Local florist refuses to service same-sex marriage

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 12, 2013 11:41:57 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"That isn't religious persecution. You get to practice YOUR religion as you wish. What you do not get to do is inflict it on others to the point that you are violating their rights. You don't have the right as a business person in the state of WA operating under a state business license to discriminate against anyone based on their race, sexual orientation or a number of other reasons no matter what you book or god has to say about it. Don't like it? don't go into the service business. Simple."

And that's the thing you don't seem to understand, by not selling flowers for a gay wedding this lady WAS practicing her religion!  She was following her religious principles in daily life and how she ran her business. 

And again, it's ironic you champion civil liberties and then turn around and try and force someone to do something they don't want to do and say "you don't like it?  Tough!"   

I view it as the gay couple inflicting THEIR beliefs on the florist.

[thyme4change]

I guess you are just going to have to teach your children how to express themselves without hurting anyone's feelings.  Does you wife have any experience with that?  Or maybe you know someone outside the family that can help?

[Opti]

Apr 12, 2013 10:06:59 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Apr 12, 2013 9:52:11 GMT -5 cereb said:

no, your made up situation still isn't in the ballpark.

I could see how a Muslim restaurant wouldn't cater a gay wedding.  Same as the OP.  I could see how a Muslim restaurant wouldn't cater a christian wedding.  I don't see how this is not in the ballpark.

If there is a WA restaurant owned by Muslims who did cater
Muslim weddings but not other faiths I believe they would run afoul of the law as well. Someone would however, have to protest and make it public.

[Phoenix84]

"FWIW I'm a Christian too, and I'm confused by the assertion that giving gays the right to marry is to persecute Christians because of their beliefs. How is that?"

That's a good question.

There are two issues here.  And it seems they tend to blend together. 

1. Should Gay people be allowed to marry
2. Should Christian businesses be forced to service those weddings or face government fines.

Regarding point 1, I don't think giving gay folks the ability to legally marry would persecute Christians.  I personally oppose Gay marriage as a Christian not because I'm trying to impose my beliefs on others, or because I hate gays and they are unclean and sinful, but because I feel I have a moral obligation to a higher power to do so.

Regarding point 2  This act of forcing someone who lives ther life as a Christian to do something against their religion or face fines from the government IS persecution.  I'm not really sure how else to explain it.  I think the fundamental area of disagreement is what constitutes "Practicing" religion.  The non religious seem to think that religion is only something that happens in churches and in outside the world no lives (or should live) out their religious tennants.   

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Not true. And even in the cases you are thinking of the refusal has to be followed by several other refusals as well.

So, if she is fined and refuses to pay- what happens?

[thyme4change]

Apr 12, 2013 12:03:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Not true. And even in the cases you are thinking of the refusal has to be followed by several other refusals as well.

So, if she is fined and refuses to pay- what happens?

Maybe she would lose her business license.  Does she need it to operate a florist business?

[Opti]

Now, having said that, the whole "where in the Bible does it say you can serve/do business with gays" irks the hell out of me. For one thing, I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't mention a single thing about vaccines (because they didn't exist then), but we allow parents to opt out of vaccines for their kids for religious beliefs and still send them to school. So it's not like the government isn't already recognizing religious beliefs that aren't spelled out specifically in the Bible. Furthermore, there are many denominations that all have the same book as the Bible yet believe many different things, sometimes vastly different things. Is it no less their religion to believe the things they believe if it's not spelled out word for word in the Bible?

There are actually religions who do spell out no medical intervention which includes vaccines. Those that don't IMO, really don't have the religion leg to stand on IMHO although it is used.

I guess my point was somewhat that people really don't follow their own religious texts and make up what God's will is. FWIW, I have always believed the Roman Catholic belief on birth control is a man made decision not based on the bible but misuse of it for the church hierarchies purpose. The bible, the Koran, and other religious texts are interpreted differently which is why most religions splinter into different pieces.

