Local florist refuses to service same-sex marriage

[Deleted]

The point wasn't that it is being used, but WAS used, in a similar manner to justify discrimination against other groups....

[kittensaver]

Apr 11, 2013 20:29:08 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Thyme -

This is from the LA times article:

The lawsuit seeks $2,000 in fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Arlene’s Flowers to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


Kittensaver -

I don't think anyone is going to answer your question, which sucks, cause I really wanna know!

Yeah it kinda sucks for me too, hurley. I've heard repeated assertions on this and other threads that questioning an anti-gay marriage stance is to disrespect a Christian's beliefs to the point of persecution. I'd really like to understand why that is persecution. Nothing bad is happening to them for having that belief (except maybe the get called racists or bigots) - okay that's bad, I agree. But from where I sit they are not being harmed civilly in any way - no one is taking away their home, burning down their churches, shipping their kids off to labor camps, stripping them of their civil rights, burning them at the stake, feeding them to lions or any other horrible things that typically befall persons who are persecuted. I really wanna understand, but I guess I don't get to   

[mmhmm]

Apr 11, 2013 20:24:29 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Apr 11, 2013 20:16:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It appears the state of Washington has decided to let the law make that decision.  Their choice trumps yours.

Are we debating if she broke the law, or are we debating if we should have a law that she broke?  They are two different things.  There are a lot of laws I don't agree with, but I can see plainly if someone broke that law.  I don't know the exact law they say she broke.  

I'm not about to sit in South Carolina and debate whether Washington should have a given law.   That's up to the people of Washington.  The law the Attorney General of Washington believes this woman to have broken is, indeed, a law.  My opinion of whether, or not, it should exist is totally irrelevant.

[Tennesseer]

Apr 11, 2013 20:36:26 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Apr 11, 2013 20:29:08 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Thyme -

This is from the LA times article:

The lawsuit seeks $2,000 in fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Arlene’s Flowers to comply with the state’s consumer protection laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


Kittensaver -

I don't think anyone is going to answer your question, which sucks, cause I really wanna know!

Yeah it kinda sucks for me too, hurley. I've heard repeated assertions on this and other threads that questioning an anti-gay marriage stance is to disrespect a Christian's beliefs to the point of persecution. I'd really like to understand why that is persecution. Nothing bad is happening to them for having that belief (except maybe the get called racists or bigots) - okay that's bad, I agree. But from where I sit they are not being harmed civilly in any way - no one is taking away their home, burning down their churches, shipping their kids off to labor camps, stripping them of their civil rights, burning them at the stake or any other horrible things that typically befall persons who are persecuted. I really wanna understand, but I guess I don't get to   

Be careful about wanting too much religion info. Too much will get this thread moved to the religious sub-board.

[chiver78]

Apr 11, 2013 19:57:13 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Apr 11, 2013 17:49:09 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I gotta take issue with this. there was another post in here that I absolutely agreed with, sorry can't recall from a page later who said it. I don't see why you (collective) think I am intolerant of people's beliefs if they don't fall into step with mine because I expect business owners who serve the public as a whole to operate without infusing their business with religion of any kind. if a Muslim (pick a wedding vendor) refused to serve a straight ceremony because they planned to have a pig roast at the reception, what would y'all say? how about a Jewish (pick a wedding vendor) who couldn't deal with the bacon-wrapped scallops during cocktail hour?

I do think it's something that should be hashed out in the aftermath by customers, though. as in, I wouldn't use this woman's services any more than I would ever spend a dime at CfA. I could tell you about Curves, too, but that might open up a whole 'nother can of worms that we don't have time for here.

First, I don't think you are intolerant of people's beliefs, I think you are intolerant of their beliefs when (what you perceive) infringe on other people.    And it's that perception that I disagree with.

While you are standing up for gay rights, you are doing the exact opposite to CFA or this woman - that's what "I" (can't speak for others) have a problem with.

If we went with the "if you serve the public you have to be all inclusive) logic, we wouldn't have ANY business what-so-ever or we would have business of people who have no core beliefs.    As long as it's not govt-involved or subsidized, we should be allowed certain freedoms when it comes to our own businesses. 

