The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: SirLinksALot on February 16, 2017, 10:48:41 pm
-
SOURCE: FOX NEWS
URL: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/16/washington-court-rules-against-florist-in-gay-wedding-case.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/16/washington-court-rules-against-florist-in-gay-wedding-case.html)
by: RACHEL LA CORTE, ASSOCIATED PRESS
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2017/02/16/washington-court-rules-against-florist-in-gay-wedding-case/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1487277347817.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Curt Freed, left, and his husband Robert Ingersoll, the couple who sued florist Barronelle Stutzman for refusing to provide services for their wedding, smile after a hearing before Washington's Supreme Court in Bellevue, Wash.
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that a florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex wedding broke the state's antidiscrimination law, even though she claimed doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
A lower court had fined Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, for denying service to a gay couple in 2013, and ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine.
Stutzman argued that she was exercising her First Amendment rights. But the court held that her floral arrangements do not constitute protected free speech, and that providing flowers to a same-sex wedding would not serve as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
"As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism," the opinion said.
Stutzman's lawyers immediately said they would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision.
"It's wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will," Stutzman's attorney, Kristen Waggoner, wrote in a statement issued after the ruling. "Freedom of speech and religion aren't subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees."
It's one of several lawsuits around the country — including some involving bakers — about whether businesses can refuse to provide services over causes they disagree with, or whether they must serve everyone equally.
A Colorado case involving a baker who would not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Lambda Legal. In 2014, the court declined to hear an appeal of a case out of New Mexico that went against a photographer who denied a same-sex couple service.
Gov. Jay Inslee lauded Thursday's ruling, saying it was "in favor of equality for all Washingtonians."
"By ruling that intolerance based on sexual orientation is unlawful, the Court affirmed that Washington state will remain a place where no one can be discriminated against because of who they love," Inslee said in a written statement.
Stutzman had previously sold the couple flowers and knew they were gay. However, Stutzman told them that she couldn't provide flowers for their wedding because same-sex marriage was incompatible with her Christian beliefs.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the couple sued her, saying she broke state anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws, and the lower court agreed. The state's nine high court justices upheld that verdict.
The court rejected several arguments put forth by Stutzman, including the assertion that since other florists were willing to serve the couple, no harm occurred.
"As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace," the court wrote. "Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined."
The case thrust the great-grandmother into the national spotlight and she testified before state lawmakers in Indiana and Kansas.
Michael Scott, a Seattle attorney who worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed — the couple denied the flowers — had previously told justices he didn't believe Stutzman's floral creations constituted speech. By providing flowers for a same-sex marriage, he argued, "she's not endorsing same-sex marriage. She's selling what she sells."
Ferguson had said the state's argument rested on longstanding principle, and uprooting it would weaken antidiscrimination law.
After the arguments in the Supreme Court case last November, at a packed theater at Bellevue College, a large crowd of Stutzman's supporters greeted her outside, chanting her name and waving signs that said "Justice For Barronelle."
In a February 2015 ruling, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom found that Stutzman's refusal to provide flowers because of sexual orientation violated Washington's anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. The following month, Ekstrom ordered Stutzman to pay a $1,000 penalty to the state and $1 in costs and fees.
Stutzman entered the florist business 30 years ago, when her mother bought a flower shop.
At a press conference following the ruling, Ferguson said that under Washington law, a business is not required to provide a particular service, but if it does so for couples of the opposite sex, it must provide that service equally to same-sex couples. Ferguson noted that Stutzman is not currently selling wedding flowers, but if she were to resume that side of her business, she would not be allowed to sell to only heterosexual couples.
"The state Supreme Court has made that very clear," he said.
-
Here we go. This is just the beginning.
-
Here we go. This is just the beginning.
Actually, this is the continuation of what began in Oregon.
The gay activists will not stop until devout Christians buckle.
-
Probably. I don't recall Jesus making any promises that following Him would be easy.
-
If a private college chooses to ban conservative student groups from campus - no problemo.
If a private business announces they will not allow any Trump-voting employees - woo hoo!
If a private business chooses to not sell their products to gay customers - string 'em up.
-
Easy solution to counter these bozos..... Here would be my delivery to any left wing litigious matrimonial type.....
As a florist....
(http://bensbargains.com/thecheckout/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/dead-flowers.jpg)
As a baker....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/13/article-2292677-18A0E2BF000005DC-202_634x449.jpg)
Organist?....
(http://orig07.deviantart.net/4182/f/2010/247/f/b/organ_grinder_ii_by_sandi0202-d2y094l.jpg)
Minister?.....
(http://www.anvari.org/db/cols/Drunk_People/Drunk_06.jpg)
Band for reception?
(http://www.orgsites.com/ga/middleagecrazyrhs/washboard_band.jpg)
Caterer for reception?
(http://popsop.com/wp-content/uploads/McDonalds-new-packaging_Sept-2013-by-Boxer-Creative_thumbnail-312x193.png)
-
Is anyone going to try to tell me this 'couple' couldn't find a homosexual flower arranger?
Sheeesh!
-
Is anyone going to try to tell me this 'couple' couldn't find a homosexual flower arranger?
Sheeesh!
They knew exactly what they were doing when they went to Mrs. Stutzman's shop, I'd wager. It had nothing to do with her particular floral arranging skills.
-
If a private college chooses to ban conservative student groups from campus - no problemo.
If a private business announces they will not allow any Trump-voting employees - woo hoo!
If a private business chooses to not sell their products to gay customers - string 'em up.
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.
Should it be against the law to discriminate on the basis of political belief?
-
There's a key difference with this decision that needs to be pointed out. It appears to be a much more just result than others I've seen. I believe, if memory serves, that an earlier decision regarding a Christian baker or florist (I can't recall which) found for the plaintiffs and ordered the offending business owner to pay a punitive fine in the range of $100,000 or so.
That's not justice, that's simply obnoxious. Whatever harm was caused to his customer by the baker or florist, it didn't deserve a ruinous fine that would essentially drive him out of business.
Here the fine was $1,000 - commensurate with the harm, but neither punitive nor ruinous. The florist may well want to appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court. That's fine - that's her right to pursue justice as she sees fit, and it's her choice to pay the legal costs to continue her crusade. But social justice isn't achieved when good faith disputes are addressed by unjust sanctions.
I think this court decided the matter fairly.
-
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.
Should it be against the law to discriminate on the basis of political belief?
You can't have a law for everything done and you shouldn't try to. If I wanted a Christian themed cake then I would pass by the bakery with the Jewish or Muslim symbols. Why? Is that because I discriminate against Jews and Muslims or because it makes sense?
-
Sorry guys, the courts have ruled and their say is final unless Trump disagrees. and in this case he clearly doesn't.
(http://i.imgur.com/wCYVeIE.png)
-
You can't have a law for everything done and you shouldn't try to. If I wanted a Christian themed cake then I would pass by the bakery with the Jewish or Muslim symbols. Why? Is that because I discriminate against Jews and Muslims or because it makes sense?
Why would a Jewish-owned bakery refuse to bake me a Christian-themed cake? Most religious folks are perfectly reasonable and, besides, when they're in business the idea is to make money, not turn up their noses at paying customers who request what they advertise to sell.
By providing flowers for a same-sex marriage, he argued, "she's not endorsing same-sex marriage. She's selling what she sells."
Exactly.
-
Why would a Jewish-owned bakery refuse to bake me a Christian-themed cake?
Why wouldn't they refuse?
