In response to:

State Sues Florist Who Refused to Decorate Gay Wedding

daunhin Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 2:38 PM
I am not religious, I simply do not believe in any religion/faith/atheism. I am wondering, though, just what part of the First Amendment, which by the way, simply enumerates a few of the unalienable rights of mankind, the State of Washington does not understand? Also, how does any government think they have the right to tell any business who they have to serve? The business belongs to the owner, not the government. If the general public doesn't like the fact that, in this case, Mrs or Miss Stutzman will not do same sex marriage, then they do not have to do business with her. If enough feel that way, she will go out of business. Some how I don't foresee that happening in her case.
ThousandLaces Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 5:03 PM
People who object to interracial relationships because of their religion aren't allowed to refuse to serve interracial couples in their restaurant.
Once you step outside of a purely religious sphere, you should have to follow the same rules everybody else does. Don't want to sprinkle holy water on a couple because they're gay? Fine. Don't want to refuse business to them, not so much.
Earl29 Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 5:53 PM
While every member of the human species has equal inherent value regardless of race or sexual orientation, race and sexual orientation are not exactly equivalent. Religious objection to supplying flowers to gay weddings is not the same as religious objection to supplying flowers to interracial weddings.
fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 4:32 PM
Try smoking in your privately owned, non- government business.
I don't smoke, so if I don't want to be around smokers I will take my business else where. If the business loses money because of my decision it can make it's own rules.
It's just more Gov intrusion.
Reginald10 Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 3:28 PM
Well, there's the thing. A business like hers could be described as a "public accommodation". And as such, would have to serve all the public equally, just as a lunch counter can not have separate sections by race (or refuse to serve one race). Ditto public buses, for another historic example. It's a rule that must be accepted, as part of getting a license (!) to do business.
fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 4:38 PM
It's not a public accommodation, it's a private business.
David3036 Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 3:08 PM
If we accepted your logic we would be back where we were before the lunch-counter sit-ins of the 1960s Civil Rights movement, when businesses thought they could pick and choose what members of the public they would serve. If someone is in business to serve the public, they must serve ALL of the public unless there's a good reason not to, such as not serving alcohol to a drunk Anti-discrimination laws in may states now protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as race, gender, religion, national origin, etc.

In other words, this flower-shop owner could not legally refuse to serve you because she didn't like your religion.
David3036 Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 3:11 PM
Now this is only true if your organization is a "public accommodation" rather than a private organization. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a "private organization," so it can legally discriminate against anyone for any reason. (It had to give up meeting in a lot of public buildings, however,) But any business that serves the general public cannot claim to be private.
James2517 Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 3:14 PM
Thank you for those 2 very informative posts. I don't however expect them to be comprehended by the gay haters who dominate TH articles such as this.
The Obama Timeline author Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 3:26 PM
Nonsense. I have the right to do as I choose with my own property. The Civil Rights Act went too far. If I own a photography business why should I be forced to photograph gays doing bizarre things to each other just because they want to commemorate their acts for posterity? If enough customers disagree with my stance, then I will lose customers and go out of business. That's the risk I take by being selective about my customers. But it's my business, my hard work, and my money. I have the right to do what I want with it. You have the right to not use my services or products.

How dare anyone bully me just because they disagree with my opinions!

Put the shoe on your foot and see how you would like it. You will then change your tune.
The Obama Timeline author Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 3:27 PM
If someone has the right to force me to provide them with a service or product, why then do I not have the right to compel them to purchase my service or product? (Oh, wait, we already have that. It's called ObamaCare!)
David3036 Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 3:54 PM
The Elane Photography case is still in court and hasn't been resolved yet. The photographer's argument is based on freedom of artistic expression, but I don't think she can prevail on that because she was in business to serve the public and refused to photograph a gay wedding.

Taking pictures as a service, it seems to me, is different from your own "artistic expression."
fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 4:36 PM
I disagree that she is in business to serve the public.
She is in business to make money.
If she chooses to not make money, that is her choice.
As i often decried, no smoking was a slippery slope.
daunhin Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 4:47 PM
If I owned a lunch counter and decided not to serve blacks, then that would be my loss. Those who disagree with me are free to go somewhere else and eat. There aren't any laws saying the must eat at my lunch counter. Like I said, and Obama Timeline agreed, if enough people eat at other establishments and not mine, I'll go out of business. That's capitalism, not fascism/dictatorial government. It's past time that the Civil Rights laws be repealed.
ThousandLaces Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 5:04 PM
You said. "The Civil Rights Act went to far."
Having a black president must really upset you. That makes me smirk at you. :)
ThousandLaces Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 5:05 PM
Having a black president must really upset you. That makes me smirk at you. :)
ThousandLaces Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 5:06 PM
Too bad for you, that's not the way things work. You have a black president. That must really upset you. :)
fiddlerMO Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 5:06 PM
EGAD!! I thought he was half white.
daunhin Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 5:22 PM
So did I. But I don't care what color the President, or you for that matter, calls his skin. I, contrary, apparently, to liberal thinking, don't look at the color of skin, (I think Allen would make a good President) I look at the color of their politics. Mine are Red, White and Blue. Obama's are just Red. (As in Red Ink, and Red Communist - well, maybe White Communist being as how he hasn't yet started a revolution to take over the country)

The State of Washington is suing a small flower shop after the owner declined to provide flowers for a homosexual wedding – based on her religious beliefs.

Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., is facing thousands of dollars in fines and penalties for allegedly violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

“If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

On March 1, a longtime customer asked Stutzman to provide flowers for his upcoming...