Local florist refuses to service same-sex marriage

[kittensaver]

Apr 12, 2013 15:30:53 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

The florist talked to the clients.

Yeah, but she was not shunning. She was discriminating.

[thyme4change]

Okay - you keep changing it around.  

I don't understand how not doing something you don't want to do because you find it morally wrong is hating someone.  I don't do all sorts of things that I don't want to do because I don't think they are the right thing to do.  Doesn't mean I hate anyone.  It just means that I don't want to participate.  

I agree that she broke the law.  I agree that she is wrong.  I agree that her beliefs are wrong.  But I don't think we should accuse her of hate.  She didn't sound that hate-filled at all.  

[kittensaver]

from Webster's:

SHUN, n: to avoid deliberately and especially habitually.

Nope, this lady didn't do that. She was their long time "friend" and service provider. The argument that she was religiously righteous by "shunning" these guys doesn't hold up. Sorry.

 

[jkapp]

So if a business refuses to service a bohemian because they aren't wearing shoes, that is discrimination too?  That's a lot of lawsuits waiting to happen

For crying out loud, this lady didn't have the only floral business in town...get over yourselves, people!  And this is the same crowd that says conservatives are too sensitive.   And they're also the same crowd that says no one is forcing people to accept leftist social views.  I guess they're full of shit

[thyme4change]

So if a business refuses to service a bohemian because they aren't wearing shoes, that is discrimination too?

Neither shoeless nor bohemian is a protected class.  However, if he is gay, and he can prove there were other shoeless people in the establishment, he would have a case.[/span]

[thyme4change]

Kittensaver - I guess I missed it - the first person I saw say "shun" was you.  It must have been Paul that said "shun" because I thought I read the rest of it.

[jkapp]

Apr 12, 2013 15:57:15 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

So if a business refuses to service a bohemian because they aren't wearing shoes, that is discrimination too?

Neither shoeless nor bohemian is a protected class.  However, if he is gay, and he can prove there were other shoeless people in the establishment, he would have a case.

[/span][/quote]

Any why not?  Is the law even disciminating against shoeless/bohemians?  Why are only certain people protected and not others?  I think this just shows how discriminatory our discrmination laws are...it seems only certain people are protected by discrimination laws - and the people protected tend to be left leaning.  Coincidence?  I think not! CONSPIRACY...PROVEN!

[billisonboard]

Apr 12, 2013 14:30:33 GMT -5 swamp said:

... life without sex would suck.

Or not.

[thyme4change]

If the shoeless and/or bohemians want to be considered a protected class, they are going to have to come up with some lobbying money.  Laws don't actually come from moral high ground (as they would like us to believe.)  They are bought and paid for.

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2013 15:54:34 GMT -5 jkapp said:

So if a business refuses to service a bohemian because they aren't wearing shoes, that is discrimination too?  That's a lot of lawsuits waiting to happen

For crying out loud, this lady didn't have the only floral business in town...get over yourselves, people!  And this is the same crowd that says conservatives are too sensitive.   And they're also the same crowd that says no one is forcing people to accept leftist social views.  I guess they're full of shit

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 12, 2013 14:35:54 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Apr 11, 2013 15:58:40 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

The right to practice her religion without government interference is what is protected for her. To offer her services to the public and then refuse to serve a protected class of that same public due to her private/religious views is NOT protected.

And don't come back and tell me that refusing to serve someone in a protected class is practicing her religion, because it's not.

I wonder if you're correct with this observation?

1. The florist's religion informs her that homosexuality is a Sin.

2. The florist's religion informs her that gay marriage is a Sinful Act.

3. The florist's religion enjoins her to avoid Sin and to shun the Sinner.

4. The florist refuses service, citing her beliefs.

Consequently, the florist has practiced in her everyday life the principles and behaviors enjoined upon her by her religion.

Consequently, the florist was, indeed, practicing her religion, in refusing service to that member of the public.

The protected or unprotected status of the person being refused has nothing to do with it, in the narrow context of deciding whether or not the florist was practicing her religion.