-
The court's finding is, of course, erroneous, because it is not the free speech clause of the First Amendment, but the free exercise of religion clause that is relevant here. The Latin Church in their 1962 Missal published a list of "9 Ways of Being an Accessory to Another's Sin":
I. By counsel
II. By command
III. By consent
IV. By provocation
V. By praise or flattery
VI. By concealment
VII. By partaking
VIII. By silence
IX. By defense of the ill done
Providing floral arrangements, photography and other services for pay to the purported weddings of sodomites partakes of V and VII, and if done without objection of VIII.
Now the florists in question have probably been protestants, rather than Latins, but they intuitively understand this, and the state requirement that they participate in the sin of others is a plain violation of their religiously informed conscience.
It is the same refusal to participate in the sin of another that made the Obama administration's "accommodation" of the Little Sisters of the Poor a continued violation of the First Amendment, since it demanded of Latin Christians that they participate in what they regard as the sin of contraception by consent.
-
Why would a Jewish-owned bakery refuse to bake me a Christian-themed cake?
It's not that they would refuse but that I wouldn't ask if there was an alternative.
BTW, where I grew up most of the businesses, bakeries included, were Jewish. Where people shopped for what was guided mostly by common sense and not by who would be willing to do what.
-
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? :shrug:
-
Why wouldn't they refuse?
I suppose they could. But I prefer to assume that most religious folks are reasonable, and not zealots letting their intolerant religious views affect the businesses they run. Welcoming all customers IS good business.
-
It's not that they would refuse but that I wouldn't ask if there was an alternative.
BTW, where I grew up most of the businesses, bakeries included, were Jewish. Where people shopped for what was guided mostly by common sense and not by who would be willing to do what.
Common sense? I'm all for that.
-
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? :shrug:
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.
-
I suppose they could. But I prefer to assume that most religious folks are reasonable, and not zealots letting their intolerant religious views affect the businesses they run. Welcoming all customers IS good business.
They're people first. Everyone has their cut off - something which they won't go past for all the money in the world. My barber refuses to serve Chelsea fans. :shrug:
-
They're people first. Everyone has their cut off - something which they won't go past for all the money in the world. My barber refuses to serve Chelsea fans. :shrug:
Fine, but this florist advertised that she provided flowers for weddings. The customer only asked for what she said she'd provide. I notice that now she no longer advertises that she provides flowers for wedding. And that's exactly how she should handle it if the thought of two folks who love each other marrying gets her religious panties in a wad.
-
They knew exactly what they were doing when they went to Mrs. Stutzman's shop, I'd wager. It had nothing to do with her particular floral arranging skills.
@mountaineer
Dana Loesch talked about this case yesterday. The florist had provided services for them in the past. In fact, she had an established gay clientele; she did the flowers for their parties and other functions. But when it came down to a wedding, she said it went against her religious beliefs. The sane response would have been, "Okay, I understand, we'll get someone else for that." Especially when there was (apparently) a cordial merchant-customer history.
If I were getting married and I asked a Muslim florist to do my flowers, and she refused on the basis of not being able to recognize my religion as valid, I'd go elsewhere. No problem.
-
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.
@Jazzhead
Possibly because you don't understand that the Christian religion specifically condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments, and in very strong language. It also specifies what constitutes a marriage and what does not. The florist was concerned not with personal offense, but with offending her God.
-
There's a key difference with this decision that needs to be pointed out. It appears to be a much more just result than others I've seen. I believe, if memory serves, that an earlier decision regarding a Christian baker or florist (I can't recall which) found for the plaintiffs and ordered the offending business owner to pay a punitive fine in the range of $100,000 or so.
That's not justice, that's simply obnoxious. Whatever harm was caused to his customer by the baker or florist, it didn't deserve a ruinous fine that would essentially drive him out of business.
Here the fine was $1,000 - commensurate with the harm, but neither punitive nor ruinous. The florist may well want to appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court. That's fine - that's her right to pursue justice as she sees fit, and it's her choice to pay the legal costs to continue her crusade. But social justice isn't achieved when good faith disputes are addressed by unjust sanctions.
I think this court decided the matter fairly.
I think the court is full of crap. 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. The couple could have bought flowers elsewhere.
The owners of the shop should not have to pay them to do so.
This is nothing but the imposition of moral standards of the State on the Rights of the shop owners to practice their own religious beliefs. That, simply put, is a governmental establishment of religion. The State is choosing what doctrine the shop owners must follow, contrary to their belief.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
They should just declare themselves as a Muslim Florist....problem solved.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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".
-
A birthday is not analogous to a wedding.
-
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? :shrug:
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?
-
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."
-
Would the court have been equally hasty to fine Muslim florists?
I would hope so.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would hope so.
But they don't, and that is the problem. The govt forces very unequal equality.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Boy are you in for a big shock at The Judgment.
I don't think He'll take kindly to your bigotry, either.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
@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. :shrug:
-
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
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. :shrug:
Well, thanks for that- though I do not think I always hit that mark.
-
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?
-
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! 888high58888
-
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.
Your post # 58 sir:
Boy are you in for a big shock at The Judgment.
You didn't speculate, you didn't qualify that statement as your opinion, you flat out told me that I am going to hell. That's hubris to assume you know the mind of God, and IMO that's a far worse sin then, say, baking a cake for a gay wedding.
-
I don't think He'll take kindly to your bigotry, either.
Another day, another with Jazzhead screaming bigotry.
OK folks, who here is surprised?
-
Your post # 58 sir:
You didn't speculate, you didn't qualify that statement as your opinion, you flat out told me that I am going to hell.
Out of your own mouth you prove you are a liar! How revealing! I did not flat-out state you were going to hell. Those words do not appear there - or in anything else I've ever written or stated. You compounded a lie, by lying again! How positively Clintonesque of you!
That you assume my statement that you are in for a shock at The Judgment is somehow akin to consigning you to hell - illustrates your gross ignorance of scripture on top of myriad other things.
I was addressing your specific claim that " Neither ceremony mocks God or has any religious connotations whatsoever". I contend again, you are in for a big shock in That Day.
That's hubris to assume you know the mind of God, and IMO that's a far worse sin then, say, baking a cake for a gay wedding.
It goes to figure that someone like you would ascribe sin to someone who reads God's mind each day in His Word, and not just that but to assert it is a WORSE SIN (again, more biblical ignorance on your part) than homosexual abomination.
It's funny that you illustrate that there is nothing new under the sun. The New Testament tells us the elites wanted to stone Jesus for daring to state the mind of God as well. John 10:31-34
-
INVAR, telling me I will be shocked at Judgment Day is effectively telling me I will be going to hell. Don't give me your bullcrap about Christian virtue. If you had any, you'd apologize, and you don't have the balls.
-
Interesting article on the OP: https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2017/02/17/shame-on-the-silent-christian-leaders-who-refuse-to-stand-against-government-tyranny-n2287063
Jazz - I'm going to be shocked on Judgement Day too. I've forgotten a hell of a lot of sins.
-
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.
@Jazzhead
You fail to understand. When God specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman, a Christian doesn't think, oh, well, but He'd be fine with any other combination getting married in a civil ceremony, so I'm off the hook.
As for your remark about bigotry, I'm pretty sure you'd say the same things about the Biblical admonitions against homosexuality, so...
-
You didn't speculate, you didn't qualify that statement as your opinion, you flat out told me that I am going to hell. That's hubris to assume you know the mind of God, and IMO that's a far worse sin then, say, baking a cake for a gay wedding.
@Jazzhead
But you're doing the same thing, aren't you, with your certainty that God wouldn't mind Christians being involved with civil ceremonies.
