Florist Hit With 2 Lawsuits For Refusing To Serve Gay Couple

[nehalem256]

Government telling people how to run their business? Are we in NORTH KOREA?

You will support the liberal view on marriage or you will be sent to Siberia for "reeducation" comrade.

 

[fskimospy]

You will support the liberal view on marriage or you will be sent to Siberia for "reeducation" comrade.

It's amazing how worked up you get by being denied the special privilege to discriminate against people you don't like.

 

[nehalem256]

It's amazing how worked up you get by being denied the special privilege to discriminate against people you don't like.

Not being force to support a marriage you disagree with is not a "special privilege". It is in fact fundamental to any sensible* definition of marriage. And its funny that you think the only reason to oppose a marriage is because you dislike the people getting married.

*Which probably excludes any liberal definition of marriage.

 

[fskimospy]

Not being force to support a marriage you disagree with is not a "special privilege". It is in fact fundamental to any sensible* definition of marriage. And its funny that you think the only reason to oppose a marriage is because you dislike the people getting married.

*Which probably excludes any liberal definition of marriage.

Nope, don't believe any of that. Continue flailing for special privileges though, that's sort of your primary MO.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I love it when bad things happen to people who do despicable things in the name of Jesus or God.

 

[JulesMaximus]

How is this any different than me saying to someone that I'm not going to rent them an apartment or extend them a bank loan or let them attend my school because they are hispanic or black or because they are gay?

It is against the law to discriminate in this way. Glad this florist is getting sued. Those of you supporting the florist are idiots. Those of you who sent them money should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[fskimospy]

How is this any different than me saying to someone that I'm not going to rent them an apartment or extend them a bank loan or let them attend my school because they are hispanic or black or because they are gay?

It is against the law to discriminate in this way. Glad this florist is getting sued. Those of you supporting the florist are idiots. Those of you who sent them money should be ashamed of yourselves.

It's no different under Washington law. That's why she's being sued and that's why she's going to lose.

A fool and his money are quickly parted.

 

[etrigan420]

Not being force to support a marriage you disagree with is not a "special privilege". It is in fact fundamental to any sensible* definition of marriage. And its funny that you think the only reason to oppose a marriage is because you dislike the people getting married.

*Which probably excludes any liberal definition of marriage.

This is the part where you say:

"Your intolerance of my intolerance is not tolerant!" lulz...

Your *opinion* of what marriage should or should not be amounts to exactly jack squat.

The people of the state of Washington have decided through a voter approved referendum to ensure that same sex couples are afforded the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples.

If you want to do business in Washington, you have 2 immediate options...obey the law or leave.

It. Is. That. Simple.

Don't like it? I'd suggest Idaho to the east, or the Pacific Ocean to the west...as you would probably be laughed out of Oregon or British Columbia.

 

[fskimospy]

This is the part where you say:

"Your intolerance of my intolerance is not tolerant!" lulz...

Your *opinion* of what marriage should or should not be amounts to exactly jack squat.

The people of the state of Washington have decided through a voter approved referendum to ensure that same sex couples are afforded the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples.

If you want to do business in Washington, you have 2 immediate options...obey the law or leave.

It. Is. That. Simple.

Don't like it? I'd suggest Idaho to the east, or the Pacific Ocean to the west...as you would probably be laughed out of Oregon or British Columbia.

Don't you understand? If Christians don't get to persecute gay people that means Christians are themselves being persecuted.

Think of the poor Christians.

 

[nehalem256]

How is this any different than me saying to someone that I'm not going to rent them an apartment or extend them a bank loan or let them attend my school because they are hispanic or black or because they are gay?

How is it different? For one no one think thinks that black people shouldn't be able to rent an apartment. They just don't want them renting THEIR apartment.

Also, marriage is different as marriage specificially is about getting other people to recognize your relationship as special. Renting someone an apartment implies no recognition of anything.

It is against the law to discriminate in this way. Glad this florist is getting sued. Those of you supporting the florist are idiots. Those of you who sent them money should be ashamed of yourselves.

So passing a law to force someone to follow your morality is okay? :hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

This is the part where you say:

"Your intolerance of my intolerance is not tolerant!" lulz...

If you only tolerate your viewpoint you are intolerant. By your argument everyone is tolerant.

Your *opinion* of what marriage should or should not be amounts to exactly jack squat.

The people of the state of Washington have decided through a voter approved referendum to ensure that same sex couples are afforded the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples.

Interesting... so you are saying that marriage grants people special privileges :hmm:

And they have the same rights regardless of whether the florist provides services to their wedding. What this is about is trying to get private citizens to accept your view on marriage.

If you want to do business in Washington, you have 2 immediate options...obey the law or leave.

Just because you pass a law forcing your views on others does not mean you are not forcing your views on others.

But hey trying to destroy the livelihood of old ladies because they disagree with your definition of marriage is so tolerant and compassionate.

 

[fskimospy]

So passing a law to force someone to follow your morality is okay? :hmm:

We pass laws to enforce our morality all the time. We just don't pass laws SOLELY on the basis of morality. Ensuring open access to public businesses for all customers is a societal good in its own right.

You want people to have special privileges to ignore public access laws. Too bad.

 

[nehalem256]

We pass laws to enforce our morality all the time. We just don't pass laws SOLELY on the basis of morality. Ensuring open access to public businesses for all customers is a societal good in its own right.

You want people to have special privileges to ignore public access laws. Too bad.

Except that the florist in question had no problems providing services to homosexuals in general.

This is no different from forcing a black caterer to cater to a White Power Rally.

 

[fskimospy]

Except that the florist in question had no problems providing services to homosexuals in general.

This is no different from forcing a black caterer to cater to a White Power Rally.