The law may not ALLOW the florist to practice that aspect of her religious beliefs, but the legal details of the case do not inform us whether or not she was practicing her religion in doing so.

I'm OK with the concept that the florist was, indeed, practicing her religion, in refusing to provide service.

Now, whether or not that's 'kasher', from a sociological perspective... well... that's another matter.

Now, whether or not she is going to be able to effectively utilize the concept of Freedom of Religion as an adequate defense... well... that's another matter, as well.

But I DO believe that a good case can be made for the declaration that she was, indeed, so practicing, at the time.

Or so it appears, to this observer.

Very well said.

To me the larger issue is the role of the state in running a business.  I believe in a business owner's right to discriminate- for ANY reason.  Protected classes are bullshit.  I believe the GOVERNMENT must not discriminate, or mandate discrimination.  But a private business ought to have the right to do as they please.  The market will fill any void.  The bottom line is there is no Constitutional right to marriage, period (of any variety).  And there's certainly no Constitutional right to flowers at your wedding EVEN IF, in some unbelievable circumstance NO other business would provide flowers.

[mmhmm]

ROFL, thyme!

[kittensaver]

Apr 12, 2013 15:59:15 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Kittensaver - I guess I missed it - the first person I saw say "shun" was you.  It must have been Paul that said "shun" because I thought I read the rest of it.

Post #390. TT says shunning is okay because religious tradition allowed it.

[thyme4change]

I had to read it 4 more times to find the word "shun" in there.  I think honing in on that is a narrow view of what he was saying.  His point is a little broader.

[kittensaver]

The word "shun" has been used a number of times on this thread. Shunning the way it was explained on the thread was okay to do for religious reasons because for thousands of years of tradition it has been so.

"The florist's religion enjoins her to avoid Sin and to shun the Sinner.

The florist refuses service, citing her beliefs.

Consequently, the florist has practiced in her everyday life the principles and behaviors enjoined upon her by her religion."

Ergo, according to this line of thinking, shunning people who offend you (who you judge to be "sinners") is a religious mandate.


 I call BS.

[hurley1980]

Apr 12, 2013 10:20:24 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

again.....i will never tell someone who didnt get a job, why i chose someone else

all it does is open up a can of worms

and nothing says i have to tell them anything....

and no replies to # 268

anyone ever been to a wedding where the florist was never seen, and just sent a truck with the flowers?

I am getting married in July,  the flowers are being picked up the day before.  They don't even know the location of my ceremony.

[TonyTiger]

Apr 12, 2013 16:34:09 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

The word "shun" has been used a number of times on this thread. Shunning the way it was explained on the thread was okay to do for religious reasons because for thousands of years of tradition it has been so.

"The florist's religion enjoins her to avoid Sin and to shun the Sinner.

The florist refuses service, citing her beliefs.

Consequently, the florist has practiced in her everyday life the principles and behaviors enjoined upon her by her religion."

Ergo, according to this line of thinking, shunning people who offend you (who you judge to be "sinners") is a religious mandate.


 I call BS.

No, more like... "Shunning people who offend The Deity (as defined by their religious precepts and texts) may be a religious mandate, within a number of belief-systems.

You can call BS all you like but that doesn't automatically RENDER it thus, simply because a reversal would serve your purposes.

Some of the belief-systems and variations with which you and I might be most familiar with, hold to the maxim: "Hate the Sin but love the Sinner."

And, of course, a great many adherents of such belief-systems and variations are conditioned to love the Sinner from a distance in order to avoid spiritual contamination, physical danger, etc.

Hell, every parent on the face of the planet, worth his-or-her salt, teaches their children to shun - to avoid, keep a distance from, or stiff-arm - Bad Guys and Suspicious or Creepy-Looking People.

You can call that BS - or you can call that Tapioca Pudding for all I care - but it's shunning - it's distancing one's self from a person and/or from that person's acts - because they are believed to be sinful.

[hurley1980]

I should have known better than to start this thread....

