Ask Me Help Desk - Does Gay Marriage Infringe on Your Religious Liberty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If she wants to run a business open to the public, she cannot discriminate.

So 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?

If the wedding were at a porn shop, a strip club, was a nude affair, if they wanted Satanic symbols in the arrangements or asked her to slaughter a lamb and sprinkle the blood on the flowers you could find no point at which this lady could say no, I won't do that. Correct?

How far will you take your stand here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

How far will you take your stand here?

How far will you take yours?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So 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?

If the wedding were at a porn shop, a strip club, was a nude affair, if they wanted Satanic symbols in the arrangements or asked her to slaughter a lamb and sprinkle the blood on the flowers you could find no point at which this lady could say no, I won't do that. Correct?

How far will you take your stand here?

Most florists simply provide the flowers, they don't actually set up the flowers at the venue. Someone picks up the flowers for the couple and delivers them. Set up is usually a separate fee, and not all florists even offer it as an option. In other words, I fail to see how she was being forced, or even asked, to participate in the actual ceremony. She was simply asked to provide the flowers, to a customer she knew was gay, and had served in the past.

So in other words the florist is only called on to sell flowers and do no arranging.. not even the bouquet ?
Well she seems to think otherwise. From her counter suit.
Arlene's Flowers has never refused to sell flowers to someone simply because of sexual orientation," the countersuit says. "But because of Barronelle Stutzman's Christian faith, she cannot as a matter of conscience participate in or facilitate a same-sex wedding by using her creative skills to personally craft floral arrangements to decorate the wedding. The Attorney General's attempt to use state law to compel her and Arlene's Flowers to do so violates the state and federal constitutions."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so in other words the florist is only called on to sell flowers and do no arranging ..not even the bouquet ?
Well she seems to think otherwise. From her counter suit.
Arlene's Flowers has never refused to sell flowers to someone simply because of sexual orientation," the countersuit says. "But because of Barronelle Stutzman's Christian faith, she cannot as a matter of conscience participate in or facilitate a same-sex wedding by using her creative skills to personally craft floral arrangements to decorate the wedding. The Attorney General's attempt to use state law to compel her and Arlene's Flowers to do so violates the state and federal constitutions."

A red herring. She could have sold whatever flowers they wanted and an unbiased person could have arranged them at the wedding site. Of course, then she wouldn't have a lawsuit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so in other words the florist is only called on to sell flowers and do no arranging ..not even the bouquet ?
Well she seems to think otherwise. From her counter suit.
Arlene's Flowers has never refused to sell flowers to someone simply because of sexual orientation," the countersuit says. "But because of Barronelle Stutzman's Christian faith, she cannot as a matter of conscience participate in or facilitate a same-sex wedding by using her creative skills to personally craft floral arrangements to decorate the wedding. The Attorney General's attempt to use state law to compel her and Arlene's Flowers to do so violates the state and federal constitutions."

Of course the florist does the arranging. Do you know what that consists of? It doesn't mean that she has to step foot in the venue where the couple is being wed. She arranges the flowers at her shop. No one is asking her to "participate" in the wedding.

No one invited her to the actual wedding. She was simply supplying the flowers, like she'd done for years before for this very same customer.

She's picking and choosing what she wants to believe in, and using religion to show her bias. Either she's okay with having gay customers, or she's not. If she's not, that's fine, but she should have stated that from the very beginning. She knew he was gay, she's admitted to selling to gays in the past, and hiring them. She sold to this particular customer, knowing he's gay, for years. Now, suddenly, it's not okay. That's the problem with all of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

A red herring. She could have sold whatever flowers they wanted and an unbiased person could have arranged them at the wedding site. Of course, then she wouldn't have a lawsuit.

Could've perhaps ;but that isn't what they were contracting her for.

Quote:

No one is asking her to "participate" in the wedding

The arrangement and decorations are indeed part of the ceremony . By doing the floral arrangement she is participating .

Quote:

She's picking and choosing what she wants to believe in, and using religion to show her bias

and you are telling her which of her religious beliefs are valid. Therefore she is not being permitted religious freedom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

could've perhaps ;but that isn't what they were contracting her for.

How do you know?

From what I read they never got to any form of contract. She had no idea what they were asking for, other than flowers. She didn't let them get that far. As soon as he said he was marrying his boyfriend, she told him she wouldn't supply the flowers because of her relationship with Jesus Christ.

So how do you know what he was contracting for when he was cut off right after informing her who he was going to marry?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alty

How do you know?

From what I read they never got to any form of contract. She had no idea what they were asking for, other than flowers. She didn't let them get that far. As soon as he said he was marrying his boyfriend, she told him she wouldn't supply the flowers because of her relationship with Jesus Christ.

So how do you know what he was contracting for when he was cut off right after informing her who he was going to marry?

