State Sues Florist Who Refused to Decorate Gay Wedding

Someone needs to read the fool lawyers suing the first amendment to the Constitution. **"nor prohibit the free exercise there of"****

 

You think black = gay?

 

LMAO. Homosexuals are much more pushy than Christians. Or can you find those pushy Christians doing anything remotely like Chick-Fil-A?

 

A transaction is a voluntary exchange between both parties. A store doesn't have to do (*)(*)(*)(*) for the consumer if it hasn't accepted any money from him or entered a binding agreement. People seem to be under the impression that stores exist solely for the benefit of consumers and forget that there are actual people behind those shop windows with opinions and ideals that you may not agree with. I would have a problem with this woman if she took the money and ran, but that isn't the case here.

I choose to tolerate people I disagree with rather than forcing them to change. When I get married and am refused service by a florist... I'll find a different florist...

Government shouldn't dictate culture, which is why it shouldn't make any part of culture 'illegal' unless is is actively hostile and posts a clear and present danger to the victim party involved.

 

Leftists love to invent imaginary scenarios to show how evil the Americans are.

That's because the Americans simply tell the truth about the socialists and fascists, from their own histories, and make them look like...umm...Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, etc.

The lefties are forced to resort to fantasy to come up with a reply. They even invented a bogus term for people who mention Hitler or other fascists, the so-called Godwin's Law, which presumes that ALL mentions of the fascists Nazi past must be false. After all, if a historical referent to Nazism is directly applicable to a given modern situation, then Godwin's "Law" wouldn't be a law at all, and the Lefties couldn't scream "GODWIN" and pretend they ended the discussion.

Let's see...in this case, the government is seeking to force a business owner to run the business only as the government wants, leaving the profits in the hands of the business "owner" but turning control over to the state....which is fascism, plain and simple.

 

None of that makes the least bit of difference.

The guy selling the flowers...OWNS those flowers until he gets paid for them, and as OWNER of a property, its HIS "choice" as to how he should dispense them.

You're not anti-choice, are you?

 

That's the America you grew up in, loved, and remember.

It's not the America you're in.

Today's America is run by a fascist and a traitor, and driven to extinction by the fools that voted for him.

- - - Updated - - -

They want the impossible, they want to force everyone to pretend they're mentally healthy and perfectly normal, and they go into a hissy fit when reality refuses to bow to their whims.

 

This is like athiests who want god removed from money. I am a atheist, I don't give a crap if god is removed from money. It matters to me that atheists aren't burned at the stake, or prohibited from speaking publically, but complaining about something as inconsequential as the word god on money doesn't come across as fighting for equal rights, it comes across as forcing your beliefs down others throats!

The solution to this was simple. Take your business to the flower shop across the street! That was the recourse here for the people trying to get married!

Being a spoiled little child, while being less wrong then the other spoiled little child, still makes you a spoiled little child!

 

Forget the fascist laws, look at the florist as a human being and treat him as such.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

What part of "its not your business, it's his" that you're confused on?

You don't? He's being ORDERED to comply, and faces punishment. That means he's not free to make his own choices, he's nothing but a flower delivery ATM for the fascists.

He has natural rights, and nobody's, NOT ONE PERSON'S, "civil rights" cast a penumbra that shadows this man's right to run his own business and his own life as he sees fit.

Too bad the lovers got their feelings hurt becuase their favorite florist didn't want to sell them their wedding arrangement. Boo hoo hoo....it's clear they lack the necessary maturity and adult perspective required to make important decisions such as marriage.

 

guess not sure they do or don't, personally I do not frequent those sites

- - - Updated - - -

you mean like a bar that is not allowed to allow smoking... airlines that could not allow smoking only flights, ect...

 

And you get the result that "separate but equal" represented. The white water fountain and the black water fountain. The straight florist and the gay florist.
Where do you draw the line?
When you open to the public, you are open to a vastly diverse people in the U.S. We have made laws against discrimination for a reason.
How it "comes across" is a matter of personal discretion. What is a right trumps the resentment you may feel about someone standing up for them.
In 1957 in Mississippi blacks "came across" as uppity if they demanded to be treated with respect. Eventually Mississippi had to bend to the will of the nation.
The same will happen here, if not today, soon, and forever.