-
Interesting article on the OP: https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2017/02/17/shame-on-the-silent-christian-leaders-who-refuse-to-stand-against-government-tyranny-n2287063
Jazz - I'm going to be shocked on Judgement Day too. I've forgotten a hell of a lot of sins.
I sin every day, EC, and I am entirely unworthy of the Kingdom of God. But I will not stop defending the civil rights of innocents against bigots.
-
@Jazzhead
But you're doing the same thing, aren't you, with your certainty that God wouldn't mind Christians being involved with civil ceremonies.
"Certainty"? I merely expressed my opinion - note the word "IMO". INVAR just flat out said I am going to hell. And I stated my regret at the tit for tat, because to proclaim one knows the mind of God is hubris.
-
INVAR, telling me I will be shocked at Judgment Day is effectively telling me I will be going to hell.
That's hilarious considering you have absolutely no clue what my biblical understanding is in regards to The Judgment - but will simply decree that I said what I did not say - even when the words do not appear.
If you truly think homosexual marriage does not mock God and has no religious connotation whatsoever - you are in for that shock I told you about.
At The Judgment, because I do not think someone of your mindset will do anything but reject the Word of God in order to lean on your own understanding.
Don't give me your bullcrap about Christian virtue. If you had any, you'd apologize, and you don't have the balls.
Considering you continue to illustrate that you are biblically illiterate, it goes to figure you do not recognize biblical and Christian virtue, even when it is smacking you upside the head.
I do not apologize for speaking the truth.
INVAR just flat out said I am going to hell.
And you keep speaking a lie.
Flat out.
-
"Certainty"? I merely expressed my opinion - note the word "IMO". INVAR just flat out said I am going to hell. And I stated my regret at the tit for tat, because to proclaim one knows the mind of God is hubris.
INVAR did not say that. You extrapolated that. And, your formula is wrong.
But I will not stop defending the civil rights of innocents against bigots.
You're in the wrong place to do that. Go find some bigots and start defending.
-
I am of the opinion that people are using the wrong grounds for the lawsuit. !st Amendment Freedom of assembly should be the basis for the suit.
-
INVAR did not say that. You extrapolated that.
He most certainly did.
And, your formula is wrong.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that hubris in thinking one knows the mind of God is a far worse sin than defending homosexuals against bigots on the internet. May we respectfully disagree.
You're in the wrong place to do that. Go find some bigots and start defending.
I go where I find 'em. And I've found one here.
-
@Jazzhead
"Certainty"? I merely expressed my opinion - note the word "IMO".
Yes, in your last post. But before that:
"Gay marriage is civil marriage, not religious marriage. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it. "
"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."
"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". "
INVAR just flat out said I am going to hell. And I stated my regret at the tit for tat, because to proclaim one knows the mind of God is hubris.
Okay, I see your post stating that. Fair enough. But INVAR didn't say any such thing; he said you're going to be shocked at the Judgment. We all will...all our sins laid bare, that type of thing...
-
He most certainly did.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that hubris in thinking one knows the mind of God is a far worse sin than defending homosexuals against bigots on the internet. May we respectfully disagree.
I go where I find 'em. And I've found one here.
Actually the rest of us found a militant liberal that loves to toe the leftist line. You havent come down on the side of conservatism in a long time now.
Hopefully everyone has a good look at your post history.
-
He most certainly did.
I guess you are also ignorant of the definition of extrapolate, which (being generous) you did.
Because otherwise, you are engaging in flat-out, balls-out boldfaced lying in your vain attempt to libel and slander, somehow thinking it scores your arguments merit.
My opinion is that hubris in thinking one knows the mind of God is a far worse sin than defending homosexuals against bigots on the internet.
Proverbs 3:5-6 speaks directly to such ignorance. All one has to do to know the mind of God, is to read and study His Word. He reveals it in blistering detail and truth.
And I've found one here.
Keep flailing away there pal.
You are going to discover you picked the wrong person to pick a fight with in order to push your crusade.
-
You are going to discover you picked the wrong person to pick a fight with in order to push your crusade.
More a Socialist agenda than a crusade, really.
-
More a Socialist agenda than a crusade, really.
I used the term crusade because when it comes to Abortion, ObamaCare and Homosexuality - he has illustrated the fact that we are opposing his sacrosanct religious tenets.
And he is vociferously defending them, as all Leftists do when the pillars of their faith are shaken by those whose principles and sovereignty exceeds their own warped minds.
-
:tongue2:
-
I used the term crusade because when it comes to Abortion, ObamaCare and Homosexuality - he has illustrated the fact that we are opposing his sacrosanct religious tenets.
And he is vociferously defending them, as all Leftists do when the pillars of their faith are shaken by those whose principles and sovereignty exceeds their own warped minds.
Right, but he also is a militant defender of Islam and the blessed muslims on the threads so I'd think he'd be 'offended' in his typical liberal way, bu the characterization ;)
-
Right, but he also is a militant defender of Islam and the blessed muslims on the threads so I'd think he'd be 'offended' in his typical liberal way, bu the characterization ;)
I haven't read that yet, but such would decidedly replace his Trifecta of Liberal Socialism into the realm of a full blown Christian-hating Marxist.
Which is of course the common denominator in all of his stated positions thusfar, illustrating he remains opposed to to the foundational principles of the faith in favor of his own understanding. As he stated, anyone claiming to know the mind of God (even though it is spelled out right in the pages of Scripture) is a worse sin than anything else. Which goes-to-figure considering he does not consider Homosexuality, killing infants, or infidels and applauding government tyranny to be sins.
-
Right, but he also is a militant defender of Islam
A militant defender of Islam? For castigating the fools who insist that we engage in a damn religious war against 1.4 billion Muslims? The fools who reinforce ISIS propaganda and recruiting with their every ignorant utterance?
Send your sons to die in your unwinnable war. American ideals of tolerance and religious freedom extend to Muslims too. I have faith in the power of America to assimilate our immigrants and turn them into responsible citizens. To hell with your fear-mongering.
-
A militant defender of Islam? For castigating the fools who insist that we engage in a damn religious war against 1.4 billion Muslims? The fools who reinforce ISIS propaganda and recruiting with their every ignorant utterance?
The only propaganda I'm reading here is the one that says if we speak the truth of what Islam actually is and what it intends to do, somehow swells the numbers of ISIS recruits, when the exact opposite is true.
Norm nailed you to a tee when he described you as a militant defender of Islam.
American ideals of tolerance and religious freedom extend to Muslims too.
That's funny when those ideals do not exist in Muslim nations, and somehow you expect us to extend 'tolerance' and freedom to a religion and a caliphate that will have no tolerance for anyone or anything but itself.
Norm nailed you to a tee.
I have faith in the power of America to assimilate our immigrants and turn them into responsible citizens. To hell with your fear-mongering.
I see that the Bible and Christianity is not the only book and religion you are wholly ignorant about.
-
A militant defender of Islam? For castigating the fools who insist that we engage in a damn religious war against 1.4 billion Muslims? The fools who reinforce ISIS propaganda and recruiting with their every ignorant utterance?
Send your sons to die in your unwinnable war. American ideals of tolerance and religious freedom extend to Muslims too. I have faith in the power of America to assimilate our immigrants and turn them into responsible citizens. To hell with your fear-mongering.
To hell with your love of sharia, your hate of Christianity and your backing of every liberal cause. 88finger point 88finger point
-
Please stop the insults...
-
I have faith in the power of America to assimilate our immigrants and turn them into responsible citizens.