I think the original purpose of freedom to practice religion was to allow people the ability to worship in peace and other things like observe holidays, wear certain clothing, etc. I do not think the intention was to allow religion as an excuse for treating people differently in the secular arena.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 12, 2013 11:51:03 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"FWIW I'm a Christian too, and I'm confused by the assertion that giving gays the right to marry is to persecute Christians because of their beliefs. How is that?"

That's a good question.

There are two issues here. 

1. Should Gay people be allowed to marry
2. Should Christian businesses be forced to service those weddings or face government fines.

Regarding point 1, I don't think giving gay folks the ability to legally marry would persecute Christians.  I personally oppose Gay marriage as a Christian not because I'm trying to impose my beliefs on others, or because I hate gays and they are unclean and sinful, but because I feel I have a moral obligation to a higher power to do so.   

Regarding point 2  This act of forcing someone who lives ther life as a Christian to do something against their religion or face fines from the government IS persecution.  I'm not really sure how else to explain it.  I think the fundamental area of disagreement is what constitutes "Practicing" religion.  The non religious seem to think that religion is only something that happens in churches and outside the world no lives (or should live) out their religious tennants.   

on 1. I'm repulsed by the idea that two people need a government permission slip to agree to anything that doesn't violate the natural rights of others.
on 2. I agree.  And I would apply this to ANY business owned by ANYONE refusing to service ANYONE for ANY reason.

Wanna open KKK flowers and refuse to sell flowers to "mixed race" marriages?  Go for it.  It's a free country.  What you will not provide, will ultimately be provided by others.  The civil rights movement was not about putting a gun to the head of businesses that discriminated against blacks.  It was about getting GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY and ALLOWING businesses to serve blacks and whites equally.  Separate drinking fountains and bathrooms?  Ain't no business got time for that.  They were MANDATED BY LAW.  

The government PUT A GUN TO THE HEADS of business owners and said you MUST have separate bathrooms, water fountains, etc.

[chiver78]

Apr 12, 2013 11:49:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 12, 2013 11:41:57 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"That isn't religious persecution. You get to practice YOUR religion as you wish. What you do not get to do is inflict it on others to the point that you are violating their rights. You don't have the right as a business person in the state of WA operating under a state business license to discriminate against anyone based on their race, sexual orientation or a number of other reasons no matter what you book or god has to say about it. Don't like it? don't go into the service business. Simple."

And that's the thing you don't seem to understand, by not selling flowers for a gay wedding this lady WAS practicing her religion!  She was following her religious principles in daily life and how she ran her business. 

And again, it's ironic you champion civil liberties and then turn around and try and force someone to do something they don't want to do and say "you don't like it?  Tough!"   

I view it as the gay couple inflicting THEIR beliefs on the florist.

by wanting to buy flowers from the vendor they had been longtime customers of? uh, sure.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 12, 2013 12:05:24 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Apr 12, 2013 12:03:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

So, if she is fined and refuses to pay- what happens?

Maybe she would lose her business license.  Does she need it to operate a florist business?

So, what happens if she stays open, keeps operating, and doesn't bother with all this silly government telling her to do stuff she doesn't want to do.  You people pretending this isn't the use of force to make her show up at a gay wedding are just naive.

[mmhmm]

Apr 12, 2013 11:51:03 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"FWIW I'm a Christian too, and I'm confused by the assertion that giving gays the right to marry is to persecute Christians because of their beliefs. How is that?"

That's a good question.

There are two issues here.  And it seems they tend to blend together. 

1. Should Gay people be allowed to marry
2. Should Christian businesses be forced to service those weddings or face government fines.

Regarding point 1, I don't think giving gay folks the ability to legally marry would persecute Christians.  I personally oppose Gay marriage as a Christian not because I'm trying to impose my beliefs on others, or because I hate gays and they are unclean and sinful, but because I feel I have a moral obligation to a higher power to do so.

