WA florist who is being sued by the state for her religion files countersuit

please discuss the topic, not the poster.

Here's a message to bring back to your little gang. Do they really think that attacking me with posts on an Internet forum will change my common sense view of things? Y'all are playing into my hand by putting your intolerance and leftist ways on full display.

 

No one is attacking you. I criticize your behavior, but that's freedom, isn't it? I'm not abusive about it.

 

So, in the 1950's and 60's many church's, especially in the South taught that the Bible taught that marriage should be prohibited between people of different races and in fact 16 states had laws preventing such marriages. Then in 1967 the SCOTUS declared such laws unconstitutional. Would you defend the right of a florist, selling to the general public, to refuse to sell flowers for an interracial wedding due to religious reasons?

 

Yeah, pretty much.

- - - Updated - - -

The Standard Gay Guevara Lie.

RACE is NOT BEHAVIOR. Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Homosexuality is "BEHAVIOR"...for which there is no Consitutional protection.

 

The same might be said of hetrosexuality. Is it OK with you if some jurisdiction passes laws that put hetrosexuals under disability in jobs, housing, and public accomodations?

Further, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not only the behavior, they are inherent conditions. Did you have to 'learn' to be heterosexual, assuming you are? If you were living celibate, do you think you'd still fell you were a heterosexual?

Let's get down to it. You don't like homos, and wish to reserve the 'right' to treat them badly in certain ways. But the prejudice is a poison tree, and no good fruit may come from it. As public policy, disturbing some of your 'right' to discriminate seems better, to me, than allowing persons who are inherently different, but harm you not, to be harmed by your animus.

 

There is a distinction between refusing to serve gays and refusing to serve gay weddings.

 

you need another line from your playbook because that one doesn't play. You diminish and in fact spit on the grave of those who perished due to race. You diminish the good work done by the GOP to stop Jim Crow laws supported by Democrats.

If you wanted to use a nudist vs one who isn't as a comparison then that would be valid.

 

I've no doubt this florist, or any florist, has gay customers. That wasn't the issue. The issue was if a flower shop is required to provide services for any conceivable occasion. If they never offered those services previously, you are now saying that they are required to offer them now.

 

Another compelling case that will challenge SCOTUS on the recent DOMA/Prop 8 Twin Hearing to define [again, like they didn't already ad naseum in the DOMA Opinion] whether or not the California state initiative system was within its constitutional rights to define marriage for themselves to exclude gays, polygamists and minors.

Actually, there are two cases filed in California within a week of each other:
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...rris-county-clerks-ca-begins-walk-scotus.html

AND this one from a San Diego County Clerk who isn't keen on being extorted by AG Harris and Gov Brown to violate state law:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...rop-8-enforcement-challenge-county-clerk.html

 

I wouldnt want to do business with someone who didnt want my business. Duh

 

At the time in the south, there were almost no republicans. It was northern and mid-western republicans who helped end jim crow. The Southern Democrats ceased to exist when the rest of the party moved to support Civil Rights in the 1960's. Then Nixon went after the former Southern Democratic vote and brought them into the Republican party. As the Republicans moved to the Right on Social and economic issues, many of those Republicans in the north moved into the Democrat party. I think it is you who dishonor the dead who fought for Civil Rights by claiming that the Republican party of today has any resemblance to the Republican Party of the 1950's and 60's. Today's Republican party is dominated by Radical Reactionaries, whose values and goals would have made them anethma to the Republican Party of Eisenhower, Taft, and the old Northeast wing of that party. Today's Republican Party is the direct descendant of Wallace's American Party, Strom Thurmond's Dixicrats and the John Birch Society.

 

If they offered services previously for weddings...

 

Take away the gay part of this story and what are you left with? A business that is being suited because they refused to part take in a religious ceremony. In this case a gay wedding. It is a really simple point of view when you look at it. Now here is the $1,000 question, is what she did legal? I can’t find any case law or precinct that has this. But here is how I see this. I see the business winning because refusing to part take in a gay wedding anything because being gay, isn’t a protected class. Not yet anyway. Number 2, Civil rights, are there to protect you from the government. The first andmenment is to protect you from the government who might not like what you are saying about it. Being gay isn’t a civil right. Not yet anyway. Number 3) and this is probably the biggest one, As a business owner you have the right to refuse service to anyone. How many times have you seen signs; no shirt, no shoes no services, no smoking, no kids, etc, etc, etc. It is part of the funmentals of business on being allowed to do that.

She isn’t refusing to sell flowers to gay people, she is refusing to sell because they will be used in a gay wedding. There is a big difference.

 

The Florist should win this law suit.

If she is the sole owner and states she doesn't want to sell Flowers to a Gay Couple for a wedding then that should be up to her.

If this was a CHAIN...then the Gay couple would win.

AboveAlpha

 

Did you miss this is a florist?

 

i pretty much got it right the first time.

 

That's a real low blow and inaccurate. The Mormons accept blacks fully and have for decades. Please don't completely misrepresent a religion with lies.

Note: I am not, nor have I ever been LDS. But, the quoted post was disgusting.

 

The gaping hole in your point is, of course, that lunch counter owners in Alabama were FORBIDDEN to serve blacks! Segregation was LEGALLY REQUIRED BY STATE LAWS!

 

Yes. I would also say that he/she is an idiot.

 

It's a gay wedding, not a real one. So, should a flower shop is required to provide services for any conceivable occasion? If a customer wanted flowers for Wookie Life Day, is the flower shop required to provide them?

 

Proven lies. The supreme court made no ruling about the states

 

The florist is NOT "taking part" in a gay wedding.

Are you suggesting the grocery store is "taking part" in a gay wedding because they sold the napkins?
That the power company is "taking part" in a gay wedding because they sold the electricity in the light bulbs and heat?

A lot of these arguments are from people who insist a gun dealer can sell to ANYONE because it is not the GUN that kills people, its the "PEOPLE who kill people"!

Make up your minds!

You can't find any "case law"? It is the LAW in that state that a business can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Homosexuals ARE a "protected class" as far as public businesses go. Its that simple. If the florist wants to be involved in the weddings she serves, she needs to be a PRIVATE business/club and advertise at the churches that share her values, and not hang a sign in the street where people can waste their time going into her store to be humiliated and abused by her.

 

I'm not sure this is correct. The lunch counter sit-ins came near the end of a sequence of decisions dismantling segregation nationwide. Here's a brief list:

Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)This decision quickened the process for implementing the anti-segregation orders issued in "Brown I."

Bailey v. Patterson (1962)The Court in this case prohibited racial segregation of interstate and intrastate transportation facilities. Loving v. Virginia (1967)This decision holds that state laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage are unconstitutional.

Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968 )The Court held in this case that federal law bars all racial discrimination (private or public), in sale or rental of property. - See more at: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/disc...own+v+Board+of+Education#sthash.Yg5K9h8m.dpuf

Wikipedia also tells us

 

People say the darndest things!

 

You cannot force people to work for you. That would be slavery. The florist has no power over the gay couple. She only has power over her own opinion and her own labor. The gay couple has no right to her labor or the product of it.

Opening a business does not make you a prisoner of every fool who walks in your door.