@Jazzhead, they must do that themselves.
-
Next up: forcing a preacher or a priest to marry gays.
There is no end when one starts down this vicious cycle.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8608407.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/ISIS-brutally-throw-homosexuals-from-the-roof-of-buildings.png)
-
If Islam takes us over, that 3% will not be thrown out, they will be thrown off like this guy.
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8608407.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/ISIS-brutally-throw-homosexuals-from-the-roof-of-buildings.png)
All the more ironic as he is a militant defender of islam and muslims on this forum.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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://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 (http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/undercover-video-would-muslim-bakers-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake)
-
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://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 (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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
POLITICAL STATEMENT?
We're talking religious belief here, not politics.
The politics got involved when the politicians were used to force someone to do something they found religiously offensive.
From the article, the shop had sold homosexuals flowers before, but would not do so for a homosexual "wedding".
That the very idea of a homosexual wedding is a perversion of the Biblical idea of marriage seems to evade you, which makes me wonder what your understanding of Christianity is.
This is something (the refusal to provide the service) that may be done without malice, just refusal. However going to court to force someone to go against their religious beliefs reeks of malice that cuts to the core. The issue wasn't one of whether they would sell flowers to homosexuals, it was one of whether they would materially participate in a service they found to be unacceptable in the eyes of their God. WHat greater discourtesy than to take them to court or fine them for not doing so.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.
We are going to disagree. At what point did the business owner offer to provide flowers for homosexual civil union ceremonies?
-
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.
The whole dehumanization thing is commonly used as an excuse to treat another group as 'subhumans', prior to eliminating them. I would not be surprised if the Gaystapo are out to 'get paybacks' on Christians because the Christian faith has seen homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of God for two thousand years.
What they don't understand, is that even if they succeed in silencing the last voice of protest, their sin will still be an abomination in the eyes of God. Perhaps that's why they are so angry.
Leviticus 20:13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
or Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Of all the cities in the Bible, which have not been positively identified archaeologically? Two come to mind.
-
What they don't understand, is that even if they succeed in silencing the last voice of protest, their sin will still be an abomination in the eyes of God. Perhaps that's why they are so angry.
Leviticus 20:13
or Leviticus 18:22
Of all the cities in the Bible, which have not been positively identified archaeologically? Two come to mind.
Let us be brutally honest, they do not believe in God, or His Word. Even those that might pay lip service to acknowledging God, they have their own image of who and what He is. The plain words of scripture, are discarded as just a mythic fairy tale of allegories and poems about the human condition. At best they pick and choose the sweet and nice things they like from the biblical buffet table. The rest is just garbage to them.
They do not want to believe in a Creator who condemns their behavior, and who wiped out two cities from the face of the earth because of rampant sexual abomination and immorality.
They are not moved or fearful of Him who can destroy both body and spirit in Gehenna. They are angry, because they hate Him who condemns their behavior and those in this flesh who agree with His Word.
-
POLITICAL STATEMENT?
We're talking religious belief here, not politics.
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.
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.
If this florist says she sells flowers for weddings, then she should stop acting like a jerk and serve her customers.
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.
-
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.
@Jazzhead
She shouldn't be financially destroyed, but it happened. The same thing happens in a number of these cases because that is the objective.
When you say, "She shouldn't be destroyed, but---" are you implying that financial destruction as a result of not baking a cake is justified?
You're right. When the rights of two individuals conflict, the right to freely practice one's religion and make a living for oneself trump the right to a damned cake, when the latter can get the cake somewhere else.
-
"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.
@Jazzhead
Even though you have no basis for that assumption, I'll ask: do you think that's true in the rest of the cases of this type?
This woman had an established gay clientele. She could have made a political statement at any time by refusing to serve any of them, but she had no problem doing so.
Do you think it's fair to say that you have a personal contempt for Christianity?
-
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.
@Jazzhead
I thought you said you didn't presume to know the mind of God.
Yet you're claiming that, despite the Bible's repeated and strongly worded admonitions against homosexuality, He'll turn a blind eye if we wink at Him and say, "Hey, it was only a civil ceremony."
There's no Scriptural basis for that, which is, in the end, the only relevant basis.
-
@Jazzhead
She shouldn't be financially destroyed, but it happened. The same thing happens in a number of these cases because that is the objective.
When you say, "She shouldn't be destroyed, but---" are you implying that financial destruction as a result of not baking a cake is justified?
No, I am not implying anything other than what I said directly - she should not be financially destroyed. This $1,000 fine strikes me as fair, not the ruinous fines I've seen in other cases.
You're right. When the rights of two individuals conflict, the right to freely practice one's religion and make a living for oneself trump the right to a damned cake, when the latter can get the cake somewhere else.
Well, like I said above, she should simply limit her business to catering religious weddings. So long as her customers know that her services are so limited, that should take care of the conflict to the satisfaction of all.
-
@Jazzhead
No, I am not implying anything other than what I said directly - she should not be financially destroyed. This $1,000 fine strikes me as fair, not the ruinous fines I've seen in other cases.
So the going rate to freely practice one's religion and earn a living at the same time is a thousand bucks. Okay.
Well, like I said above, she should simply limit her business to catering religious weddings. So long as her customers know that her services are so limited, that should take care of the conflict to the satisfaction of all.
Pretty sure you know she couldn't earn a living from religious weddings only. But hey, she deserves it, right?
By the way, did you watch the videos I posted where Steven Crowder asked Muslim bakeries to make a wedding cake for him and his "boyfriend?" They refused (and they had the right to do so). But only a couple of right-oriented publications picked up the story; the rest of the media ignored it. Why do you think that happened?
-
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.
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.
If this florist says she sells flowers for weddings, then she should stop acting like a jerk and serve her customers.
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.
Then if it is a purely civil contract, let them go do the justice of the peace. They don't require, and aren't entitled to, the rest of the trappings, as it doesn't seem that they are central to their religious beliefs. They are bullying the florist to provide something that they don't inherently need. I'd say her religious convictions trump their whims and desires.
The rest of your argument is nothing but ad hominem skeptic projection. Slanting, slandering, skewing, shadiing and suspicioning her motives and actions and person has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If you want to do that, lets look at the same with the gay couple.
-
A gay wedding is not a religious wedding. It is a purely civil contract,
NO IT'S NOT. "WEDDING" is another word for matrimony or marriage. "Wedding' is strictly religious. "Wedded" is to be joined together man and woman as one flesh - as both the Old Testament AND Jesus quoted and affirmed.
Your efforts to redefine it to justify an abomination, makes desolate the entire institution as God intended and created it.
A civil contract is covered under the term 'civil union' - but that is not what you or the Homosexual Agenda are willing to be limited to. See Free Vulcan's reply above.
and in the eyes of God its celebration is no different than the celebration of a birthday.
For someone who made a huge deal about not having the hubris to say they know the mind of God - you certainly are the hypocrite.
But since you state that celebrating homosexuality is perfectly okay in the eyes of God - I want to know where you get that blasphemy from, if not from your own sick, perverted mind?
Go, show us in the pages of scripture where God says celebrating homosexuality is the same as celebrating a birthday. I want to see it. Show us.
I believe the florist's motivation is animus toward homosexuals that may well have its genesis in what she believes the Bible says.
By that reckoning, none of us should have animus towards practicing serial murderers, rapists and kidnappers because that too has genesis from the bible. We should not bully murderers and extortionists about their abominableness. We should welcome unrepentant rapists and murderers into our neighborhoods and extend them respect and the hand of friendship, offering our sons and daughters to their altars in the process.