Again ;from the reporting about her counter suit :
The countersuit says Stutzman was approached around March 1 by Robert Ingersoll, a gay patron, who asked if she would create the floral arrangements for his wedding. She declined, however, telling him she wouldn't do so because of her Christian faith. He asked her to recommend other florists, which she did, and they hugged each other before he left the store, the document states.Read more at Wash. Florist Who Refused to Make Same-Sex Wedding Decorations Countersues

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

and you are telling her which of her religious beliefs are valid. Therefore she is not being permitted religious freedom.

Not at all. But, I'm sick of people hiding behind their religion only when it suits them. It's all or nothing. If you're going to be a bigot, at least have the guts and conviction to follow your beliefs. Don't dabble.

If she had posted a sign in her store saying "I am a Christian, and because of my religious beliefs I will not sell to gays", than fine, that's her right. I wouldn't like her, nor would I go into her store (despite the fact that I'm not gay), but I'd at least have some respect for her convictions.

But she sold to gays for years, she hired gays, now suddenly it's not okay? All or nothing. Either you're religious or you're not. Stop picking and choosing what suits you.

Tal, the US constitution and Washington law both protect religious rights.

WG, I've clearly demonstrated flexibility to accommodate both sides. You have clearly demonstrated no willingness to accommodate the florist's rights at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alty

Not at all. But, I'm sick of people hiding behind their religion only when it suits them. It's all or nothing. If you're going to be a bigot, at least have the guts and conviction to follow your beliefs. Don't dabble.

If she had posted a sign in her store saying "I am a Christian, and because of my religious beliefs I will not sell to gays", than fine, that's her right. I wouldn't like her, nor would I go into her store (despite the fact that I'm not gay), but I'd at least have some respect for her convictions.

But she sold to gays for years, she hired gays, now suddenly it's not okay? All or nothing. Either you're religious or you're not. Stop picking and choosing what suits you.

No actually it is not all or nothing . She clearly stated to the patron that it was the "wedding " she was opposed to ;and not the person. Her actions fall perfectly in her Christian faith .
John 8 1:11 . She does not condemn the person ,but she will not participate in their unholy union.

The constitution says all are equal, the federal law is no discrimination. The state law is unclear but it doesn't over ride the constitution or the state and should be challenged in the court.

A business that can't sell its products to anyone is discrimination, and you cannot hide behind religious conviction to break the law. At least that's what you told the Muslims about Sharia law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

The constitution says all are equal, the federal law is no discrimination. The state law is unclear but it doesn't over ride the constitution or the state and should be challenged in the court.

A business that can't sell its products to anyone is discrimination, and you cannot hide behind religious conviction to break the law. At least that's what you told the Muslims about Sharia law.

Where's the agree button?

Darnit, it's not here.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Tal, so Muslims have a right to stone an adulterous woman? Dude!

I ask you the same thing, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no?

Why will no one answer my question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tal, so Muslims have a right to stone an adulterous woman? Dude!

I ask you the same thing, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no?

Why will no one answer my question?

I already did, but my answer wasn't good enough.

If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

Why didn't she put out that sign? Because she was more than happy making money off the gays, until they crossed her supposed "religious" line. It's fine for them to buy flowers from her, work for her, as long as they don't get married.

I'd really like to see the exact quote from the bible that says that only gay marriage is un-Christian. I thought any gay activity was not allowed according to the bible.

Quote:

Tal, so Muslims have a right to stone an adulterous woman? Dude!

Of course not! They have no right to use their religious convictions to commit a crime anymore than this florist does!

Just like in the bible:
Murder in the Bible

So there is a law for Christians and a different one for everybody else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

The constitution says all are equal, the federal law is no discrimination. The state law is unclear but it doesn't over ride the constitution or the state and should be challenged in the court.

A business that can't sell its products to anyone is discrimination, and you cannot hide behind religious conviction to break the law. At least that's what you told the Muslims about Sharia law.

Love this part. So when do you think those gay couples are going to be filling out tax returns? That is a federal matter isn't it?

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no? Answer the question or stop your b!tching.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no?

If no discriminates against a protected class, they can't. It's not difficult. They can't discriminate against black people even if their religion tells them to do it. Same thing with gays.

You STILL think your religious rights trump a gays right. I don't know why you think you're special..

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

Love this part. So when do you think those gay couples are going to be filling out tax returns? That is a federal matter isnt it?

DOMA Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy Seen As Key Vote As Supreme Court Decides On DOMA This Month | KpopStarz

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The question remains unanswered, is there ever a point the florist has the right to say no? Answer the question or stop your b!tching.

Sigh. For the third time:

Quote:

If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

Quote:

If she had put a sign out stating that she's Christian and therefore doesn't believe in the rights of gays or gay marriage and won't sell to gays because of her beliefs, I wouldn't like her, but I would then say she's well within her rights to turn down this customer.