 

If a couple can decline services to homosexuals based on their Religion, I need to find the religion that lets me refuse to work for men with fake tans, popped up collars and Juggalos. Religious freedom is awesome!

 

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

I don't have a problem with that. I should be under no more obligtion to serve you than you to me.

 

Yes, the state has no legitimate authority to ban smoking in bars. If patrons don't like the atmosphere in a bar, they have every freedom to go to another dive or not go out at all.

They have NO freedom to compel a business owner to forbid his patrons certain harmless (to others) activities if he wishes to allow it.

YES the Mayor committed a major liberal felony, he said that environmental tobacco smoke is harmless....shame on him for not drinking the liberal Kool-aid.

Given that environmental tobacco smoke is harmless, there's no legitimate reason against smoking on airplanes...it's just a bad smell, and how many times have you wished the passenger next too you had eaten less garlic or showered more often?

 

It's not about an obligation to individuals. It's about whether you as a business owner would refuse service to me, for example, just because I'm a veteran. I agree you have a right to refuse service to me as an individual...because I don't wear shoes or because I'm loud and obnoxious or because I pick my nose or I didn't take a bath for a week. Those things I can change and comply with what you want. I can't change that I'm a veteran. I can't change that I'm black or brown or yellow. This is about some stupid flowers, but what if it was more than that? What if it was the only grocery store for 100 mi, a bit more serious than flowers?

 

There already is a religion that allows you to refuse to work, for any reason you wish to make up. Become a socialist and vote for King Obama, Fascist and Traitor.

 

You know everyday I try thinking to myself. Hey Pancake, try looking at things in the Conservative viewpoint. Sometimes they have some valid points about small government, and fair taxes. Then I come online, and see a quote like this and remember why I could never be a Conservative. I just don't have that much insanity in me to see President Obama as a Socialist, despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

You draw the line at the government.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons" shall have "equal protection under the law". If the aforementioned water fountain is in a facility operated on tax dollars, there cannot be any segregation of the type Woodrow Wilson imposed.

If the water fountains are in a privately owned and run establishment, then the proprietor can make any rules he pleases. And if he pleases to have "whites only" and "black only" drinking fountains, it's a fair bet that the one fountain or the other won't be used much anyway.

Freedom isn't complicated. It requires people to make choices and to face the consequences for their choices.

It's only when government muscles in that things get messy.

Only if you want to be.

The Mayor went to a "black" record store on Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach a few years back. He was looking for some Aretha Franklin in particular and wondered what they had anyway. It was clear from the reactions of the other customers and the guy behind the counter that pink people weren't common in that store and possibly weren't completely welcome. They didn't have any Aretha in stock, but I found a nice collection of Booker T and the MGs.

The fact of the matter is that while one may have a discussion about what limits may be reasonable to put on a common carrier, since traveling is a natural human right, ain't nobody got a natural human right to shop in any particular store, not if if the owner of the stores are also human beings equally possessed of their own natural human rights.

Your natural human rights stop long before you infringe on the Mayor's natural human rights, ya dig?

[/quote]We have made laws against discrimination for a reason.[/quote]

Yes, and that reason, when applied to privately owned businesses, is "grabbing as much power to the government as possible".

You don't like the fact that Adolph Coors allegedly didn't like blacks? Your response is limited to buying some other brand of beer, and whining to others in an attempt to dissuade them from buying Coors. The reason the Mayor never bought Coors beer is because Coors sucks.

The power you should never be able to possess, and which the Constitution itself denies Congress, is the power to compell business to "be nice" to their customers, not matter who they are.

Generally speaking, but not always, the free market trims from existence the egregious violators of the Golden Rule. There was this bar owner on Thompson Road, in Syracuse, "Doug's", who absolutely DID NOT want women in his bar. His bar was the watering hole of the working men from Carrier Corporation and he didn't want women in the place. So when the *******s passed laws forcing him to allow women in, he did what any creative misogynist would do.