Regarding point 2  This act of forcing someone who lives ther life as a Christian to do something against their religion or face fines from the government IS persecution.  I'm not really sure how else to explain it.  I think the fundamental area of disagreement is what constitutes "Practicing" religion.  The non religious seem to think that religion is only something that happens in churches and in outside the world no lives (or should live) out their religious tennants.   

Christian businesses, like any other business, must follow the laws of the state in which they choose to do business.  Nobody is forcing anyone to face fines for living their lives as Christians, since nobody forced this woman to open a florist in the state of Washington.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 12, 2013 12:09:21 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Apr 12, 2013 11:49:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I view it as the gay couple inflicting THEIR beliefs on the florist.

by wanting to buy flowers from the vendor they had been longtime customers of? uh, sure.

If she wants to flush a decades long relationship with a good customer- that's her right.  I happen to think this whole mess is foolish.  I'm a Christian- I'd cash the check.  The wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous.  Wouldn't a Christian rather have their money- give it to charity- then let some heathen take that money and do something nefarious with it like donate it to Obama?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 12, 2013 12:10:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 12, 2013 11:51:03 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"FWIW I'm a Christian too, and I'm confused by the assertion that giving gays the right to marry is to persecute Christians because of their beliefs. How is that?"

That's a good question.

There are two issues here.  And it seems they tend to blend together. 

1. Should Gay people be allowed to marry
2. Should Christian businesses be forced to service those weddings or face government fines.

Regarding point 1, I don't think giving gay folks the ability to legally marry would persecute Christians.  I personally oppose Gay marriage as a Christian not because I'm trying to impose my beliefs on others, or because I hate gays and they are unclean and sinful, but because I feel I have a moral obligation to a higher power to do so.

Regarding point 2  This act of forcing someone who lives ther life as a Christian to do something against their religion or face fines from the government IS persecution.  I'm not really sure how else to explain it.  I think the fundamental area of disagreement is what constitutes "Practicing" religion.  The non religious seem to think that religion is only something that happens in churches and in outside the world no lives (or should live) out their religious tennants.   

Christian businesses, like any other business, must follow the laws of the state in which they choose to do business.  Nobody is forcing anyone to face fines for living their lives as Christians, since nobody forced this woman to open a florist in the state of Washington.

No, the State must follow the law.  It is our right, our duty to defy unConstitutional laws.

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2013 11:49:00 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I also think gays should stop comparing themselves to the plight of the African American / Black community.  I don't think their plight is nearly as bad.  They were basically asked to keep it quiet.  As neither a black nor gay person, I would think the history of being black is much more brutal.  Not saying being gay is always perfect and everyone treats them just wonderfully.  I'm not saying there is no struggle there.  

I'm sticking with my theory that this is going to happen - so let's just make same-sex marriage legal, so we can move on.  

I don't think it is appropriate to compare the experiences of gay people to the experiences of African Americans in the 1860s.  Those are very different things.

But the experiences of gay people today look an awful lot like the experiences of African Americans in the 1960s.  Both groups were told that because of their membership in that group they could not engage in the same activities as everyone else.  Members of both groups have been subjected to public ridicule, discrimination and hatred based on their group membership.  And people have lost their lives for no reason other than their membership in that group and the misfortune to have met a particularly ignorant brand of violent asshole.

It's really not so different.

[Opti]

Apr 12, 2013 12:03:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Not true. And even in the cases you are thinking of the refusal has to be followed by several other refusals as well.

So, if she is fined and refuses to pay- what happens?

I don't know and I bet you don't either. I don't know the laws of Washington State, there are many possibilities that do not include jail time. The fine might be attached to her business if she sells, she may lose her license if needed to be a florist, etc.

Saying the government always uses guns is just as true as you always use a gun on people when you do concealed carry. Except in the commission of a crime or someone committing suicide via gun
rarely is a gun literally put by anyone's head.

[cereb]

"And that's the thing you don't seem to understand, by not selling flowers for a gay wedding this lady WAS practicing her religion!  She was following her religious principles in daily life and how she ran her business. 

