State Sues Florist Who Refused to Decorate Gay Wedding

It might be an addendum to the recently passed gay marriage law.

 

Quote the law that says she's not allowed to discriminate for any reason. There is no such law. here's the damn law http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html pull out the quote that says I can't discriminate against you for wearing pink, for being pro abortion, or for having a wedding with a horse. pull out the damn quote or admit you were wrong.

 

Yeah they'll find it somewhere, you can bet on that.

 

As a (somewhat retired) contractor....do I have pre-contract rights to refuse to remodel a known pedophile's or rapist's kitchen?

Should I suffer through the expense of a "discrimination" lawsuit for refusing to enter into a business relationship on those grounds?

 

sadly the left is out of control in states like WA and CA. They want to force a person to provide a service to a gay couple while not respecting the rights of the store owner. They are punishing the Boy Scouts in CA while letting a kidnapper/gay pedophile freely walk the streets

We have gone over the edge

 

And the one most likely to be overturned by the SCOTUS.

 

It's actually not legal to discriminate against those who don't eat pork. If a prison only served pork and the juices got in the vegetables and everything else, Muslim and Jewish inmates would have a religious discrimination case and win. So, for the pork at least, you're wrong - it can be tied to religious freedom.

It's hard to see how a refusal to serve gay people flowers for their wedding - a gay wedding - can be separated from discrimination based on sexual orientation

 

your link is for employment which the left wants to change as well

that of course brings up an interesting question. If one is accused of not hiring or serving another because they are gay; how do you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the accuser is in fact gay?

Is there some type of blood test?

Do you go to their home and watch them engage in sex?

So, the accusations can fly and the accused have no way to be sure the accuser does engage in gay sex.

 

I assumed it was state law? There's no federal law protecting sexual orientation.

 

So in your twisted view, she should have given into their infringement on her civil rights? By this thinking, all of the gays in California should have given into the infringement of their rights due to Prop 8, correct?

 

It is a state law, 49.60.030
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.60.030

That is related to the Consumer Protection Act (19.86) vis a vis:

In Colorado, for example, there is no law like this, and businesses are free to discriminate against gays. http://kdvr.com/2012/07/30/denver-cake-shop-refuses-service-to-gay-couple/

 

There is similarity between sexual orientation and race - one does not choose either, and both gay people and black people/other racial minorities have been discriminated against for irrational reasons.

 

I believe there is a law protecting sexual orientation. But that is not the same thing as protecting a political view point like marriage with animals, or gay marriage.

 

What civil rights are being infringed on?

The fact you think her being required to do her bloody job and sell flowers is a "civil rights" issue is beyond a joke.

 

one can stop having sex

one cannot stop being black

the dog don't hunt

 

I fail to see how you can separate the issue of gay marriage from sexual orientation.

 

By "discriminate" I am using the plaintiff's term, i.e. refusal to decorate a gay wedding bouquet. No gays were refused entry to the shop or access to product.

 

You don't stop being gay the moment you stop having sex. C'mon sec I have no appetite for getting locked into one of these ridiculous arguments with you. You're wrong on this, let's leave it at all. Yes being black is more visible but being gay is innate and not defined only by actions. End of.

 

I believe the courts rules that prison was a special case because the prisoners weren't free to go elsewhere they would be forced to eat what is fed to them it is therefore in that specific situation a violation of the freedom of religion. But they could not force a Shonny's bbq, for example, out of business because the only meat they served is pork and they refused to cater to Muslims and/or Jews because those said Muslims and/or Jews were free to go eat elsewhere.

 

In other words, we're more important than you, so sell us the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing flowers because we don't really care about your rights.

 

Nothing is stopping those gays from buying the flowers and taking them to their wedding. She's simply refusing to provide them at their wedding. You know the difference don't you?

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage isn't a right. That's an argument for another thread. It's a political issue separate to whether they are gay or not.

 

She's being denied her right to base her business decisions so as not to sublimate her religious convictions.

 

The fact that you believe her civil rights end when she opens her store in the morning is the real joke.

 

She was supposed to deliver them was she? So just take them out of her vehicle? OH MY GOD STOP THE PRESSES!!!

It is according to your Supreme Court, even I knew that! But you're right, it's another issue for another topic.

 

Her "religious convictions" not to serve the sinners isn't based on any passage in the Bible I'm aware of. It's a personal view, not a religious view. Just because a lot of people identifying themselves with a religion believe something doesn't make it a "religious right". She is not being asked to compromise what her faith instructs her to do.