[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:
I KNEW you'd think only one party was honorable.. I suppose you think the gay couple should have just taken their seat in the back of the bus... I mean they should have just taken the referrals and kept QUIET...

My friend, graciousness has NOTHING to do with rights.. The law does.

What if I was VERY gracious with a black patron in my restaurant, and offered him an excellent meal in the kitchen? Or what if I went out of my way, being gracious, of course, and made a reservation for him at one of the black restaurants down the street? Would that be cool with you?

excon

Bullsh*t, Tal just spoke of respect for the rights of others. Where is the respect of the florist's religious rights?

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..

[Wondergirl]

Where is the respect of the florist's religious rights?

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?

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?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I knew you didn't really believe no one's rights trump another's just as I said above.

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.

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

but please respect my decision not to participate in your wedding." What is the freakin' harm in that?

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??

Excon

[NeedKarma]

What's the freaking harm in dropping off a dozen or so roses??

That is indeed a good question which brings up back to the OP.

[Wondergirl]

She didnt, she based it on religious convictions. She had hired gays before and previously sold flowers to these same people on other occassions.

If she wants to be consistent in her religious principles and convictions, she should NOT be hiring gays or selling anything to them.

[speechlesstx]

Did she refuse to sell them a dozen roses?

[NeedKarma]

Did she refuse to sell them a dozen roses?

She refused to sell them anything:

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.

[tomder55]

If she wants to be consistent in her religious principles and convictions, she should NOT be hiring gays or selling anything to them.

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.

[NeedKarma]

She makes no judgement against them

You mean other than refusing them service completely when she found out he was gay?

[Wondergirl]

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.

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.

[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

[Wondergirl]

Did Jesus eshew people because he disproved of their acts ?

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

Yet everyone here is judging this woman, who by the way has filed a countersuit.

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.

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?

[tomder55]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?

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"?)

[NeedKarma]

the Washington State Constitution also protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,

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?

[tomder55]

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?

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"?)

Supplying flowers to a homosexual marriage is participating in the marriage ceremony . That is an indisputable fact.

[Wondergirl]

supplying flowers to a homosexual marriage is participating in the marriage ceremony . that is an indisputable fact.

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.