EscherEnigma -- THANK YOU!You have cut to the core of the issue. If
laws which prohibit discrimination against gay persons express hatred towards
Christians, then it follows logically that laws which prohibit discrimination
against Christians necessarily express hatred towards gay persons. You cannot
have it both ways. Logic is a two way street in cases such as this. Logic does
not permit a person to be selective in its application.PHILIP
@Counter Intelligence -- You write: "Regardless, the artists in question ...
"Your point being?For the record, the overwhelming
number of researchers in the field of human sexuality believe sexual orientation
to be fixed by the time a person is about two or three years old, and that
sexual orientation is "immutable" (i.e., not subject to change). The US
Supreme Court referenced this characteristic TWICE in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135
S.Ct. 2584 (2015) (the case in which SCOTUS effectively legalized same sex
marriage nationwide).Attempts to "convert" gay persons into
heterosexual persons have all, without exception, met with dismal failure -- put
bluntly, a person who is gay will always be gay, regardless of whether he or she
enters into a sham wedding with a member of the opposite sex, or manages to have
sex with a member of the opposite sex.Sexual orientation is a STATE
OF BEING -- the fact that it is not readily identifiable does not detract from
the fact that it appears to be rooted in biology. The two theories which have
gleaned the most support are the genetic theory and the hormonal theory (which
holds that homosexuality is the result of hormonal influences in utero).
Selling flowers is not an art. As the attorney for the gay couple noted,
arranging flowers for an atheist wedding does not constitute endorsement of
atheism; arranging flowers for a Muslim wedding does not constitute endorsement
of Islam; and arranging flowers for a Jewish wedding does not constitute
endorsement of Judaism.The Washington Supreme Court handed down an
impeccably correct decision. Anti-discrimination measures derive their
constitutionality from interpretations of the Commerce Clause of the US
Constitution, and have repeatedly been upheld by the US Supreme Court in the
face of constitutional challenge. Such discrimination is no less pernicious
than racism or sexism.PHILIP CHANDLER
@Counter Intelligence - Salt Lake City, UTWell, when the florist
only serve opposite sex couple, but refuse to serve same sex couple, both the
lower court and the higher court in Washington state consider it discrimination
to gay people.And if there is a penalty for breaking legal contracts
for those performer backing out in North Carolina, then it is justified to fine
the florist for not serving same sex couple.
@No Names AcceptedStriking down sodomy laws, employment bans, marriage
bans... That was all about hating Christians?Face it, what
you're worried about - non-discrimination law - is the least of the things
you did to us. So if it's "hatred" to enforce non-discrimination
laws that protect gay people, what is or to enforce non-discrimination law that
@J. S. "I don't think there is a law in North Carolina not
allowing a performer backing out of a concert, but there is a law in
Washington state not allowing discrimination against gay people."As the article clearly states; the florist had a long history of serving the
gay couple in question, she declined to make a specific product that violated
her personal beliefs. When Apple computer app store generally serves
religious patrons and ex-gays without question, but declines to accommodate an
app from an ex-gay ministry, do you consider that discrimination too? Why is
it ok for one but not the other? "Conscience for me, but not for
thee"Btw: I am not an expert on North Carolina law, but yes,
there usually is a penalty for breaking legal contracts. Regardless, the
artists in question discriminated based upon other peoples thoughts, feeling and
behaviors and sexuality is defined by thoughts, feelings and behaviors, not
@Counter Intelligence I don't think there is a law in North
Carolina not allowing a performer backing out of a concert, but there is a
law in Washington state not allowing discrimination against gay people.
Maroon 5 and Bruce Springsteen should be thrown in jail for backing out of
signed contracts when they disagreed with North Carolina law oh
yeah, the PC dogma is : "conscience for me, but not for thee"Reality check: a Kosher deli not selling ham sandwich is NOT the same thing
as a Jew refusing service to Gentiles - the florist had a long history of
serving the couple in question, but simply chose not to provide that specific
@john smith"Fornication"? I don't think that word means
what you think it means. These people are getting married.
In my opinion, the Washington Supreme Court's ruling is a truly awful one
which, combined with the public reaction to it, shows that we have far too many
lawyers, judges and other people in this country whose understanding of the
awful wickedness of fornication is entirely unacceptable.
Nothing should make a strong, sincere believer in Christ, angrier than to see
members of his or her own faith using their religion as a fortress for bigoted
and intolerant behavior towards others. A strong believer would stand on a
picket line, shoulder to shoulder with the persons being discriminated against
and encourage people in their community to shop elsewhere.