And btw, you are one of the very few people who I don't agree with who I actually enjoy debating.   You don't bring emotions and are pretty fair in your debates.  I just don't agree with your stand. 

thank you for that last bit, I do try to argue things logically as best I can.

as far as the rest of what you say here, others have said quite nicely since I last posted - how is a Christian harmed by a gay marriage taking place and being recognized by the very secular State? why does anyone else's marriage have an impact on (collective) yours? genders are absolutely irrelevant, your marriage is your business. everyone else's marriages are theirs, and the government's as far as taxes are concerned.

to talk about my opinion vis-à-vis CfA and this florist, I don't at all see that your equation is a valid comparison. I'm standing up for gay rights that gay people are afforded the same rights as us heterosexuals as far as marriage perks and responsibilities go. I have no problem with the florist exercising her right to religious practice on her own time (or CfA, for that matter). that said, she is a licensed businesswoman as far as the State of Washington is concerned, and she ran afoul of their discrimination laws in the practice of her business and should be held accountable for that. regardless of the WA-specific laws, she (and CfA) shouldn't be infusing personal religious beliefs into business practices or marketing campaigns, period. that is my opinion, and I exercise that opinion with my dollars. I would hope that everyone else would as well.

finally, to this quote of yours - "If we went with the "if you serve the public you have to be all inclusive) logic, we wouldn't have ANY business what-so-ever or we would have business of people who have no core beliefs."  I completely disagree. this particular florist saw no problem with taking sales from this couple over the past decade......until they chose to get married. in addition, there are plenty of businesses that are actually blind to discrimination - most grocery stores and gas stations fall into this category. why is it okay for a florist (or whoever) to conduct her business otherwise?  

[thyme4change]

Well, let's say you are a caterer, and you routinely did food service on movie sets.  And one day someone asked you to provide food for an S&M orgy fettish porn film.  And you would have to be there during filming and set it up and would likely see something that you feel is wrong, and would make you uncomfortable.  But the law says you must provide the food, because we now have a "good for the goose, good for the gander" law that makes it impossible to turn down any job for personal reasons.  

I know that is a very warped example, because a marriage between two people who love each other isn't as perverse as and S&M orgy fettish porn film, but I know my in-laws and my sister would feel equally uncomfortable being present at a gay marriage as I would at an S&M orgy fettish porn filming.  

[whoisjohngalt]

Apr 11, 2013 20:06:18 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

"I think you are intolerant of their beliefs when (what you perceive) infringe on other people."

===================================

And why should religious beliefs be allowed to infringe on others who don't believe like you? Again (at least in my world) your rights end where your religious fist meets my civil nose. I acknowledge that this is my world view, and I also acknowledge that I'm bewildered as to why someone wants to use a religious tenant to deny rights to others  .

I could understand being upset if the infringement harmed you in some way (as in, gays are harmed because they are being denied rights that only the institution of marriage can give them), but how as a Christian are you being harmed? Maybe your cherished beliefs are being challenged, but how are you harmed? 

If you are asking me, you are asking the wrong person, bc I wasn't telling you MY beliefs.  And this woman is not imposing her beliefs on anyone else.  Her refusal to do  business with someone is not imposing her beliefs.

[whoisjohngalt]

Apr 11, 2013 20:41:36 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Apr 11, 2013 19:57:13 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

First, I don't think you are intolerant of people's beliefs, I think you are intolerant of their beliefs when (what you perceive) infringe on other people.    And it's that perception that I disagree with.

While you are standing up for gay rights, you are doing the exact opposite to CFA or this woman - that's what "I" (can't speak for others) have a problem with.

If we went with the "if you serve the public you have to be all inclusive) logic, we wouldn't have ANY business what-so-ever or we would have business of people who have no core beliefs.    As long as it's not govt-involved or subsidized, we should be allowed certain freedoms when it comes to our own businesses. 

And btw, you are one of the very few people who I don't agree with who I actually enjoy debating.   You don't bring emotions and are pretty fair in your debates.  I just don't agree with your stand. 

thank you for that last bit, I do try to argue things logically as best I can.

as far as the rest of what you say here, others have said quite nicely since I last posted - how is a Christian harmed by a gay marriage taking place and being recognized by the very secular State? why does anyone else's marriage have an impact on (collective) yours? genders are absolutely irrelevant, your marriage is your business. everyone else's marriages are theirs, and the government's as far as taxes are concerned.

to talk about my opinion vis-à-vis CfA and this florist, I don't at all see that your equation is a valid comparison. I'm standing up for gay rights that gay people are afforded the same rights as us heterosexuals as far as marriage perks and responsibilities go. I have no problem with the florist exercising her right to religious practice on her own time (or CfA, for that matter). that said, she is a licensed businesswoman as far as the State of Washington is concerned, and she ran afoul of their discrimination laws in the practice of her business and should be held accountable for that. regardless of the WA-specific laws, she (and CfA) shouldn't be infusing personal religious beliefs into business practices or marketing campaigns, period. that is my opinion, and I exercise that opinion with my dollars. I would hope that everyone else would as well.

finally, to this quote of yours - "If we went with the "if you serve the public you have to be all inclusive) logic, we wouldn't have ANY business what-so-ever or we would have business of people who have no core beliefs."  I completely disagree. this particular florist saw no problem with taking sales from this couple over the past decade......until they chose to get married. in addition, there are plenty of businesses that are actually blind to discrimination - most grocery stores and gas stations fall into this category. why is it okay for a florist (or whoever) to conduct her business otherwise?  