And again, it's ironic you champion civil liberties and then turn around and try and force someone to do something they don't want to do and say "you don't like it?  Tough!""


Thanks for backing up my "goat" assertion.

[thyme4change]

Are we debating gun control now?

[Opti]

Apr 12, 2013 12:20:39 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Are we debating gun control now?

I'm not. I'm just pointing out the lack of correctness of Paul's assertion that government is
using guns everywhere. Most of the police use it about as much as he probably does in his daily life.

[Phoenix84]

"But the experiences of gay people today look an awful lot like the experiences of African Americans in the 1960s.  Both groups were told that because of their membership in that group they could not engage in the same activities as everyone else.  Members of both groups have been subjected to public ridicule, discrimination and hatred based on their group membership.  And people have lost their lives for no reason other than their membership in that group and the misfortune to have met a particularly ignorant brand of violent asshole."

When have the police ever gotten out the attack dogs and fire hoses for a gay marriage rally?

And I'm not aware of anyone who has lost their lives for the cause of gay marriage.  Sure, some gays have been victems of violance perpetrated by criminals acting alone, but not the victem of systemic, government sanctioned violance. 

[thyme4change]

Maybe less.  

[Tennesseer]

Apr 12, 2013 12:18:28 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Apr 12, 2013 11:49:00 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I also think gays should stop comparing themselves to the plight of the African American / Black community.  I don't think their plight is nearly as bad.  They were basically asked to keep it quiet.  As neither a black nor gay person, I would think the history of being black is much more brutal.  Not saying being gay is always perfect and everyone treats them just wonderfully.  I'm not saying there is no struggle there.  

I'm sticking with my theory that this is going to happen - so let's just make same-sex marriage legal, so we can move on.  

I don't think it is appropriate to compare the experiences of gay people to the experiences of African Americans in the 1860s.  Those are very different things.

But the experiences of gay people today look an awful lot like the experiences of African Americans in the 1960s.  Both groups were told that because of their membership in that group they could not engage in the same activities as everyone else.  Members of both groups have been subjected to public ridicule, discrimination and hatred based on their group membership.  And people have lost their lives for no reason other than their membership in that group and the misfortune to have met a particularly ignorant brand of violent asshole.

It's really not so different.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

Coretta Scott King

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2013 12:09:21 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Apr 12, 2013 11:49:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I view it as the gay couple inflicting THEIR beliefs on the florist.

by wanting to buy flowers from the vendor they had been longtime customers of? uh, sure.

they are long time customers, true

but this is the first time they asked her to oversee the floral arrangements for their wedding (which she knew was going to go against her particular beliefs)

instead of going to a different florist, they made an issue out of it

i see it as they feel slighted and discriminated against.....and dont like her being able to say "no"

but that totally takes away her "right" to think and act towards her beliefs

[chiver78]

you've never commented on bad service to your friends?

the couple didn't "make an issue" out of her refusal to serve them, the state did.

[shelby]

I don't think this will take decades or lifetimes to hash out. The public sentiment has changed rather quickly the last few decades. The religious make up has as well. Less people of faith think homosexuality is wrong and less people are turning to faith or keeping the religious beliefs they were taught as children.

I was not raised religious in the slightest sense so I will not pretend I understand where those people are coming from, and I don't think they will be able to understand where I am coming from. We speak 2 totally different languages. I just would expect people operating outside of their church to treat all people with civility and respect as they would any other human they encounter.

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2013 12:10:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Apr 12, 2013 11:51:03 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"FWIW I'm a Christian too, and I'm confused by the assertion that giving gays the right to marry is to persecute Christians because of their beliefs. How is that?"

That's a good question.

There are two issues here.  And it seems they tend to blend together. 

1. Should Gay people be allowed to marry
2. Should Christian businesses be forced to service those weddings or face government fines.