It amazes me that those that still oppose LGBT rights think they have stumbled
onto some me new argument that has not failed hundreds of times including many
many times in courts of law all across the country. Trust me you have not
stumbled onto some new argument everyone else missed over the last several
Yet again, some posters insist on obfuscating with half truths and moving of
goal posts.Taxpayers do not subsidize churches. In aggregate,
churches reduce taxpayer burden from welfare and crime more than whatever
minimal, general services churches receive. This in contrast to many
nonprofits that anti-religious bigots never attack. Theaters, museums, liberal
advocacy groups.The overt hostility to 1st amendment protections for
churches (the power to tax is the power to destroy and churches enjoy
constitutional protections against any effort to destroy them) demonstrates that
for some, homosexual rights is more about hatred toward religion and religious
beliefs & practices than about protecting the rights of sexual
minorities.There is also a marked difference between doing business
with a sinner and actively promoting, condoning, or participating in his sin
with him. That some continue to conflate this despite numerous explanations on
these pages suggests deceit rather than ignorance. Live in peace.
Let others do likewise even when they peacefully withdraw association from you.
@Fair Flower;Can you PLEASE show me *any* scripture that indicates
doing business with a "sinner" is "against your religious
belief"? Just one will do."There is room for traditional
religious beliefs protection and the same for the LGBT community."--- There is NO room for discrimination in public accomodation. If your
business won't do what it set out to do, then it should close down.Finally, do YOU have to try shop after shop after shop when you go out
for a product? If not, why should anyone else?Yar says:"All we want is to follow our religion..."--- Again,
please provide a scriptural reference that doing business with a
"sinner" isn't following your religion.NoNames says:"Nobody should be forced to... advance a social or political agenda
with which they disagree. "--- Can I stop subsidizing churches
via taxes then? (Why should religious beliefs get respect? Just because
they're religious? Not.).
Eacharenigma- As I stated in my post, I disagree with that and gays
shouldn't be denied the right to shop, buy or enter. But religious people
shouldn't be forced to participate in events they don't agree with.You didn't answer my question about Melania Trump.
@MickYou do know folks are using these "religious liberty"
arguments beyond wedding services, right? Baker cancelled an order for a
birthday cake when she found out it was for a lesbian, auto mechanic that said
he'd refuse gay customers, pediatrician that dropped the daughter of
lesbians, bread and breakfast places that refused gay couples when they showed
up for their reservations, and remember Ms. Davis that refused to do her
government job and refused gay couples seeking a marriage license?Sorry, but "Christians" are using the "religious liberty"
excuse far and wide. Why should we believe any of you that says you want it so
limited? It's not like there's history of you criminalizing,
evicting, firing, and refusing any old service.
The court is clearly trampling on religious freedom, something our righteous
Utah leaders have warned about. Apparently, the Washington court would also
require that Christian grocery store owners sell bread and milk to the gays when
we all know that food gives them energy to do their gay, uh, stuff. Next thing
you know, Christian landlords will be forced to rent apartments to those people,
thereby facilitating gayish behavior that goes on behind the closed doors of
those apartments. I'm appalled. /S
The simple solution is "if you're buying" laws. When
a business his license they do it under one of two categories. Either they
agreed to sell to every citizen in the community or they have a restricted
license because they have categories of people they will not sell to. The first category of businesses would with then display a logo on all
signage and all advertising declaring "if you are buying we are selling: we
believe in the entire community." The second category would be
required to display a logo that says "we refuse to sell to some people in
our community." If these are sincerely held religious believes
those businesses should have no problem licensing themselves and identifying
rdean-They are being forced to participate in an event they feel is
against their religious beliefs. If you were talking about buying groceries at
the store then I would be on your side. But no one should be forced to
participate in an event with their product if they disagree with it. If the
florist refuses to sell the couple flowers for their birthday celebration then I
think they are wrong. But the florist doesn't want to participate in the
gay wedding event for religious reasons.And what is the difference
for designers not providing their clothes for Melanie Trump. Or artists
refusing to play for the inauguration when they are paid? What is your excuse
for that discrimination?
@the greater truth“Let's not be disengenous”Yes, let’s not.“The gays could come int o and
buy any flowers off the shelf that the wanted and take to their wedding they
were never denied access to flowers. “Two problems with your
argument.1. It’s false. The florist refused to sell flowers
for a wedding. Period. Nothing about willing to sell but unwilling to set up at
the service. You made that alternate fact up.2. She did not make that same
stipulation for other weddings—just gay ones.“They were
never discriminated against.”The court said they were. The
court got it it right. You have it wrong.“It is compelled
servitude.”Get real. Servitude is forced labor without
compensation. They want to purchase, with real money, her product. She was
licensed to provide the product by the State of Washington. Conditional to that
license was obeying the laws of the State of Washington. It is illegal to
discriminate against LGBT in Washington. So here’s the deal.
