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.