Well, I can't answer the 1st paragraph bc I never said that she would be harmed or any other Christian or non-Christian would harmed by gay marriage

As Thyme pointed out - are we debating whether she broke the law (and it seems she did - so no debate) or should this law exist?

Hmmm, if I tell you my opinion about it it might open a VERY wide gate of all kinds of things - but in short, no, I don't think this law should exist.

And last, I shouldn't have said "we wouldn't have any businesses" - you are right, businesses are forced into certain way of conducting themselves by public or govt, happens all the time. 

It's late and I am hungry and I am having sushi for dinner, so I am not thinking or expressing myself very clearily.  If you'd like, we can continue this tomorrow or later tonight

[cereb]

"Her refusal to do  business with someone is not imposing her beliefs."


Actually, yes it is. When you discriminate against another human being based on your religious beliefs, when you treat that person differently than you would any other person, when you use your religion to justify your behavior, you have imposed your religious belief upon that person.

[TonyTiger]

Apr 11, 2013 20:21:56 GMT -5 oped said:

In the past, certain cults and even some orthodox Christian groups have held to the belief that the skin color of black people was due to a curse on Ham and his descendents. Unfortunately, this false teaching has been used to justify racial discrimination and even slavery.

One group said, "We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later Ham) were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics."{2} Another group argued that "The curse which Noah pronounced upon Canaan was the origin of the black race."{3}

...


Racism
A long history of racism, particularly in the U.S., has made some people believe there is something immoral about dating and marrying outside one's own race. In fact, interracial marriage was illegal in some states until 1967, when those laws were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A number of attempts were made to use the Bible to justify those bans on interracial marriage. Vague assertions were made that God intended for the races to remain separate. Some verses (Exodus 34:10-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14, etc.) were quoted in part or otherwise out of context in an attempt to show that God opposed interracial marriage.

...

thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/bible_and_segregation

Just a few to get you started... Bible was long used to support slavery and segregation...

Oh, there's no getting around the fact that various Ancient Religious Texts have been interpreted as being supportive of racism.

Trouble is, one had to 'stretch' the so-called Sacred Texts and engage in sophistry piled on top of sophistry, in order to get to the 'logical' place from which they justified such behaviors.

Unlike racism, however, there are TONS of outright and quite explicit and clear Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality - no stretching nor sophistry required.

One is a stretch... one is conveniently explicit and requires no further interpretation.

Stretches and sophistry can eventually be swept aside.

Outright condemnations might prove a wee bit more difficult. 

[Deleted]

Please post some, thanks  

[Tennesseer]

"Unlike racism, however, there are TONS of outright and quite explicit and clear Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality - no stretching nor sophistry required."

What-like fifty gazilbillion cendemnations? (I can greatly exaggerate just like you!)

"Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in both the Old and the New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery. This was the position that Lincoln himself adopted.

At the center of the divide over homosexuality today is the Bible. Conservatives and progressives “read from the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.”

There are a handful of Scriptures (five or eight depending upon how one counts) that specifically speak of same-sex intimacy as unacceptable to God. Conservatives or traditionalists see these as reflecting God’s timeless will for human relationships. Progressives look at these same scriptures in much the same way that progressives in the nineteenth century looked at the Bible’s teaching on slavery. They believe that these verses capture the cultural understandings and practices of sexuality in biblical times, but do not reflect God’s will for gay and lesbian people."

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/on-homosexuality-many-christians-get-the-bible-wrong/2013/02/13/2443d062-761f-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_blog.html

[Tennesseer]

Apr 11, 2013 21:12:26 GMT -5 oped said:

Please post some, thanks  

I don't know if this board, let alone thread, could stand the weight of "tons" of condemnations.

[Peace Of Mind]

Apr 11, 2013 20:43:46 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Well, let's say you are a caterer, and you routinely did food service on movie sets.  And one day someone asked you to provide food for an S&M orgy fettish porn film.  And you would have to be there during filming and set it up and would likely see something that you feel is wrong, and would make you uncomfortable.  But the law says you must provide the food, because we now have a "good for the goose, good for the gander" law that makes it impossible to turn down any job for personal reasons.  

I know that is a very warped example, because a marriage between two people who love each other isn't as perverse as and S&M orgy fettish porn film, but I know my in-laws and my sister would feel equally uncomfortable being present at a gay marriage as I would at an S&M orgy fettish porn filming.  