That is how patently absurd your statement is.
If this florist says she sells flowers for weddings, then she should stop acting like a jerk and serve her customers.
She has an inalienable right to refuse service to anyone of her choosing for any reason.
All she really needs to do, I'd think, is advertise that she sells flowers for religious weddings only.
And you would be front and center to shout and condemn the business as bigoted, discriminatory and deserving of having it's business license pulled.
There - a perfectly reasonable solution that avoids lawyers, not to mention folks like me labelled as tyrants and haters of Christians.
Because your own words reveal you to be exactly that.
-
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.
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.
If this florist says she sells flowers for weddings, then she should stop acting like a jerk and serve her customers.
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.
Good grief man....open your Bible and read it! It's an abomination to God. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it.
-
Good grief man....open you Bible and read it! It's an abomination to God. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it.
He doesn't believe in the God of the bible.
He believes in the god of his own imagination, as his continuing testimony of his biblical illiteracy proves.
-
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.
-
Then if it is a purely civil contract, let them go do the justice of the peace. They don't require, and aren't entitled to, the rest of the trappings, as it doesn't seem that they are central to their religious beliefs. They are bullying the florist to provide something that they don't inherently need. I'd say her religious convictions trump their whims and desires.
It's the florist who sets the rules, who decides what she'll sell or not sell. A kosher butcher, for example, won't sell pork, and no customer has any right to demand he sell pork.
Here, the florist says she'll sell flowers for weddings. It's what she advertises to the general public, and no doubt she makes a handsome profit. A member of the public enters her store and requests the service she provides. The florist refuses, for entirely arbitrary reasons, and it's the customer who's the bully? That's bass-ackwards, sir. Let the florist limit her services (and her profits) to religious weddings, if her religious scruples won't let her treat her customers with basic fairness.
-
Let the florist limit her services (and her profits) to religious weddings, if her religious scruples won't let her treat her customers with basic fairness.
She doesn't need to, by your own logic.
Gay marriage is a purely social contract, right?
The words marriage and wedding have a history longer than most countries have existed of being religious ceremonies.
Therefore a wedding is, by common understanding, a religious ceremony. No need to specify - she's a florist, not a jurist and therefore not expected to use words outside of their most common interpretations.
-
It's the florist who sets the rules, who decides what she'll sell or not sell. A kosher butcher, for example, won't sell pork, and no customer has any right to demand he sell pork.
Here, the florist says she'll sell flowers for weddings. It's what she advertises to the general public, and no doubt she makes a handsome profit. A member of the public enters her store and requests the service she provides. The florist refuses, for entirely arbitrary reasons, and it's the customer who's the bully? That's bass-ackwards, sir. Let the florist limit her services (and her profits) to religious weddings, if her religious scruples won't let her treat her customers with basic fairness.
It's her business.
Her religious beliefs do not recognize marriage between two people of the same sex. Period.
Who are you to dictate you have some supremacy over her relationship with her God, over her religious beliefs?
What profits one who loses their soul?
Who are you to arbitrarily dictate who she will or will not serve?
What gives you the right?
You have none, and to assume it is tyranny.
-
She doesn't need to, by your own logic.
Gay marriage is a purely social contract, right?
The words marriage and wedding have a history longer than most countries have existed of being religious ceremonies. Therefore a wedding is, by common understanding, a religious ceremony
Not true, by tradition or otherwise. Almost 40 years ago Mrs. Jazz and I were married by a judge; God may disapprove that we took no religious vows, but it's not the concern of religious busybodies.
No need to specify - she's a florist, not a jurist and therefore not expected to use words outside of their most common interpretations.
If the florist wants to profit from a wedding, she should sell flowers not only for your wedding but for my secular one as well. If she wants to deny me (or my gay neighbors) flowers, then she should specify that she limits her business to religious ceremonies.
-
It's the florist who sets the rules, who decides what she'll sell or not sell. A kosher butcher, for example, won't sell pork, and no customer has any right to demand he sell pork.
Here, the florist says she'll sell flowers for weddings. It's what she advertises to the general public, and no doubt she makes a handsome profit. A member of the public enters her store and requests the service she provides. The florist refuses, for entirely arbitrary reasons, and it's the customer who's the bully? That's bass-ackwards, sir. Let the florist limit her services (and her profits) to religious weddings, if her religious scruples won't let her treat her customers with basic fairness.
I see what you're saying, but unfortunately I imagine the gay lobby will win in court even if it were done that way. I wish it were different.
-
I see what you're saying, but unfortunately I imagine the gay lobby will win in court even if it were done that way. I wish it were different.
Litigation sometimes leads to bad results, it is true. But I'd defend the right of a florist to limit her services only to religious wedding ceremonies, even if the impact of such limitation is to refuse service to a gay couple.
-
Good grief man....open your Bible and read it! It's an abomination to God. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it.
That was the Old Testament. It also says they should be put to death.
How do we know that the execution part no longer applies, but the first part does? Are you saying the New Testament changed punishments but not sins? If so, then was it not sinful to eat pork?
I'm sorry for my cluelessness...these are serious questions.
-
That was the Old Testament. It also says they should be put to death.
How do we know that the execution part no longer applies, but the first part does? Are you saying the New Testament changed punishments but not sins? If so, then was it not sinful to eat pork?
I'm sorry for my cluelessness...these are serious questions.
I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask. Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.
Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity. All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.
Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt. It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land. As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death. The reason for that is as the Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 5:9, a little leaven, leavens the entire loaf - in regards to sin. God wanted His nation to understand that the penalty for some sins was extreme, and ultimately all sin leads to death anyway and God was giving a physical example to a larger spiritual truth.
In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus. God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us. It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.
Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies. There is no more nation under that covenant. We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.
The woman caught in Adultery and brought to Jesus is often cited as proof that sin itself has been done away with - but that is a deception. The Pharisees who sought to stone her for being caught in adultery were attempting to assert their authority before Jesus and entrap Him into breaking 'the law'. The fact only the woman was brought before Him, and not the man also as the scripture commands (both are to be put to death), it was a trap and bogus to begin with. Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her. As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand. None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE. For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.
Both parts of the Law actually still apply. Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.
The only difference today is that there is no longer a physical theocratic civil government under the God of the Bible. We have a spiritual one instead.
-
Thank you for that, @INVAR
About the neatest summary I've seen in years. :beer:
-
I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask. Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.
Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity. All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.
Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt. It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land. As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death. The reason for that is as the Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 5:9, a little leaven, leavens the entire loaf - in regards to sin. God wanted His nation to understand that the penalty for some sins was extreme, and ultimately all sin leads to death anyway and God was giving a physical example to a larger spiritual truth.
In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus. God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us. It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.
Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies. There is no more nation under that covenant. We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.
The woman caught in Adultery and brought to Jesus is often cited as proof that sin itself has been done away with - but that is a deception. The Pharisees who sought to stone her for being caught in adultery were attempting to assert their authority before Jesus and entrap Him into breaking 'the law'. The fact only the woman was brought before Him, and not the man also as the scripture commands (both are to be put to death), it was a trap and bogus to begin with. Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her. As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand. None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE. For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.
Both parts of the Law actually still apply. Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.
The only difference today is that there is no longer a physical theocratic civil government under the God of the Bible. We have a spiritual one instead.
The simple FACT is that God's laws are immutable! They do not change and those Churches that alter their doctrine in order to appease the membership err greatly IMHO.
-
The simple FACT is that God's laws are immutable! They do not change and those Churches that alter their doctrine in order to appease the membership err greatly IMHO.