Shocking that you just continue to repeat yourself, no matter how many times you're proven wrong. Why do you think that is? A black caterer could reasonably assume their safety would be in danger at a white power rally. This florist cannot assume the same. Once again, you're laughably wrong.

If you're up for taking bets on the outcome of this case I'm very open for it, btw. I'll even give you quite favorable odds. Since you seem so sure of your position that you continue to bleat it even after being buried under contrary evidence, that's a sure thing for you. Right?

 

[raildogg]

So why not go to another florist?

 

[fskimospy]

So why not go to another florist?

I presume they did. The DA was notified about the florist's clear violation of the law though. It's his duty to enforce the law and prosecute the offending business.

I mean it's an open and shut case, why shouldn't he do it?

 

[nehalem256]

Shocking that you just continue to repeat yourself, no matter how many times you're proven wrong. Why do you think that is? A black caterer could reasonably assume their safety would be in danger at a white power rally. This florist cannot assume the same. Once again, you're laughably wrong.

Sounds to me like you are making excuses for why illegal discrimination should be acceptable.

If you're up for taking bets on the outcome of this case I'm very open for it, btw. I'll even give you quite favorable odds. Since you seem so sure of your position that you continue to bleat it even after being buried under contrary evidence, that's a sure thing for you. Right?

The outcome of the case has little to do with the merits of the case.

And it has even less to do with what is right.

There is essentially no argument that this is about anything other than an AG trying to stretch a law to a situation it was not intended for to force liberal morality onto a old woman at essentially gunpoint.

Any claim that liberals are tolerant is clearly contradicted by this case.

 

[nehalem256]

I presume they did. The DA was notified about the florist's clear violation of the law though. It's his duty to enforce the law and prosecute the offending business.

I mean it's an open and shut case, why shouldn't he do it?

If a cop catches you going 62 in a 60mph zone you are in violation of the law should the cop pull you over?

 

[zsdersw]

Same-sex marriage already has majority support.. and that majority is growing, not shrinking. This is an issue that will solve itself as society matures by continuing to reject its Puritanical fear and shame of all flavors of human sexuality.

 

[raildogg]

Same-sex marriage already has majority support.. and that majority is growing, not shrinking. This is an issue that will solve itself as society matures by continuing to reject its Puritanical fear and shame of all flavors of human sexuality.

Majority opinion doesn't mean anything. It's often sheep following other sheep. So-called modernism will adopt gay rights but it will come with its own set of problems. It might not be out of compassion but maybe out of carelessness that many people are willing to accept gay rights and marriage. They simply have a "Anything does" attitude, especially in our busy society. This is not to say it's better or worse because of it but that might be a big factor too.

 

[nehalem256]

Majority opinion doesn't mean anything. It's often sheep following other sheep. So-called modernism will adopt gay rights but it will come with its own set of problems. It might not be out of compassion but maybe out of carelessness that many people are willing to accept gay rights and marriage. They simply have a "Anything does" attitude, especially in our busy society. This is not to say it's better or worse because of it but that might be a big factor too.

I think you have it part right with the "anything goes attitude" being to blame.

But I think a lot of it is not so much people actively supporting same-sex marriage. But a lot of people going from going well "I guess marriage is between a man and a woman" to "I am tired of listening to gays whine just let them get married so they will shut up."

EDIT: Also the fact that I think there is an "enthusiasm" gap between same-sex marriage supporters and opponents. Since same-sex marriage is being pushed by people have something clearly to gain as opposed to an abstract notion of marriage having meaning.

 

[fskimospy]

Sounds to me like you are making excuses for why illegal discrimination should be acceptable.



The outcome of the case has little to do with the merits of the case.

And it has even less to do with what is right.

There is essentially no argument that this is about anything other than an AG trying to stretch a law to a situation it was not intended for to force liberal morality onto a old woman at essentially gunpoint.

Any claim that liberals are tolerant is clearly contradicted by this case.

You have argued religious liberty and that the florist is not discriminating against people, but an event. Both would be effective defenses, if true. Are you then admitting that no court will side with you?

If so, this conversation is over.

 

[nehalem256]

You have argued religious liberty and that the florist is not discriminating against people, but an event. Both would be effective defenses, if true.

So are you saying that a wedding is not an event?

Are you saying the religious liberty does not exist?

:hmm:

Are you then admitting that no court will side with you?

If so, this conversation is over.

A court stacked with liberal same-sex marriage supporters will not.

EDIT: Or better put I wouldn't bet on it.

Would you place a bet on your view winning assuming the same situation and laws if this case were in say Mississippi?

 

[Elfear]

Same-sex marriage already has majority support.. and that majority is growing, not shrinking. This is an issue that will solve itself as society matures by continuing to reject its Puritanical fear and shame of all flavors of human sexuality.

You're right that the acceptance of gay marriage is growing, but I believe it's because there are less and less religious people out there. It's not fear or shame, it's people's beliefs about right and wrong. Maturity has nothing to do with it.

Most people have their own ideas or beliefs about morality whether they're religious or not. You consider religious people to be bigoted and socially immature but I imagine your tune might change if the shoe was on the other foot.

For example, incest is considered by most societies to be taboo due mostly to morality issues. Would you support changes to existing law that would free people to express their love how they wish (excluding underage people of course)? Let moms and sons or fathers and daughters get married? Maybe grandpa and little 18-yr old Susie?

 

[fskimospy]

So are you saying that a wedding is not an event?

Are you saying the religious liberty does not exist?

:hmm:



A court stacked with liberal same-sex marriage supporters will not.

Ahhh so when you lose it is because of a librul conspiracy instead of you just being woefully ignorant.

I'm happy you have admitted how bad your arguments are in court. I'll never again say you're entirely impossible to educate.