I thought it was funny imagining that scenario but it doesn't really fit.  Flowers are set up well in advance of the wedding ceremony and they don't have to witness anything.  They deliver them to the church or location of their choice (and I'd bet good money it's not the owner that does the deliveries) and the church or organizer of the wedding places them.  Even if it's the florist that places them it's done before anybody gets there. 

[swamp]

The florist I used for my wedding always hangs around to,watch. He also helps,coordinate the bridal party. I think he just likes weddings.

[TonyTiger]

Apr 11, 2013 21:12:26 GMT -5 oped said:

Please post some, thanks  

I'm no Biblical scholar, Oped, but you can begin to understand the scope of Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality by taking a quick browse through the following article...

Link (Wikipedia, article: The Bible and homosexuality)

Various passages in Leviticus are always a good place to start in this narrow context, and the catalog of condemnations broadens beyond that narrow focus, as the article shows.

It's a place to start, and it's what much of Christendom and much of Judaism and much of Islam utilize as the basis for their shunning and revulsion directed towards homosexuality.

I'm not making judgments here... merely relaying the basis for such bias on the part of a very large percentage of the world's population...

[TonyTiger]

Apr 11, 2013 21:14:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 11, 2013 21:12:26 GMT -5 oped said:

Please post some, thanks  

I don't know if this board, let alone thread, could stand the weight of "tons" of condemnations.

Oh, give it a rest...

[Deleted]

There was a lot of flipping back and forth in bible translations between slave, servant, etc. depending on current sentiments.... ... I'd like to see this tons of examples actually ...

[Tennesseer]

Apr 11, 2013 21:23:25 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Apr 11, 2013 21:14:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I don't know if this board, let alone thread, could stand the weight of "tons" of condemnations.

Oh, give it a rest...

One could say the same to you.

[Deleted]

Tony, did you actually read that link?

[TonyTiger]

Apr 11, 2013 21:12:36 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

"Unlike racism, however, there are TONS of outright and quite explicit and clear Scriptural condemnations of homosexuality - no stretching nor sophistry required."

What-like fifty gazilbillion cendemnations? (I can greatly exaggerate just like you!)

"Southern preachers and slave owners believed the many references in the Bible permitting and regulating slavery (well over 100 verses), in both the Old and the New Testaments, were clear evidence that the institution was a part of God’s social and moral order. Abolitionist preachers argued in their sermons that the verses related to slavery in the Bible were a reflection of the cultural context and times in which the Bible was written and did not reflect God’s endorsement of slavery. They argued that there were “weightier” scriptures on justice, mercy and love that superseded those on slavery. This was the position that Lincoln himself adopted.

At the center of the divide over homosexuality today is the Bible. Conservatives and progressives “read from the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.”

There are a handful of Scriptures (five or eight depending upon how one counts) that specifically speak of same-sex intimacy as unacceptable to God. Conservatives or traditionalists see these as reflecting God’s timeless will for human relationships. Progressives look at these same scriptures in much the same way that progressives in the nineteenth century looked at the Bible’s teaching on slavery. They believe that these verses capture the cultural understandings and practices of sexuality in biblical times, but do not reflect God’s will for gay and lesbian people."

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/on-homosexuality-many-christians-get-the-bible-wrong/2013/02/13/2443d062-761f-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_blog.html

That's nice, but Gay Advocate's presumption in 're-tasking' the interpretation of homosexuality-related historical teachings are more a matter of Modernistic Interpretation and Sophistry to support a political agenda than they are a Spiritual Guideline which is honored and observed by hundreds of millions - if not billions - worldwide.

[Peace Of Mind]

Apr 11, 2013 21:20:11 GMT -5 swamp said:

The florist I used for my wedding always hangs around to,watch. He also helps,coordinate the bridal party. I think he just likes weddings.

That is so sweet!  Or he was there hoping you wouldn't go through with it.       Maybe I should have said "Flowers are usually set up..." 

[swamp]

The bible,prohibits all sorts of stuff...

www.giffmex.org/blog/?p=128

[TonyTiger]

Which link, Oped - my own Wiki link? The link provided by the OP? One of yours?

[Deleted]

Yeah, and Mary Magdalena was a prostitute 

[Peace Of Mind]

According to the bible I don't think I'm supposed to be having sex because I don't want to procreate.  There is no exception in there for practicing.  

[swamp]

According to the bible I'm not supposed to cut my hair or eat shellfish.

[Deleted]

I think the don't sleep with men like women is more a condemnation of the missionary position... 

[Peace Of Mind]

And there is that little matter of saying G__dammit! and other such ways of using the Lord's name in vain when a finger is smashed by hammer. 

[Deleted]

Or disobey your husband... I think that's a no no too...