Absolutely.
But we are dealing with folks who do not accept that or believe that for one reason or another.
Mankind has an urgent proclivity to make god into their own image, because they do not like Him as He is and have their own appetites and opinions to sate.
-
I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask. Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.
Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity. All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.
Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt. It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land. As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death. The reason for that is as the Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 5:9, a little leaven, leavens the entire loaf - in regards to sin. God wanted His nation to understand that the penalty for some sins was extreme, and ultimately all sin leads to death anyway and God was giving a physical example to a larger spiritual truth.
In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus. God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us. It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.
Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies. There is no more nation under that covenant. We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.
The woman caught in Adultery and brought to Jesus is often cited as proof that sin itself has been done away with - but that is a deception. The Pharisees who sought to stone her for being caught in adultery were attempting to assert their authority before Jesus and entrap Him into breaking 'the law'. The fact only the woman was brought before Him, and not the man also as the scripture commands (both are to be put to death), it was a trap and bogus to begin with. Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her. As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand. None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE. For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.
Both parts of the Law actually still apply. Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.
The only difference today is that there is no longer a physical theocratic civil government under the God of the Bible. We have a spiritual one instead.
goopo
-
Surely someone has thought of the obvious solution which also works in the case of cakes. Accept the job but do it so poorly that they will not accept it and go somewhere else. It is not possible to legislate quality. One cannot sue someone for doing a poor job (unless it is blatantly malicious). So all they have to do is arrange flowers or decorate a cake poorly.
As far as I know, nobody has ever been sued successfully for not doing a great job at something. All the law cares about is "reasonable performance" which generally means:
Judge: Did the defendants bake you a cake, put icing on it and the words you asked for?
Whining Homosexual Plaintiff: Yes but....
Judge: But what !?! Was the cake in one piece? No bugs crawling around on it? No bare spots!?!
Whining Homosexual Plaintiff: Yes, but it wasn't nearly as nice as the other cakes!!!
Judge: Too bad. You ordered an iced cake with the words, "I'm Proud that I Suck" on it and they made a cake that said this and gave it to you in a timely manner in one piece. I find for the defendant! (Bangs gavel) Next case...
Eventually the militant gay morons will learn that coercing people into involuntary servitude using the threat of government force is futile.
Better that shops spring up which cater to homos who want their friggin' money. That is the American Way - not punishing people who don't want to provide a service, rewarding people who do! God, it's not rocket scientist. Only a far leftist moral retard would have to have this explained to them.
Only a militant homo would be so insufferably stupid as to try to force people to serve them when they don't want to serve them. Stupid motherfathers!
-
It is not possible to legislate quality. One cannot sue someone for doing a poor job (unless it is blatantly malicious).
And that will be the case made by the Gay Mafia, along with charges of discrimination via doing a poor job because of their homosexuality and therefore 'malicious'. You are missing the intent behind all these lawsuits; to punish and make public anyone who refuses to acknowledge and celebrate homosexuality as 'normal' and 'good', period.
The business owner is still violating their religious faith, their conscience and their private property and labor to produce a product for an evil act.
As mentioned before, there are PLENTY of businesses that are happy to cater to homosexuals, including homosexually-owned businesses that specialize in such things. The intent to punish and destroy is as I said it was.
As far as I know, nobody has ever been sued successfully for not doing a great job at something.
When it will be shown that the business can do a great job decorating other cakes and arranging flowers - but their homo-cake is 'poor quality' - the suits will fly just as assuredly as the ones for refusal to do them.
All the law cares about is "reasonable performance"
And the Gay Mafia will exploit a less than perfect cake/flower arrangement with the other products that are produced for other events and it will be shown that there is a pattern of discrimination that is actionable.
Aside from that, usually when a person gets a bad product, they want the service 'done right' and their money back - and if the owner turns out another bad cake as a 'make good' - I see as many lawsuits for this as simply refusing to do one in the first place.
Eventually the militant gay morons will learn that coercing people into involuntary servitude using the threat of government force is futile.
So far there is no reason for the 'militant gay morons' to think or learn that. In fact, they have learned that just the opposite is true - as they have been winning high profile cases like this and creating a climate of fear among those who would rather not violate their faith and conscience to celebrate an evil act.
Better that shops spring up which cater to homos who want their friggin' money.
They already exist and they were specifically bypassed to target Christian businesses that refused to cater to homosexual events.
That is the American Way - not punishing people who don't want to provide a service,
This is the NEW American way, and all of PeeCeedom works to ensure that remains the case.
Only a militant homo would be so insufferably stupid as to try to force people to serve them when they don't want to serve them.
And you have your answer right there in your statement.
Genesis 19 illustrates for us that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to that sin.
-
And that will be the case made by the Gay Mafia, along with charges of discrimination via doing a poor job because of their homosexuality and therefore 'malicious'. You are missing the intent behind all these lawsuits; to punish and make public anyone who refuses to acknowledge and celebrate homosexuality as 'normal' and 'good', period.
The business owner is still violating their religious faith, their conscience and their private property and labor to produce a product for an evil act.
As mentioned before, there are PLENTY of businesses that are happy to cater to homosexuals, including homosexually-owned businesses that specialize in such things. The intent to punish and destroy is as I said it was.
When it will be shown that the business can do a great job decorating other cakes and arranging flowers - but their homo-cake is 'poor quality' - the suits will fly just as assuredly as the ones for refusal to do them.
And the Gay Mafia will exploit a less than perfect cake/flower arrangement with the other products that are produced for other events and it will be shown that there is a pattern of discrimination that is actionable.
Aside from that, usually when a person gets a bad product, they want the service 'done right' and their money back - and if the owner turns out another bad cake as a 'make good' - I see as many lawsuits for this as simply refusing to do one in the first place.
So far there is no reason for the 'militant gay morons' to think or learn that. In fact, they have learned that just the opposite is true - as they have been winning high profile cases like this and creating a climate of fear among those who would rather not violate their faith and conscience to celebrate an evil act.
They already exist and they were specifically bypassed to target Christian businesses that refused to cater to homosexual events.
This is the NEW American way, and all of PeeCeedom works to ensure that remains the case.
And you have your answer right there in your statement.
Genesis 19 illustrates for us that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to that sin.
My attorney relatives disagree with your conclusion. Of course, nothing is guaranteed in legal cases because presiding judge can be inclined one way or the other (especially in these days of ultra vires judges who legislate from the bench).
The crux of the legal matter is contract law. A contract in mundane affairs like minor purchases has only implied stipulations. That means if you ask for a cake or flower arrangement with minimum qualities and get one, then the contract has been fulfilled. I am not aware of any precedent (nor more importantly are any of my lawyer relatives) where someone has been successfully sued along the lines of argument that you describe in your scenario. Sure, it seems reasonable that someone could follow that scenario, but to my knowledge, nobody ever has.
Case law precedents are in most situations, the guide by which attorneys decide which cases to fight and which to settle. In a case involving a minor purchase, there would likely come a point in which the presiding judge would be faced with a situation where it became apparently that the plaintiff was "chasing a case" not an outcome - in other words most judges frown upon a plaintiff who seeks legal relief to resolve a problem that could have been solved by other means - such as someone who is dissatisfied with a product who invests thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars going after a baker or florist instead of simply going to another company to get the product/service.
The grievous mistake the previously-prosecuted people made was outright denying service. I still maintain that had they merely provided a service that met the minimum requirement of the implied contract inherent in all minor purchases, they would not have been convicted nor held liable for anything and I think the legal precedents back that up.