Its turned into a total shit storm.  The bottom line is that this woman messed up.  If she supplies flowers for all other marriages, including those of different religions, 2nd marriages, marriages of people who eat shellfish and wear mixed fiber fabrics, she cannot say she refuses to supply flowers to this couple because they are gay.  She does not have the right to make that decision in the State of Washington.  If she doesn't like it, she can close down or move.  IT. IS. LAW.  Her religion does not trump law, and if she gets away with this, which she won't, then a whole new shit storm will start.  Wasn't there just a thread about a man using his religion as a way to avoid jail for the rape of women?  How did that turn out for him?

Religion does not trump law.  If it did, then terrorist would be able to blow us up all they want because their religion tells them Americans are bad and need to be destroyed, and they would get away with it.  Think about it people!

I'm out.

[EVT1]

Apr 12, 2013 16:10:42 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 12, 2013 14:35:54 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

I wonder if you're correct with this observation?

1. The florist's religion informs her that homosexuality is a Sin.

2. The florist's religion informs her that gay marriage is a Sinful Act.

3. The florist's religion enjoins her to avoid Sin and to shun the Sinner.

4. The florist refuses service, citing her beliefs.

Consequently, the florist has practiced in her everyday life the principles and behaviors enjoined upon her by her religion.

Consequently, the florist was, indeed, practicing her religion, in refusing service to that member of the public.

The protected or unprotected status of the person being refused has nothing to do with it, in the narrow context of deciding whether or not the florist was practicing her religion.

The law may not ALLOW the florist to practice that aspect of her religious beliefs, but the legal details of the case do not inform us whether or not she was practicing her religion in doing so.

I'm OK with the concept that the florist was, indeed, practicing her religion, in refusing to provide service.

Now, whether or not that's 'kasher', from a sociological perspective... well... that's another matter.

Now, whether or not she is going to be able to effectively utilize the concept of Freedom of Religion as an adequate defense... well... that's another matter, as well.

But I DO believe that a good case can be made for the declaration that she was, indeed, so practicing, at the time.

Or so it appears, to this observer.

Very well said.

To me the larger issue is the role of the state in running a business.  I believe in a business owner's right to discriminate- for ANY reason.  Protected classes are bullshit.  I believe the GOVERNMENT must not discriminate, or mandate discrimination.  But a private business ought to have the right to do as they please.  The market will fill any void.  The bottom line is there is no Constitutional right to marriage, period (of any variety).  And there's certainly no Constitutional right to flowers at your wedding EVEN IF, in some unbelievable circumstance NO other business would provide flowers.

So would you agree that the problem is not whether gay marriage is allowed or not, the problem was that couples (with their religious texts in tow) managed to get the government to give them all sorts of extra rights and benefits that it had no business or authority to do so?

Protected classes are not bullshit- and you are in several of them so get used to it.  

[cereb]

"Any why not?  Is the law even disciminating against shoeless/bohemians?  Why are only certain people protected and not others?  I think this just shows how discriminatory our discrmination laws are...it seems only certain people are protected by discrimination laws - and the people protected tend to be left leaning.  Coincidence?  I think not! CONSPIRACY...PROVEN! "

Oh...my...god.

[cereb]

"The bottom line is there is no Constitutional right to marriage, period (of any variety)."


The bottom line is Paul, you are wrong 25 different ways on this one. Point blank dead wrong. There absolutely is a constitutional right to marriage, and you saying there isn't does not make it so. I have previously cited the SCOTUS ruling on this. You will have to look it up for yourself this time and educate yourself. Stop lying.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Apr 12, 2013 20:02:08 GMT -5 cereb said:

"The bottom line is there is no Constitutional right to marriage, period (of any variety)."


The bottom line is Paul, you are wrong 25 different ways on this one. Point blank dead wrong. There absolutely is a constitutional right to marriage, and you saying there isn't does not make it so. I have previously cited the SCOTUS ruling on this. You will have to look it up for yourself this time and educate yourself. Stop lying.

