 |
Bullsh*t, Tal just spoke of respect for the rights of others. Where is the respect of the florist's religious rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I knew you didn't really believe no one's rights trump another's just as I said above. You DO believe the gay couple's rights trump the first amendment rights of the florist and that is rather hypocritical in light of your previous statement..
When I own a business and want to make money as I sell to the entire population, why should I think my religious rights have anything to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So then that means that since I'm Lutheran (Protestant) and, remembering the Protestant Reformation with great affection, I can refuse to sell to anyone not Protestant? What good would that do me as a business owner wanting to make a profit?
Hello again, Steve:If I said that, and I probably did, I didn't complete the statement... In our judicial system, one persons rights bump up against somebody else's rights ALL THE TIME.. They're the ones who decide who's rights trump the others. Generally speaking, I agree with 'em.Quote:
I knew you didn't really believe no one's rights trump another's just as I said above.
If the SCOTUS rules that her religious rights trump the gay couples rights, then that's the way it is. However, given our history, and their previous decisions, I believe they'll agree with ME.
Excon
Just tell us ex, which rights are invalid?
Personally I don't believe your side gives a damn about my rights whatsoever or you wouldn't have a cow over someone saying something to the effect of "hey guys, you've been good customers and I'd love to sell you flowers, but please respect my decision not to participate in your wedding." What is the freakin' harm in that? Can we as a society never work anything out without hammering someone else into submission?
Hello again, Steve:I DO give a damn about your rights. But, I think you're being a little one way here... You seem to think YOUR rights should reign supreme. You seem to think the ONLY harm here, when deciding between the two parties, is the FLORISTS harm. Frankly, it looks like it's YOU who doesn't give a damn about the gay couple's rights. What's the freaking harm in dropping off a dozen or so roses??Quote:
but please respect my decision not to participate in your wedding." What is the freakin' harm in that?
Excon
That is indeed a good question which brings up back to the OP.Quote:
What's the freaking harm in dropping off a dozen or so roses??
If she wants to be consistent in her religious principles and convictions, she should NOT be hiring gays or selling anything to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Did she refuse to sell them a dozen roses?
She refused to sell them anything:Quote:
Did she refuse to sell them a dozen roses?
Quote:
On March 1, Robert Ingersoll entered the shop in Richland, a small town approximately 200 miles from Seattle, where he had been buying flowers for years. When he informed Stutzman he was getting married to his boyfriend, Curt Freed, the store owner stopped him cold.
The difference between making a statement against the ceremony she'd be forced to participate in and a judgement against the individuals. She makes no judgement against them ;but she opposed the ceremony and refused to participate in ANY way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You mean other than refusing them service completely when she found out he was gay?Quote:
She makes no judgement against them
But her Bible apparently says homosexuality is an abomination. Why does she sell to them (she says she has served gay customers her entire career) and hire them (in her own words, "I could not [provide the flowers] because of my relationship with Jesus." She added: "I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay... "). Her Bible also says, "Eschew evil." Apparently, she picks and chooses what she wants to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Did Jesus eshew people because he disproved of their acts ? Did he stone Mary Magdalene ? No he did not . But he certainly did not participate in their evil acts. John 8 1:11
She apparently disapproves of their actions but knowingly hires gays and sells to them on a day-to-day basis. Aren't they "doing evil" (according to her Bible) behind closed doors with her flowers in their house? So what is different about a same-sex wedding when she would take the order, get paid, and drop off the flowers at the wedding site?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yet everyone here is judging this woman, who by the way has filed a countersuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Seems to me giving a referral accommodates the interests of both sides and no one has to violate their beliefs, but that would mean you lefties would have to honor our right to freedom of religion and we can't have that can we?Quote:
She has a previous history of serving, and employing, self-identified homosexuals.
Now, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a countersuit, Arlene’s Flowers v. Ferguson, on Stutzman’s behalf.
ADF explains that the state’s lawsuit “is attempting to force Stutzman to act contrary to her religious convictions in violation of her constitutional freedoms.”
“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions,” said ADF senior legal counsel Dale Schowengerdt. “Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs.”
He added, “It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”
In additional to federal constitutional protections, the Washington State Constitution also protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,” as stated in Article 1, Section 11.