-
I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask. Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.
Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity. All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.
Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt. It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land. As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death. The reason for that is as the Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 5:9, a little leaven, leavens the entire loaf - in regards to sin. God wanted His nation to understand that the penalty for some sins was extreme, and ultimately all sin leads to death anyway and God was giving a physical example to a larger spiritual truth.
In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus. God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us. It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.
Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies. There is no more nation under that covenant. We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.
The woman caught in Adultery and brought to Jesus is often cited as proof that sin itself has been done away with - but that is a deception. The Pharisees who sought to stone her for being caught in adultery were attempting to assert their authority before Jesus and entrap Him into breaking 'the law'. The fact only the woman was brought before Him, and not the man also as the scripture commands (both are to be put to death), it was a trap and bogus to begin with. Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her. As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand. None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE. For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.
Both parts of the Law actually still apply. Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.
The only difference today is that there is no longer a physical theocratic civil government under the God of the Bible. We have a spiritual one instead.
Thanks, INVAR - I found this very interesting.
-
Case law precedents are in most situations, the guide by which attorneys decide which cases to fight and which to settle. In a case involving a minor purchase, there would likely come a point in which the presiding judge would be faced with a situation where it became apparently that the plaintiff was "chasing a case" not an outcome - in other words most judges frown upon a plaintiff who seeks legal relief to resolve a problem that could have been solved by other means - such as someone who is dissatisfied with a product who invests thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars going after a baker or florist instead of simply going to another florist.
The mistake the previously prosecuted people made was outright denying service. I still maintain that had they merely provided a service that met the minimum requirement of the implied contract inherent in all minor purchases, they would not have been convicted nor held liable for anything and I think the legal precedents back that up.
I think that's about right. That's why I doubt the assumptions made by some that gay activists are out to "get" poor Christian businesspeople. People get sued for being a$$holes usually because they've acted like a$$holes. Some of the posts on this thread take the extreme position that a shopowner can boot customers for any arbitrary reason they want, be it for race or sexual orientation, and the community has no right to tell a for-profit business that it needs to play fair. Well, if that describes our florist, making a political statement by denying service, that explains why a suit like this was allowed to go forward. The plaintiffs suffered real injury, at least injury worth being compensated to the tune of $1,000. While the shopowner may have claimed "faith" as her excuse, from the perspective of the plaintiffs her actions were indistinguishable from bigotry.
All I'm saying is that the courts functioned properly in this case, delivering measured but not ruinous justice with respect to a clear violation of the law against arbitrary discrimination. This isn't about religious freedom, this is about the conduct of commerce. And the conduct of commerce is subject to the community's rules.
-
@Jazzhead Okay, we all just voted that you have to provide goods and services to anyone who wants them for free. How's that for 'community'?
See how that works? If you want taxes from me, you will damned well let me run my own business, otherwise, I'll go somewhere that will.
Now, that's only one argument.
The other which you don't get, refuse to get, or which involves a concept you apparently do not/cannot/will not understand is that some things are not for sale. Tacit approval of something I find abhorrent isn't going to happen, not for love nor money. I refuse to even buy girl scout cookies because some of the money ends up at Planned Parenthood.
However, instead of letting the community decide (as in vote with their business or lack thereof) what they think of the policy of the owners, you would use the courts to impose the will of a small minority on the whole community in general, and the business owners in particular.
There's that nasty tyranny thing again. Gay apartheid, fascism, it really fits under a bunch of labels. You can't tell me they couldn't find a different florist.
-
You can't tell me they couldn't find a different florist.
Why should they have to? Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim? The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide. She advertised flowers for weddings. I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies, even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.
-
Why should they have to? Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim? The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide. She advertised flowers for weddings. I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies, even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.
You cannot defend most doctors either then, as they are bullies, even when someone's life is at stake.
You really need to distinguish between discrimination and prejudice.
When is it okay to discriminate?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/when_is_it_okay_to_discriminate.html
-
@Jazzhead Okay, we all just voted that you have to provide goods and services to anyone who wants them for free. How's that for 'community'?
See how that works? If you want taxes from me, you will damned well let me run my own business, otherwise, I'll go somewhere that will.
Now, that's only one argument.
The other which you don't get, refuse to get, or which involves a concept you apparently do not/cannot/will not understand is that some things are not for sale. Tacit approval of something I find abhorrent isn't going to happen, not for love nor money. I refuse to even buy girl scout cookies because some of the money ends up at Planned Parenthood.
However, instead of letting the community decide (as in vote with their business or lack thereof) what they think of the policy of the owners, you would use the courts to impose the will of a small minority on the whole community in general, and the business owners in particular.
There's that nasty tyranny thing again. Gay apartheid, fascism, it really fits under a bunch of labels. You can't tell me they couldn't find a different florist.
There is a line from a book I have read where an all-powerful godlike being is making a judgment as to whether Humanity will be allowed to perish or be saved. The being says to the assembly in the court, "I will make a decision, though it cannot be just." What that being meant of course, is that no judgment arbitrated by a disinterested third party can ever be completely fair to all parties involved.
Because a decision must be made due to the fact that the alternative (indecision) is deemed the more-intolerable thing, someone involved in the issue will by nature of reality receive less fair judgment than they rightfully deserve.
At least one and sometimes both parties will not be satisfied with the judgment because the adjudicator must perform a manner of "surgery" to bring resolution that serves the best interests of the greater entity (society). That process often requires denying something to which someone may be morally, rightfully entitled but which must be abridged in order to achieve the vital synthesis demanded by legalism in a democratic republic.
So a smart business owner would forever keep this in the back of their awareness any time they deal with the public. The business owner might be informed by the reality that whatever good might come from remaining intransigent in the face of being asked to do something that they deemed bad, a greater good might be served (protecting their own long-term best interests) by making some compromise which does not fully capitulate to sin, but also satisfies the obligations placed upon them as participants in a civil society.
Any business owner who does not want to be subjected to oversight by a court system that is secular and which will from time to time abridge their personal rights in favor of the collective, might consider a different line of work as opposed to remaining sky-lined as a big juicy target for every stupid faggot and lowlife leftist who is shopping for their Daily Cause.
Living well is the best revenge. I do not believe in a God which judges His children harshly when they are forced into moral dilemmas where they must choose between doctrinaire conformity to credo, or pragmatic issues of personal survival or security.
-
Why should they have to? Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim? The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide. She advertised flowers for weddings. I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies, even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.
You are the bully if you would force someone to (literally) cater to something they have a religious opposition to. You would define the parameters of their religious belief.
That's bullying (and unconstitutional, by the First Amendment).
If, at the time they walk into the shop, they have not contracted for services, no contract for services exists. Without that, there is nothing to honor in terms of doing business.
Your assumption that religion is an excuse for "bullying" (there's that buzzword, again) belies a lack of understanding of religious faith.
Would you require a Muslim Florist who advertises flowers for weddings to provide flowers for a homosexual civil union? Even knowing the Hadith requires them to throw homosexuals from a high place and finish off any survivors by stoning?
-
Why should they have to? Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim? The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide. She advertised flowers for weddings. I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies, even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.
One more thing. You assert that those who could acquire services from someone else, who sued the florist (hoping for the big payday), subjected that family and employees to legal stress, and cost them money--for NOT doing anything, is somehow the victim--as opposed to the people who are forced to pay to have their religious beliefs (an allegedly Constitutionally guaranteed and unalienable Right), forced to pay to not do business with someone under circumstances they object to, are somehow the "bullies".
