visited Muslim bakeries to see if he could get them to make a wedding cake for him and his "boyfriend."  Can you guess the answers he received?

A couple of publications on the right picked it up, but it was otherwise ignored by the media.

It's stunningly naive to think this is about anything but silencing the free speech and taking away the livelihoods of Christians/conservatives who refuse to bend the knee.  A different standard exists for protected "victim" groups, such as Muslims.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/undercover-video-would-muslim-bakers-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake

[TomSea]

Steven Crowder visited Muslim bakeries to see if he could get them to make a wedding cake for him and his "boyfriend."  Can you guess the answers he received?

A couple of publications on the right picked it up, but it was otherwise ignored by the media.

It's stunningly naive to think this is about anything but silencing the free speech and taking away the livelihoods of Christians/conservatives who refuse to bend the knee.  A different standard exists for protected "victim" groups, such as Muslims.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/undercover-video-would-muslim-bakers-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake

I don't doubt it, even here, I've heard one poster refer to Christians in negative ways but when it comes to Muslims, they are "our neighbors and friends".

[INVAR]

The store owner's religious freedom is precious

Not according to you.  According to you if they eschew evil and refuse to violate their faith and conscience to service evil, they are bigots.

I understand that some conservatives view the word "community" as a trigger word,

That and "Social Justice" which is a term you like to use.

when a situation like this exists - one person's right conflicting with another's - what's wrong with choice being made by the community

Because a mob has no more right to infringe on the free exercise of religion and private property rights anymore than a minority does.

But the community HAD spoken on the matter,  and the florist is obliged to conduct her for-profit business by its rules

"for-profit business"????  And what about 'non-profit'?  Or like your liberalism dictates, you view profit with the same disdain you view Biblical Christianity?

This is no limitation of an individual's religious freedom.

You do not believe in religious freedom unless it's Muslim, Hindu or something other than Christianity.  Your posts drip with nothing but contempt for the biblical faith.  In fact, you actually said earlier that we have the 'freedom of worship', which is NOT what freedom we have.  'Freedom of worship' is what Obama said we were limited to having, and all it means is we are permitted to believe what we want to believe, but that we are not free to act or exercise that belief.  We have an inalienable right to the free exercise of religion, which may not be prohibited.  And yet here you are - advocating the prohibition thereof.

The only thing he can't do, says the community, is run a for-profit business and practice unlawful, arbitrary discrimination.   That's it, that's all.   

I choose to discriminate against those who practice sin and promote it.  Openly.  I don't care if a "Community" demands grown men get to use little girls bathrooms.  I stand to oppose it, and them.   I don't care if a "Community" decides all male children under two years old must be sacrificed - I plan to stand against it.   Tyrants like you attempt to hide your tyranny within reasonable-sounding appeals - but all you really are is a sledgehammer to liberty in order to impose your own twisted version of it.

As I noted above,  the florist whose conscience cannot abide her provision of flowers for the celebration of a civil contract can simply choose not to provide flowers for weddings.

All tyrants believe they possess the power to tell a private property owner what they can and must do with their own property, whom they must serve, what price they are permitted to charge, what they are permitted to possess and how much.

Smokin' Joe nailed your views for exactly what they are.

[Silver Pines]

EC, it should certainly flow both ways.   And most of the time,  it does (which is the beauty of commerce - an interaction between strangers, where the customer is satisfied and the business owner gets paid.)

@Jazzhead

The customer could easily be satisfied.   He could have a cake made at any number of bakeries.  Instead, the business owner not only doesn't get paid, he gets financially destroyed.

[Norm Lenhart]

@Jazzhead

The customer could easily be satisfied.   He could have a cake made at any number of bakeries.  Instead, the business owner not only doesn't get paid, he gets financially destroyed.

  And thats exactly what the homosexual militants and their militant supporters want. Now they are into the next phase - dehumanizing anyone that refuses to accept the pink fascism as hateful bigots. Incrementalism strikes again.

And on a nominally right wing website no less.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

The customer could easily be satisfied.   He could have a cake made at any number of bakeries.  Instead, the business owner not only doesn't get paid, he gets financially destroyed.

Or

No, she should not be financially destroyed.   But she should serve her customers. Sometimes one person's right bumps up against another's.  $1,000 bucks represents a fair award,  IMO.  You and she are free to disagree. 

[SirLinksALot]

Or

No, she should not be financially destroyed.   But she should serve her customers. Sometimes one person's right bumps up against another's.  $1,000 bucks represents a fair award,  IMO.  You and she are free to disagree.

The option you present Should Not even be considered in a  country where religious liberty and the First Amendment are paramount.

That it is even happening and being encouraged by Americans is a sad testament to how far we as a country have departed from the founding principles of this country.

[INVAR]

But she should serve her customers.

She has the right to refuse service to anyone of her choosing, for any reason.  Same as I exercise - with prejudice.  Because the liberty we were enshrined means that we possess the right of association, right of free exercise and right to do as we please with our own private property and our own labor , and all of that trumps your misguided and stupid advocacy of tyranny.

Sometimes one person's right bumps up against another's.  $1,000 bucks represents a fair award,  IMO. 

And I call that extortion.

Asserting a person's demands for service for a behavior and practice that is considered an abomination supersedes private property, speech and free exercise of religion, you got another thing coming.