I'll leave it to your imagination to determine what possible evil they are doing with the flowers she sells them . If Jesus wouldn't judge the adulterer then there is no compelling reason for her to judge the homosexual . No ,her beef is solely with being compelled to participate in an act she is religiously opposed to.
I said nothing about doing evil with flowers. Please reread my post. The flowers are in a gay's house, or the flowers are at a same-sex wedding ceremony -- so what's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
But she IS judging the homosexual by refusing to supply flowers for his wedding after selling them to him at other times, knowing he is gay.
No one is compelling her to participate in any act. (And hiring gays and selling flowers to gays in her shop is not "participating in an act"?)
Wow, that could cover pretty much anything when you think about it. It's extremely wide-ranging... "all matters of religious sentiment"? How does one define the limits to that?Quote:
the Washington State Constitution also protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,
Supplying flowers to a homosexual marriage is participating in the marriage ceremony . That is an indisputable fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And her being willing (no religious concerns) to hire gays and sell flowers to them, knowing they are gay, cancels out the wedding "participation" problem. If this is how her Bible reads ("no participation in gay weddings"), she should have a sign on her shop window, "Gays will not be hired or served in any capacity." Otherwise, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Your rights don't get "canceled out" that way and you don't get to decide when she can exercise those rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Uh no, that's not 'indisputable' - in fact it's highly disputable. It's a textbook case of slippery slope type of argument - BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: The slippery slopeQuote:
supplying flowers to a homosexual marriage is participating in the marriage ceremony . That is an indisputable fact.
So she can hire gays and sell to gays, but just not deliver flowers to a same-sex wedding. (I truly do not understand the difference.)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Her Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Why not all or nothing? (Gays' money is acceptable sometimes, but not at other times?)
I get it that you don't understand religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Tom answered that already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Why does her religion allow her to sell flowers to gays sometimes but not at other times?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If two lesbians came into her shop holding hands and wanted to buy an nice arrangement for the dining room table, would she sell flowers to them?
If a gay guy came in and said he wanted to send a dozen red roses to his legally married gay partner, would she refuse to complete the transaction?
No, he used Jesus to skirt around my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Oh I do, better than you think.Quote:
I get it that you don't understand religion.
Enumerate for us the interactions with homosexuals that are allowed and those that aren't allowed, as per Jesus and/or the bible.
Hello again,
I think Carol made a compelling LEGAL argument too. If doing business with gays is bad, then she shouldn't do business with them AT ALL. But, if she SELECTIVELY does business with them, then she can't argue that she refused to do business THIS TIME because of her religious conscience.
excon
Nice summary!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And if all they wanted to do was pick flowers up at her shop she probably would have had no problem, but to do a wedding you have to go the site and set up the flowers, etc. What if the wedding were at a porn shop, a strip club? What if the wedding was a nude affair? What if they wanted Satanic symbols in the arrangements? Is there any point at which you would give the poor lady a break? Geez dude, you guys have zero sympathy for a Christian trying to balance her faith and her business. Get over it and leave her be.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Had she been doing business with the porn shop owner, strip club owner, nude affair organizer in the past as she had been with the gay guy who wanted flowers for his wedding?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
OH! Had the gay couple picked up their wedding flowers at her shop, THEN it would have been okay with her? That smells to high heaven. Isn't she still "participating" by supplying goods for their happy day, thereby "approving" of their union?
Actually that iisnt true. As a catholic the teaching say to embrace people but there are lines drawn as far as acceptance. If someone were a thief and was reforming then you embrace them. But if they continue to be a thief then you don't embrace them but pray for change. It goes against religious principle to deny someone that is trying to reform or is trying to live up to the faith. There is no prohibition in the catholic church against gays so long as they are non practicing. If they live a celebate life then they walk with god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
She knew her gay employees and customers were non-practicing homosexuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
I don't know what she knew or didn't know. Do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
In other words there is no point at which you would give the lady a break in trying to balance her faith and business and everyone's rights. Correct? I mean it seems clear to me that the only rights you and the lefties want protected are those of the gay couple. Correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If she wants to run a business open to the public, she cannot discriminate.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Does she supply flowers to weddings of interracial couples?
That did not answer my questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If she wants to run a business open to the public, she cannot discriminate.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I would give her the same break she give the gay couple. They exercised their right and sued her for discrimination, and she exercised her rights to counter sue.
What ever the judge says, he says. That's the breaks. That's the law.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 PM. |