Considering the coercion and abrogation of a fundamental civil right are all on one side, here,
I think this is the most bassackwards nonsense I have seen on this forum to date.
-
am not aware of any precedent (nor more importantly are any of my lawyer relatives) where someone has been successfully sued along the lines of argument that you describe in your scenario. Sure, it seems reasonable that someone could follow that scenario, but to my knowledge, nobody ever has.
With respect, even in the law there is a first time for everything. Nobody had ever sued a baker or florist for discrimination at one time. If your relatives think "It hasn't happened, therefore it won't happen" they are sorely mistaken.
Throw in the tendency to shop for judges as well as a suitable target and the precedent will be set as Invar describes.
Besides - lawsuits over quality happen all the time. People sue the sandwich shop because their sandwich doesn't match the picture! (OK, that is a slight exaggeration, but not by much. The FTC could prosecute, among others, but they don't because an egg mcmuffin is dirt cheap (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/02/fast-food-not-as-pictured/index.htm))
-
There is a line from a book I have read where an all-powerful godlike being is making a judgment as to whether Humanity will be allowed to perish or be saved. The being says to the assembly in the court, "I will make a decision, though it cannot be just." What that being meant of course, is that no judgment arbitrated by a disinterested third party can ever be completely fair to all parties involved.
Because a decision must be made due to the fact that the alternative (indecision) is deemed the more-intolerable thing, someone involved in the issue will by nature of reality receive less fair judgment than they rightfully deserve.
At least one and sometimes both parties will not be satisfied with the judgment because the adjudicator must perform a manner of "surgery" to bring resolution that serves the best interests of the greater entity (society). That process often requires denying something to which someone may be morally, rightfully entitled but which must be abridged in order to achieve the vital synthesis demanded by legalism in a democratic republic.
So a smart business owner would forever keep this in the back of their awareness any time they deal with the public. The business owner might be informed by the reality that whatever good might come from remaining intransigent in the face of being asked to do something that they deemed bad, a greater good might be served (protecting their own long-term best interests) by making some compromise which does not fully capitulate to sin, but also satisfies the obligations placed upon them as participants in a civil society.
Any business owner who does not want to be subjected to oversight by a court system that is secular and which will from time to time abridge their personal rights in favor of the collective, might consider a different line of work as opposed to remaining sky-lined as a big juicy target for every stupid faggot and lowlife leftist who is shopping for their Daily Cause.
Living well is the best revenge. I do not believe in a God which judges His children harshly when they are forced into moral dilemmas where they must choose between doctrinaire conformity to credo, or pragmatic issues of personal survival or security.
My existence in this world is short. Eternity lasts a very long time. I will not 'sell my birthright for a mass of pottage'. What you do is your choice.
-
You are the bully if you would force someone to (literally) cater to something they have a religious opposition to. You would define the parameters of their religious belief.
That's bullying (and unconstitutional, by the First Amendment).
If, at the time they walk into the shop, they have not contracted for services, no contract for services exists. Without that, there is nothing to honor in terms of doing business.
Your assumption that religion is an excuse for "bullying" (there's that buzzword, again) belies a lack of understanding of religious faith.
Would you require a Muslim Florist who advertises flowers for weddings to provide flowers for a homosexual civil union? Even knowing the Hadith requires them to throw homosexuals from a high place and finish off any survivors by stoning?
Some good points, except that U.S. courts commonly recognize "implied contracts" or other stipulations in commerce even though no written contract exists.
For instance, in the recent case where some stupid faggot "pastor" claimed that some employee of Walmart put an anti-faggot slur on his cake, the court did not immediately act in his favor because he took the cake out of the store, which relieved the store of liability. By taking the cake out of the store, the fool performed an act that the law calls "acquiring possession". Once the cake left the store it was assumed without having to be documented (in writing or otherwise), that it was in acceptable condition. The faggot lost his right to immediate legal relief once he took the cake out of the store and drove off with it. The general stipulation of commerce law is that to accept possession of a product defacto establishes that the product is in acceptable condition.
Any time some business opens their doors to a public street, (either literally or figuratively) they lose some of the rights afforded to private property or proprietorship. So in the case of a florist or a baker.
-
My existence in this world is short. Eternity lasts a very long time. I will not 'sell my birthright for a mass of pottage'. What you do is your choice.
:amen:
-
I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask. Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.
Thank you, @INVAR, for taking the time to put together such a great reply. I still have a few questions, though, if you or others wouldn't mind addressing...
Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity. All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.
Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt. It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land. As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death. ...
Fair enough.
In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus. God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us. It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.
I follow you there.
Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies. There is no more nation under that covenant. We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.
...
Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her. As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand. None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE. For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.
Both parts of the Law actually still apply. Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.
But doesn't that mean the sin is still the sin?
So in the case of eating pork, which was against the Law, that would mean it's still a sin under the New Testament, but that Jesus washes the sin away...no? So why do churches serve pork during dinners?
Even if the sin is no longer death, the sins are still not to be committed, right? So why aren't Christians following Jewish Law?
(I guess some Christian women still keep their heads covered, for example, but the vast majority don't.)
-
I still have a few questions, though, if you or others wouldn't mind addressing...
But doesn't that mean the sin is still the sin?
Yes. Sin is still sin. God has never revoked a sin to non-sin status. Mankind and man's traditions have done that. God hasn't. Sin remains sin and those committing sin, earn the eternal death penalty.
So in the case of eating pork, which was against the Law, that would mean it's still a sin under the New Testament...So why do churches serve pork during dinners?
I look at the bible as an instruction book from the Creator on how to live the best possible life, with the least possible self-inflicted miseries. The bible could be subtitled "Sin, and how to avoid the consequences of it". God did not intend swine for human food consumption. Neither did He create birds of prey to be food or sea creatures that essentially acts as kidneys for the ocean. Their digestive systems do not remove the impurities and poisons that make it into their flesh. Pigs are by nature, garbage and refuse eaters. Same as dogs - but we do not eat them, because as one actor famously put it "Dog's got personality".
God never rescinded His laws regarding clean and unclean meat. That came about when the church determined that Jesus makes all things clean coupled with the vision Peter had three times in Acts:10 about the Roman Centurian who was coming for baptism, was about God doing away with the dietary laws. Acts 11 plainly tells us that the vision of the common and unclean foods on a sheet was a metaphor for how the Jews looked at Gentiles, and that men should not call other men unclean and eschew them when Salvation was being offered for all mankind. The vision had nothing to do with food, or that God decided in a vision to Peter to simply do away with sin altogether.
Even if the sin is no longer death, the sins are still not to be committed, right? So why aren't Christians following Jewish Law?
It's not "Jewish Law" - it's God's Law. The road to where Christian doctrine finds itself is the result of 2 millennia of incremental changes made to what was established in 33 A.D. Christianity during the middle ages did all it could to separate itself from having any similarities with Judaism, even though in the First Century - the Roman historian Josephus tells us the the Romans could not tell the Christians apart from the Jews, except by what name they preached. It is common understanding among most of Christendom that the Old Testament was nailed to the cross and done away with. I am not of that understanding, but of the understanding that Christ was the fulfillment of everything God had established. The physical sacrifices were replaced with spiritual ones (we are supposed to be crucified daily in order to put this flesh and our carnal nature to death).
(I guess some Christian women still keep their heads covered, for example, but the vast majority don't.)
That is a Hebrew and Jewish cultural custom that Paul was addressing in I Corinthians 11. Not a biblical command. It was a custom of respect in their culture - similar in nature as our culture once had men wearing hats, and taking them off when entering a home or when coming into church.