If you want to discriminate against LGBT in the market place, stay out of my
Opponents can always have the final vote: vote with your wallet. Take your
Incredibly scary that this would happen. The First Amendment clearly spells out
four fundamental, connected freedoms - freedom of speech, the press, religion,
and assembly. It applies not just to federal law but state law. The basis of
exercise of religion lies not in ceremony but in adherence to core moral values
and matters of conscience. To create a law with the intent to compel people to
act in direct violation of conscience on a substantive matter (procreation is a
substantive matter and is directly tied up in this issue) is a serious violation
of freedom of religion (ie, 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof').
This is also an ultimate form of discrimination-- it says that only people with
certain beliefs can go into certain businesses. Forcing one to choose between
one's occupation and one's integrity is much more egregious than the
consequence of a couple having to find another place to buy flowers or cakes out
of respect of the individual's conscience. It goes well beyond 'live
and let live' and instead is a philosophical form of 'my way or the
@NoNamesAcceptes: "And this is exactly why so many oppose adding
homosexuals and other sexual minorities to Utah's public accommodation
laws. "Well, that is the point, indirectly at least. Utah does not need to fear the outcome in Washington state or even worry about
removing LGBT as a protected class when Utah may never have enough people and
elected officials willing to add them to the public accommodations laws in the
first place.But remember that whole pivot to "religious
freedom" that LDS made as it became clear that SCOTUS would strike down SSM
bans as unconstitutional? Well, that pivot relied on ginning up fears that Utah
businesses would be forced to serve same-sex weddings against their will. But that never was the case. Utah retail business owners
can still discriminate against LGBT customers to their hearts content...no
matter what product or service you sell...for religious reasons, for any reason,
or for no reason. No one is expecting that to change anytime soon, so
Utahns...uhm...okay..most Utahns....can sleep easy tonight.
"...please remember that LGBT is not a protected class under Utah's
public accomdations law. It is in WA state (and CO...sorry baker guy). That is
why this outcome was inevitable in WA but has zero applicability to
Utah."And this is exactly why so many oppose adding homosexuals
and other sexual minorities to Utah's public accommodation laws. I do not believe anyone should be denied general goods or services based on
sexual orientation or identity. Nobody should worry about being able to buy
groceries, sit at the proverbial lunch counter, buy gas, get a motel room on a
lonely stretch of highway late at night, or receive medical care. This is just
common decency.On the other hand, differing social, political, and
especially religious beliefs need to be respected. Most of us
looked long and hard to find the florist, caterer, photographer, and/or
reception center that was the right fit for our weddings. Nobody should be
forced to provide creative services to any event they don't want to.Respect must be a two-way street with accommodations going both
directions. Blowback should not be encouraged.
@my_two_cents_worthLet's not be disengenous.The
gays could come int o and buy any flowers off the shelf that the wanted and take
to their wedding they were never denied access to flowers. They were
never discriminated against.But forcing a florist to come to
wedding ceremony to "flower" a wedding they do not support. It's
just obviously wrong and unconstitutional.It is compelled servitude.
How can anyone argue forcing a owner or business into service and labor
contract against their religion is a right thing.Gays only have
rights until they violated another rights.
"Yes, I'd like to place an order. I want a flower arrangement with red,
black and white, in the shape of the swastika. Oh, you're Jewish? Well
legally you have to do what I tell you to do cause I'm a protected class.
You aren't. This means that anything I want is good and anything you
disagree with me on is bigotry and discrimination, words my organizations have
funded in the media to be cast in the worst way possible. Basically, all of
America will get duped into thinking I'm a victim, you're the bad guy,
and my make-believe rights trump you're actual rights the constitution
protected from the beginning. What's more, if you refuse you will be met
with a lawsuit, fine, imprisonment, and be branded a hater for life. We'll
even keep you on a list to make sure you act in line with the way we think you
should act."Call that a bit of an Orwellian exaggeration, but
the amazing thing is that I actually have a news story as a basis for everyone
one of those points. In the end, I know that God will justify his people.
I'm not interested in anything else anymore. Keep the commandments and
trust our Creator to our very last breath.
@NoNamesAccepted So, Christians are above the law?
@Yar"Sigh. Some people just don't understand. All we want
is to follow our religion, that's all."So, which religious
text of yours commands you to NOT sell flowers for Same Sex Weddings?
Unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...My court got it right.
Washington law prohibits discrimination against LGBT in the market place.
"Christian" (quotations mine) business owners licensed by the state of
Washington are not above the law of the state. Period.
Nobody should be forced to use creative talents to advance a social or political
agenda with which they disagree. Liberal, secular actors are and
should remain perfectly free to turn down roles in right wing or religious
productions, just as conservative or religious actors are perfectly free to turn
down roles that require nudity or other conduct that offends them.Ad
agencies, political consultants, and web designers should be perfectly free to
limit their work to only Democrats, only Republicans, or only Libertarians if
they want to.A baker, florist, or reception planner should likewise
be free to decline his use of creative talent to advance a project that offends
him.He should not refuse general services like birthday cakes/photos
or off-the-shelf sales based on sexual orientation of customers. But he should
not be forced to actively participate in nor support events (like marriages,
political rallies, etc) that offend his views.There is a world of
difference between buying groceries, renting an apartment, or getting a job vs
hiring creative talent to assist with weddings. The law should reflect that
If you sell flowers, then sell flowers. You need not approve of the marriage
they may be used at, but that's not what your customer is asking you to do.
So many in this thread want to live in the past. False claim about the history
of religion, attempt to twist freedom of association etc etc etc were roundly
discredited thousands of times over the last two decades and dismissed by one
court after another as false reasoning. Repeating these false claims here does
nothing to help your claims of moral standing.
@fair flowerAnd the religious beliefs of people opposed to miscegenation?
Are they not as worthy of protection as anti-gay beliefs?@misanthropeIf non-discrimination laws that include gay people are a
violation of "freedom of association", so are non-discrimination laws
that don't.@slow downAs I said earlier, "because
God" was tried as a defense in non-discrimination cases almost immediately,
including the "opposing the event, not the category" line. The SCOTUS
has not been impressed.
Sigh. Some people just don't understand. All we want is to follow our
religion, that's all. And there do exist religious people who don't
want to do harm to gays. I hope, one day, more people realize this and not take
As reported in the article, the argument against the florist is stunningly bad.
Providing flowers for a wedding between two Muslims is a terrible analogy,
because being Muslim or not Muslim has nothing to do with the institution of
marriage as such. But that is not at all the case with a same-sex marriage,
which contradicts the millennia-long structure of marriage across the world. In
one case the definition of marriage is at stake, in the other it is not. This is
incredibly easy to see, and it makes me fear that we don't even pretend to
rationality any more. One can argue against the florist, but not on those
I wonder what religion the florist belongs to. I'm not familiar with any
religion that prohibits a merchant from providing the same goods they provide to
one customer from providing those same goods to the next customer.
Why should they be forced to find another public florist? What if they lived in
small town with no other florists? Are they just out of luck? Just like
everything else, 1st florists, then bakers, then grocery stores, gas stations
and pharmacies. Where does it stop? In no way by providing a service to the
public does it endorse Gay Marriage or any other type of religious belief or
person that is not just like you. If you sell a product to the community, then
sell it to everyone or don't at all. You sell your product to make money.
The important point is that the washing state law is unconstitutional. This is
not a fight over religion, but over freedom of association. For the
'State' to have the power to force one citizen to associate with
another is anti-liberty. I am saddened that so many people are willing to give
up their liberty to the state; but less surprised by how many want to give
power to the state to force their neighbor to give up his liberty.
I firmly believe that no one should be required to do something that goes
against their religious beliefs. Just as LGBT want to be protected against
discrimination, so should people be allow to not go against their conscience.
This does not mean that the LGBT should not be protected, but religious freedoms
need to be protected also. I don't understand why they just didn't go
to another florist. Even though they were fined $1,000, I believe it was worth
it. I'd happily help them pay that fine. I hope this goes to the Supreme
Court. Hopefully, they will protect our religious rights. I voted for Trump
because I've been so worried about the Supreme Court. There is room for
traditional religious beliefs protection and the same for the LGBT community.
Before folks in Utah get all panicked about their religious freedoms being at
risk, please remember that LGBT is not a protected class under Utah's
public accomdations law. It is in WA state (and CO...sorry baker guy). That
is why this outcome was inevitable in WA but has zero applicability to Utah.
Folks really need to remember that these "religious liberty" arguments
are not new. They were first tried in 1965, one year after the CRA was signed.
If they ever *did* win, the impact wouldn't be limited to
discrimination against gay people, it would basically invalidate 90% of the CRA.
It's time people stopped using religion as an excuse for racism and
prejudice. If you open a business in America you have to treat all your
customers without prejudice.