WA State Judge Explains Ruling Against Christian Florist
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Jose Fly
New member
And Rosa Parks just could have sat in the back of the bus. She still would have gotten to her destination, right?
And btw, the OP is about a florist, not a baker.
What in the world is wrong with you? You said it was a distraction to bring up Rosa Parks because she isn't posting at ToL.
Is the florist in the OP posting at ToL?
Jose Fly
New member
My apologies.
they shoulda made her ride on the roof like they do in india
wahh, wahhh - i don't get to sit in front!
it's not fair that i have to sit in the back!
republicanchick
New member
they shoulda made her ride on the roof like they do in india
wahh, wahhh - i don't get to sit in front!
it's not fair that i have to sit in the back!
+
TOL
thanks, i needed a good laugh... after dealing with some of these posters here... Shag, etc...
++
republicanchick
New member
weird... i meant LOL, not TOL
sigh
hope you people aren't age-ist around here
i can maybe accept the religionist bigotry... but it wouldn't be good to be ageist..
you can avoid being Catholic (in this life anyway) but you can't avoid growing older
(except in Heaven, that is. I heard we will all be 30=something in heaven... hope u all make it..)
+
sigh
hope you people aren't age-ist around here
i can maybe accept the religionist bigotry... but it wouldn't be good to be ageist..
you can avoid being Catholic (in this life anyway) but you can't avoid growing older
(except in Heaven, that is. I heard we will all be 30=something in heaven... hope u all make it..)
+
shagster01
New member
Wait, you think her destination was jail?
Then, why do so many stores say, "no shoes, no shirt, no service?" Aren't shoeless, shirtless people part of the public?
A private business should be able to do business with who they please.
My band is an llc. We turn shows down all the time, or refuse to play with certain other bands for a variety of reasons.
We play weddings too. Sometimes we turn them down for a variety of reasons, including some that we just don't feel like doing. Should we be forced to play every wedding offered to us?
Jose Fly
New member
Come on dude....don't be deliberately obtuse.
Again, don't be deliberately stupid. Those are public health considerations.
We tried that and ended up with the Jim Crow south. Apparently a lot of Christians (and others) would like to return to those days (as long as they are the discriminators).
Again, don't be deliberately stupid.
No one is saying "you have to serve everyone who comes through your door, no matter what". Instead, society has decided that businesses open to the public cannot refuse their services to certain groups of people merely because of who they are.
shagster01
New member
I'm not. She was arrested. How many others were arrested on that bus simply for paying to ride it and then riding it?
What destination are you claiming she made it to?
No they aren't. I see people at public pools, parks, etc. all the time without shoes and shirts. Why no health risk there?
Then we got rid of it and ended up with everyone suing each other. Much better, huh?
We do. There are certain crowds we just don't want to play for.
Jose Fly
New member
Then I have greatly overestimated you. Can't believe I have to explain this, but....
Ms. Parks paid for a bus ticket, which guarantees her nothing more than transportation from A to B. There was no promise or guarantee of any specific seat on that bus (or even a seat at all). So even if she had to ride in the back because of her race, she still would have gotten to her destination. So according to the logic expressed in this thread (which is the reason I brought her up in the first place), making her sit in the back didn't constitute "harm". She wasn't physically hurt, and had she sat in the back she would have gotten to her destination.
Of course that misses the entire point of Rosa Parks and what she stood for. Even though she wasn't physically harmed and could have gotten to her destination, she was being treated as a second-class citizen for no other reason than who she is.
Likewise, the gay couple in the OP weren't physically harmed and they could have just gone to a different florist, but they were being treated as second class citizens for no other reason than who they are.
Are "barefooted and shirtless people" a protected class?
If you're an advocate of returning to the Jim Crow south, I'll just let that speak for itself.
Like who?
shagster01
New member
If the bus was publicly funded with tax payer dollars, it is not a private business. Publicly funded businesses should not discriminate.
As far as I can tell, the florist is receiving no tax dollars.
...On a bus owned by the citizens of the city.
How were they treated as second class citizens? The lady simply did not want to do their wedding.
I'm sure they will be soon.
I'm an advocate for free market.
For example, we played a church event once and it was very awkward because we do some old James Brown tunes and stuff. We decided to never do those again.
Jose Fly
New member
The florist is a publicly licensed business, and as such has agreed to abide by all relevant laws, including the state's anti-discrimination laws.
They were denied public accommodations for no other reason than who they are.
That's illegal.
Yay.
Good for you.
shagster01
New member
They were not denied accommodations. Plenty of florists are available and willing to do business with them. The public market is plenty accommodating.
Jose Fly
New member
Yes they were. A publicly licensed business refused to serve them.
"You can just go somewhere else" is a failed legal argument.
genuineoriginal
New member
accommodations
a room, group of rooms, or building in which someone may live or stay.
The florist sells flowers, not accommodations.a room, group of rooms, or building in which someone may live or stay.
shagster01
New member
For some reason they really want service from someone who does not want to serve them instead of going somewhere that does. Why?
But it's the truth nonetheless.
If only people would live by logic instead of law.
Jose Fly
New member
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Well, I think we should both hope that Ekstorm repents. But, he has made clear that he worships the State rather than God, as does every person who supports this ruling.
But then, America-first evangelicals will continue to chirp about "land of the free" and never realize we are the land of the damned and the home of the slave...
This case is case in point. The Bible has been thrown out, and legal positivism has taken its place. This is true for most of "Christendom" as well.
:bang:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Doesn't matter. The law is very clear.
Your logic, not anyone else's of course.
Is "the law" your God?
Christians who have used this pathetic argument in the past, do you realize where it leads?
Wrong is wrong, period, and some idiots with imaginary crowns writing down some scribbles on paper doesn't change that.
Its one thing to tolerate some evil. That's understandable in a non-theocratic society (well, even the Israelite theocracy was permitted to tolerate some evil, but I digress.) Its another thing to pretend like evil is actually good, and to use the sword of steel to coerce those who actually know the difference to play along. That is simply wicked, and a government which does it is not legitimate in any way, but tyrannical.
I'd love to engage with other Christians on this point. As for secularists who refuse to respect the liberties of others, you are the people that are destroying freedom on this planet... for everyone.