Such a sign would be illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alty

Sigh. For the third time:

This is all turned around giving gays rights no one else has. The point is she has a right to refuse service and tough if a gay gets their nose out of joint

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

this is all turned around giving gays rights no one else has. The point is she has a right to refuse service and tough if a gay gets their nose out of joint

So he gets service during the week, but not on Saturday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So he gets service during the week, but not on Saturday.

What you are denying here is the right to change your mind or uphold a principle. The community doesn't like it when Chrsitian principles are upheld. It likes to pay lip service to everything. As a small percentage of the population gays need to avoid antagonising the majority who tolerate them

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

as a small percentage of the population gays need to avoid antagonising the majority who tolerate them

What??

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

oh ;so he was just being a wise soothsayer ... he did not see these steps as a move towards his utopia ? I think he did .

I'll quote the 2 chapters above the list and the list

love this line " by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable" ..and yet the left still champions these remedies.

Tom, you just answered your own question yet again. Yes, he was a type of soothsayer. More correctly, he was an historicist in some instances and largely a dialectical materialist in most other instances. So yes, he did see this list as steps representing an inevitable move towards socialism and finally communism. That's the whole idea.

I think his theories are nonsense but that's beside the point. The point is that you have done a lot of colouring-in to highlight everything I am NOT disputing.

The question that I am asking is where in anything you have coloured is the reference to progressive taxation being a short term DEMAND?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

What?????

Don't you understand english?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Tom, you just answered your own question yet again. Yes, he was a type of soothsayer. More correctly, he was an historicist in some instances and largely a dialectical materialist in most other instances. So yes, he did see this list as steps representing an inevitable move towards socialism and finally communism. That's the whole idea.

I think his theories are nonsense but that's beside the point. The point is that you have done a lot of colouring-in to highlight everything I am NOT disputing.

The question that I am asking is where in anything you have coloured is the reference to progressive taxation being a short term DEMAND?

You know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

you know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

Probably they did. But most were not scholars of Marx.

There is no way to prove this, but I suspect that the list was something tacked on towards the end of the largely Marxian contribution. Possibly at the behest of Engels.

P.S. Someone ought to consider changing that wikipedia entry.

In other words ex, you believe there is no line too far to cross in forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs, so the first amendment and Washington law are irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

you know and I know that the progressive movement took that list as marching orders ;and the only difference between the fabian ,socialist and communist state models is the rate of change ,and the degree of soft and hard tyranny used to achieve the ends.

You know Tom I would like to know what playbook you post from, It is certainly the fear playbook, you don't like anything you don't understand, and you just don't understand why all citizens should share in the wealth of the country. The powerful have to be brought to account otherwise all you have over there is a repeat of the roman empire and we know what happened to them

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

You know Tom I would like to know what playbook you post from, It is certainly the fear playbook, you don't like anything you don't understand, and you just don't understand why all citizens shoudl share in the wealth of the country. The powerful have to be brought to account otherwise all you have over there is a repeat of the roman empire and we know what happened to them

So let's forget about the American dream, that's so yesterday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

In other words ex, you believe there is no line too far to cross in forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs, so the first amendment and Washington law are irrelevent.

Maybe the problem is the line you draw is unreasonable and steps on the toes of others, and you guys instead of saying "excuse me", demand that other "get out of the way while you exercise YOUR rights".

Yeah we can draw lines of good behavior, and what's acceptable but if you cannot acknowledge the rights of others, don't expect them to acknowledge yours, or the lines you draw in the name of religious convictions.

You aren't the only ones with principles or convictions so stop acting like it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Maybe the problem is the line you draw is unreasonable and steps on the toes of others, and you guys instead of saying "excuse me", demand that other "get out of the way while you exercise YOUR rights".

Yeah we can draw lines of good behavior, and what's acceptable but if you cannot acknowledge the rights of others, don't expect them to acknowledge yours, or the lines you draw in the name of religious convictions.

Excuse me, but how is it unreasonable to refer them to someone else? It isn't, the only side being unreasonable is yours, I've asked several times if there is a point at which forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs crosses a line and all I've gotten were crickets chirping. If there is a point, where is that line? I'm asking - either there is a point or there isn't, which is it?

Quote:

You aren't the only ones with principles or convictions so stop acting like it!

Oh spare me the self-righteous crap, I'm the one trying to be flexible enough to make everyone happy. Reminds of that stupid "coexist" bumper sticker I saw this morning, you guys don't want to coexist with us at all - unless we adopt your views and behave the way you want. Sorry dude, but that ain't happening - it just pi$$es you guys off that we won't shut and go away or bow to your superior wisdom.