State Sues Florist Who Refused to Decorate Gay Wedding

Oregon lost that suit because the underlying law said all children must attend school through the 12th grade, it didn't say where.

As long as the Catholic schools met the academic criteria for schooling that the state set, the kids and parents were obeying the law.

It didn't matter whether this was a catholic, jewish, madrass or private school..although I know you would like to make it a religious liberty issue.

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>

 

With notable limitations. As far as I know SCOTUS has never held it to mean business owners are free to exclude people for irrational reasons. Religious freedom is not an issue here.

 

Let's try this again:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

She's discriminating on the basis of religion. She said so.

 

Yea they can. You know that little sign that says we reserve the right to refuse service.....

 

So if a group of racist firefighters on call to deal with said fire turned up, and on learning the family trapped upstairs is black they all refuse to do anything, and the family died, that's their constitutional right and they'd be protected from any consequences?

 

Personally, I would have no problem representing a gay couple for anything they wanted legally, even a same-sex divorce, but I respect the right of Christians who do not want to get involved in same-sex marriage.

We live in a nation which was founded in great part on the notion of religious freedom.

In fact, most of the original colonists were fleeing religious persecution in England.

The notion that now people must choose between their conscience and running their business is offensive to everything the Founding Fathers stand for.

I predict that the State of Washington will lose this case in a 9-0 Supreme Court decision, and then will be ordered to pay hundreds of thousands in attorneys' fees.

 

Look, I could go into some of the legal nuances of this case, but I doubt many here would have the functioning synapses to connect the dots.

So I'll just keep it simple. The business owners have no legal standing to refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation.

 

And? The same-sex couple aren't asking her to renounce those views, or bless their wedding. They simply want her to do business with them. Doing business with them doesn't go against her RELIGIOUS beliefs, only her personal beliefs (to not serve sinners). Not all personal beliefs are protected.

 

You don't remember that fiasco with E-harmony and gays using their services do you? If you don’t remember then I suggest you look that up.

 

What about that little sign? If I hang a sign on the door to my business saying "I reserve the right to break the law if I feel like it", does that automatically place me above the law? The sign is relevant only in that it advertises that whoever put it up isn't quite screwed together right.

 

There is no law breaking here. If there was there would be crimminal charges filled not a civil suit. If you own a business you can chose who you want to do business with. If you don't like it go somewere else. It is that simple.

 

If the law protects people against discrimination in the provision of goods and services it's illegal, period.

 

What doesn't make sense.
Not wanting gays to corrupt the definition of marriage does not automatically make you anti-gay.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not illegal to discriminate against someone because of their politics or a multitude of other reasons. Baggy pants won't sell flowers to you is not illegal. Pro abortion won't sell flowers to you, not illegal.

 

Do you remember a few summers back a guy who owned a hamburger dinner put up a sign that said when ordering speak English? A few non-English speaking people went in he threw them out, they field a lawsuit and the court threw it out. So I will repeat what I have been saying you can choose who to do business with. How do I know this? My family owned a business.

 

I couldn't find that part (highlighted in red) in the act. Anyone have a link?

 

Only in very few cases does it protect.

here is the law http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html Show me where it says I can't discriminate against Abortionists, people who wear baggy pants, people who wear pink, people who are pro gay marriage. Nowhere does it say that.

 

It was decided after the Civil War to add amendments to the Constitution that specifically forbid discrimination based upon race, both by private enterprise and the state.

This protection has gradually been extended to include national origin, handicap, veteran status, family status, etc.

It was a mistake to extend it to include sexual orientation, as we are now learning to our regret.

The homosexuals have a grudge to settle with Christians and anyone else who disapproves of their perverse and irresponsible lifestyle.

Expect more of this type of revenge taking against Christians. Expect more persecution.

We're now in a state of war.

 

How about I refuse to do business with anyone who won't eat pork. Refuse to break pork with me and I'll have nothing to do with you.

 

<<< Mod Edit: Insult >>>- - - Updated - - -

Language is not a protected class.

 

Nice try, you can't discriminate against somebody due to their religion. Try harder.

 

Christians want to tell gays and others how to live their lives (most of the time), whereas gays just want to live their lives. Being "Christian" is based on ideals and speaking out, being gay is based on loving the same-sex through no fault of their own. If the Christians just left the gays alone, they wouldn't be fighting back.

If you want to frame it as a war, go for it, but with the way things are going do you really think you can win? Christians lost the culture war on this one, the next few decades are just going to consist of bringing the laws of the land up to date with public opinion.

 

Exactly and neither is those who are pro gay marriage.
Muslims and Jews would disagree with you and claim I was discriminating against their religion which I'm not.
Being anti gay marriage is not the same thing as being anti gay. Just like being pro pork eating is not the same thing as being anti Muslim or anti Jew.

 

"You can't discriminate against my right to discriminate". Hilarious!

What's even more funny is that religion is a choice, whereas being gay isn't. It's obvious which SHOULD have more protection. Gay isn't a belief system that criticizes everyone else's lifestyles, after all...