He found some donkey meat and sold it on toothpicks for a nickel. And he posted a large sign in the window proclaiming that his establishment had the cheapest ass in town.

He was a character, and his bar stayed a stag hangout.

And what isn't a right trumps your feel-goodie-isms. And NOBODY has a "right" to shop in a store where the owner doesn't want them in.

Different circumstances and most businesses in MIssissippi wanted the stupid Jim Crow laws the DemocRATS were insisting on elimated because it was costing them business with the "negros". It seems that businesses figured out that the money black people had to spend was just as green as the white people's.

 

Well, if you keep trying to think, maybe someday you'll succeed. Until you do, you'll have to resign yourself to being a liberal.

The Americans will continue to hope that someday you'll learn how to think for yourself, but until you do, we'll continue to oppose your masters' agenda of hatred, racism, and societal enslavement.

 

Remind me, what does this have to do with the current topic at hand?

 

Private business here, not a place of Publice Accomodation. Learn the difference

 

here we go again trying to draw a similarity to the color of ones skin which you cannot change or stop being that color to how one engages in sex.

The GOP clearly saw that slavery and suppression of blacks was wrong and did something about it despite the protests of Democrats who wanted to retain Jim Crow laws.

If there really was a civil right being violated against people who have sex differently than the rest, then the GOP would once again be leading the way.

Refusing to sell flowers to someone because they engage in gay sex which you religiously disagree with is perfectly acceptable. It's akin to refusing to sell to someone because they are obnoxious. We're talking about a behavior vs a race or gender.

 

None of that changes the obligation, in my view. A business should not be compelled to act. It is a private enterprise, run for the benefit of the owner(s) and nothing more. How they choose to run it is their business, in my view. Frankly, I think the flower shop's actions in this instance constitute bad business. But if a person wants to be a bad businessperson, that's, uh, their business.

 

We have made laws against discrimination for a reason.[/quote]

Yes, and that reason, when applied to privately owned businesses, is "grabbing as much power to the government as possible".

You don't like the fact that Adolph Coors allegedly didn't like blacks? Your response is limited to buying some other brand of beer, and whining to others in an attempt to dissuade them from buying Coors. The reason the Mayor never bought Coors beer is because Coors sucks.

The power you should never be able to possess, and which the Constitution itself denies Congress, is the power to compell business to "be nice" to their customers, not matter who they are.

Generally speaking, but not always, the free market trims from existence the egregious violators of the Golden Rule. There was this bar owner on Thompson Road, in Syracuse, "Doug's", who absolutely DID NOT want women in his bar. His bar was the watering hole of the working men from Carrier Corporation and he didn't want women in the place. So when the *******s passed laws forcing him to allow women in, he did what any creative misogynist would do.

He found some donkey meat and sold it on toothpicks for a nickel. And he posted a large sign in the window proclaiming that his establishment had the cheapest ass in town.

He was a character, and his bar stayed a stag hangout.



And what isn't a right trumps your feel-goodie-isms. And NOBODY has a "right" to shop in a store where the owner doesn't want them in.



Different circumstances and most businesses in MIssissippi wanted the stupid Jim Crow laws the DemocRATS were insisting on elimated because it was costing them business with the "negros". It seems that businesses figured out that the money black people had to spend was just as green as the white people's.[/QUOTE]

The lunch counter sit ins showed that private enterprise doesn't get to be a free for all regarding discrimination.

 

What a dishonest rewrite of history.
The Feds were the ones that spearheaded the change, led by the Dems at that level. Kennedy and Johnson cut the Dixiecrats loose and were willing to take the political hit. Johnson stated that they had lost the South for the next fifty years. The Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and made the South the solid red states that they have become as the Republicans saw an opportunity to take advantage of the disenfranchisement of a huge voting block, and didn't care about the inherent racism it brought with it.
They were out of touch then, and they are out of touch still.