Regarding point 1, I don't think giving gay folks the ability to legally marry would persecute Christians.  I personally oppose Gay marriage as a Christian not because I'm trying to impose my beliefs on others, or because I hate gays and they are unclean and sinful, but because I feel I have a moral obligation to a higher power to do so.

Regarding point 2  This act of forcing someone who lives ther life as a Christian to do something against their religion or face fines from the government IS persecution.  I'm not really sure how else to explain it.  I think the fundamental area of disagreement is what constitutes "Practicing" religion.  The non religious seem to think that religion is only something that happens in churches and in outside the world no lives (or should live) out their religious tennants.   

Christian businesses, like any other business, must follow the laws of the state in which they choose to do business.  Nobody is forcing anyone to face fines for living their lives as Christians, since nobody forced this woman to open a florist in the state of Washington.

nope...no one forced her to open a shop in Washington

and i wouldnt be surprised if she closed it now also

and moved her shop, and jobs, to another locale

and i wonder if anyone else with her beliefs might follow the same way of thinking

forcing people to go against their beliefs....hasnt that caused a few issues in the past

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2013 12:37:16 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"But the experiences of gay people today look an awful lot like the experiences of African Americans in the 1960s.  Both groups were told that because of their membership in that group they could not engage in the same activities as everyone else.  Members of both groups have been subjected to public ridicule, discrimination and hatred based on their group membership.  And people have lost their lives for no reason other than their membership in that group and the misfortune to have met a particularly ignorant brand of violent asshole."

When have the police ever gotten out the attack dogs and fire hoses for a gay marriage rally?

And I'm not aware of anyone who has lost their lives for the cause of gay marriage.  Sure, some gays have been victems of violance perpetrated by criminals acting alone, but not the victem of systemic, government sanctioned violance. 

African Americans didn't lose their lives for the cause of African American marriage either.  They lost their lives because they were African American, and some hate-filled piece of trash had a problem with their existence... not their cause... their existence.

And that is still happening.

[Opti]

She can also no longer do weddings or confine her wedding flowers to pick up only.

 

[thyme4change]

Pick-up would not have solved her problem.  She didn't want to service the wedding.  It doesn't matter if she was on the premises or not - she didn't want to profit from something she believed was morally wrong.  

[mmhmm]

Apr 12, 2013 12:48:37 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Apr 12, 2013 12:10:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Christian businesses, like any other business, must follow the laws of the state in which they choose to do business.  Nobody is forcing anyone to face fines for living their lives as Christians, since nobody forced this woman to open a florist in the state of Washington.

nope...no one forced her to open a shop in Washington

and i wouldnt be surprised if she closed it now also

and moved her shop, and jobs, to another locale

and i wonder if anyone else with her beliefs might follow the same way of thinking

forcing people to go against their beliefs....hasnt that caused a few issues in the past

Nobody has forced her to do anything, as I said.  If she moves her business, that's her prerogative.  If she closes it, that's her prerogative.  If other like-thinking people do the same thing, that's their prerogative.  I'm sure the state of Washington is fully aware of this.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 12, 2013 12:49:12 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Apr 12, 2013 12:37:16 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"But the experiences of gay people today look an awful lot like the experiences of African Americans in the 1960s.  Both groups were told that because of their membership in that group they could not engage in the same activities as everyone else.  Members of both groups have been subjected to public ridicule, discrimination and hatred based on their group membership.  And people have lost their lives for no reason other than their membership in that group and the misfortune to have met a particularly ignorant brand of violent asshole."

When have the police ever gotten out the attack dogs and fire hoses for a gay marriage rally?

And I'm not aware of anyone who has lost their lives for the cause of gay marriage.  Sure, some gays have been victems of violance perpetrated by criminals acting alone, but not the victem of systemic, government sanctioned violance. 

African Americans didn't lose their lives for the cause of African American marriage either.  They lost their lives because they were African American, and some hate-filled piece of trash had a problem with their existence... not their cause... their existence.

And that is still happening.

Shades of Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard (as an example).