Actually, I'm 100% correct.  There's a clear and unambiguous right to the free exercise of religion in the Constitution, but no right to marriage.  Marriage isn't even mentioned- because marriage is not a 'right' but a privilege.  And for some real fun- you should do some research on the history of the marriage license.  It was put in place to keep blacks from marrying whites.  The whole civil rights movement wasn't to stop evil white business owners from denying services to blacks, it was to get GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY so they could serve whom they pleased.  You have no Constitutional right to VOTE, either.  None.  Zero.  Your state determines how it will choose electors.  The only thing the feds have to say about it is that if your state chooses to grant you the privilege of voting, that every voter must be treated equally under the law.

[cereb]

"Actually, I'm 100% correct."


No you are not, but by all means, continue to live in your ignorance. It's a comfortable fit for you.

[Deleted]

1 :to harass or punish in a manner to injure, grieve or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief 

I think kittensaver is the one who posed the question to any Christian who oppose gay marriage and why some feel persecuted?

Here is my personal take on the matter with the help of Webster's explanation- I think most Christians' who experience/express feelings of being persecuted, is more of an internal grief that our voice gives expression to. It is like anything else we as a people, in my opinion, feel deeply about and express ourselves accordingly..  

[Deleted]

Apr 13, 2013 7:49:53 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Apr 12, 2013 20:02:08 GMT -5 cereb said:

"The bottom line is there is no Constitutional right to marriage, period (of any variety)."


The bottom line is Paul, you are wrong 25 different ways on this one. Point blank dead wrong. There absolutely is a constitutional right to marriage, and you saying there isn't does not make it so. I have previously cited the SCOTUS ruling on this. You will have to look it up for yourself this time and educate yourself. Stop lying.

Actually, I'm 100% correct.  There's a clear and unambiguous right to the free exercise of religion in the Constitution, but no right to marriage.  Marriage isn't even mentioned- because marriage is not a 'right' but a privilege.  And for some real fun- you should do some research on the history of the marriage license.  It was put in place to keep blacks from marrying whites.  The whole civil rights movement wasn't to stop evil white business owners from denying services to blacks, it was to get GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY so they could serve whom they pleased.  You have no Constitutional right to VOTE, either.  None.  Zero.  Your state determines how it will choose electors.  The only thing the feds have to say about it is that if your state chooses to grant you the privilege of voting, that every voter must be treated equally under the law.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Loving vs. Virginia: Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.

The fact that the word marriage is not listed in the Constitution does not make it a privilege.

[kittensaver]

Apr 13, 2013 8:19:16 GMT -5 @heart2heart said:

1 :to harass or punish in a manner to injure, grieve or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief 

I think kittensaver is the one who posed the question to any Christian who oppose gay marriage and why some feel persecuted?

Here is my personal take on the matter with the help of Webster's explanation- I think most Christians' who experience/express feelings of being persecuted, is more of an internal grief that our voice gives expression to. It is like anything else we as a people, in my opinion, feel deeply about and express ourselves accordingly..  

Yes, it was me. Okay, you feel this way because of your beliefs. I respect that. Lots and lots and lots of folks over the ages have felt this way. But where is the recognition that the persons today (gays) who are being shunned or denied rights because of your ("the big you" - Christians) beliefs also feel this way? And worse yet, it is because of who they are (born gay), not something they chose. And it is your "religious tradition" (for lack of a better phrase) that is institutionalized the denial and shunning in this country to keep it that way.

NOT NOT NOT trying to be sarcastic. Really trying to understand.

Thank you heart2heart for your dialogue. 

[fairlycrazy23]

I don't think religion should even be a consideration, people should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason or for no reason at all.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 13, 2013 17:06:49 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I don't think religion should even be a consideration, people should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason or for no reason at all.

Great way to grow your business what with the Internet and social networking sites.

[fairlycrazy23]

Apr 13, 2013 17:59:34 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 13, 2013 17:06:49 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I don't think religion should even be a consideration, people should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason or for no reason at all.

Great way to grow your business what with the Internet and social networking sites.

people,even business owners are free to be stupid