Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

And what if the individual lives in an area where the type of discrimination is ignored or even celebrated? Should that person just move?

I just find it strange that none of these issues have been brought up until gay people were allowed into public, now we should dismantle our entire civil rights laws because of it. There is zero chance of the ADA being revoked, and zero chance of any other protected classes losing those said protections — so the only group that will be effected is homosexuals. Which is not equal by definition.

 

Proper punctuation is relevant. Apologies

In some areas I absolutely agree, in others not so much.

Yes

Common sense? People kill others because of the color of their skin or religion. They certainly wouldn’t serve them.

Because the ADA demands it and people can sue (with large settlements) if the facility isn’t to code.

 

It is changeable. A sample of one proves my point. Has anyone ever changed their race?

Bully for that, but as I've said, the Bible doesn't ban interracial marriage, so for instance a Christian baker who didn't want to serve such a wedding would lose in court. Moses may have been married to a black woman.

Constitutional religious freedom rights aren't decided by polling.

 

I'm not sure that passing an antidscrimnation law will do much to deter people who would kill you.

 

Probably not, just showing that discrimination and hate isn’t some fairytale.

 

If you noticed, I did say that was technically correct. However, I do not know of anybody that views their marriage as just a "contract".

Technically, ordering coffee at Starbucks is a contract.

 

Why does it matter if it is changeable? Religion is changeable but it is one of the most protected classes in America.

Thats the entire issue with religious exemptions, their belief if based only on how they feel the reading is. Something that you read in the Bible as the ultimate sin might not even register to another reader. You don’t get to dictate religious belief or understanding.

The limitations of religious freedom is limited to congress only and should not sever the rights of another. The 14th states that all citizens shall be treated equally by the states, certain groups being protected while others are not is a violation of this amendment.

 

Technically is the best type of correct.

 

I use to live in a town with only 2 gay bars. A small dive bar and one was a bigger club. The club burned down and to fill the void (and most likely making a smart business move) The straight owner of a biker bar started to book drag shows and eventually it became a gay bar. One day his refrigerator system broke down so he called the repair company he had used for years. They informed him they would not longer provide their services because it was now a gay bar.

That is legal in that state. Of course the town was big enough he could probably find someone else to do the work. I hear that argument a lot. "Well they can go elsewhere!" well what about someone who is gay and lives in a small town. What if the one pharmacy in town or the one grocery store in town refused service to the gay individual? Do some of you all think that would be right?

 

Stop pretending you understand things that you do not. The idea that someone can sacrifice their children to the Gods - and that this is protection of religious liberty - is preposterous nonsense on steroids.

It is one thing to have no clue what the founding principles are all about - 12 years of school and we manage not to teach kids the principles on which this nation was founded. Anyone can make a mistake - this is human - to continue to make that same mistake once corrected is the mark of a fool.

 

Pretty sure an atheist repair guy could refuse service to Christians. Nobody has a right not to be offended.

 

Thanks for admitting religion is one of the most protected classes.

For myself I do.

Is there any end to groups? I reject the notion that people with same sex feelings are a protected class.

 

I don't believe that one can arbitrarily change sexual orientation, and if you tell me you did, I'm afraid that I would have to doubt you.

I see the genuine Christian spirit expressed in respecting others, and showing kindness toward others, not by contriving pretexts to discriminate against them.

Celebrating a legal contract is not a sin.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."​

 

I hope no one said the contrary. I hope also that no one denies that first amendment claims based in religion are worthy of respect and consideration.

 

Most contracts are between two parties unless specifically stated in the contract.

 

Irrelevant it is a legal contract, with clauses.

 

Can you quote the amendment you believe overrules state law in regards to religion?

 

I have never said or indicated otherwise. I do find it strange that one of the most protected classes is the main proponent of discrimination against others.

I added a question mark and you didn’t answer, even if orientation is completely and easily changeable — it isn’t however — why is that relevant to whether or not they should be treated as equal or have protections?

Yes, you do for yourself and maybe even a handful of others if they allow it. You do not get to tell others that you do not preside over that their beliefs have no merit however.

And I reject the notion that people that worship invisible sky aliens that love them unconditionally but with conditions, but here we are.

What is your rejection based on besides some religious quote taken out of context that was written by man and never spoken of by Jesus?

 

I think you should write an amicus brief to ths Supreme Court stating your support for the application of this law to this florist. Use exactly that language.

 

Yes. So can you, if you put your mind to it.

 

Needs a verb somewhere.

 

So I take it you refuse?

 

My arguments here are not structured to be legal in nature, there are plenty of legal arguments that explain why giving religious preferences special rights is a terrible idea.

 

Not for liberals.

 

Reject in my sentence is transitive verb.

I noticed you are not calling out posters constantly using the same arguments against gay rights, almost like you are not as impartial as you claim and have an agenda...

That is almost always the case in these instances.