WA State Judge Explains Ruling Against Christian Florist
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
shagster01
New member
It does matter. The law is clear and people use it be stupid.
Your logic, not anyone else's of course.
Obviously. Your logic is rather than go to a place that wants your business, go to one that doesn't and sue them instead.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Wait, not punishing Christian businessowners for refusing to endorse blatant immorality is a "fundamentalist Christian theocracy"? Wow...
I'm more sympathetic to theonomy (though not the ultra-statist versions often endorsed here) than I used to be, but I wasn't even advocating that, let alone "fundamentalist Christian theocracy", whatever that means (indeed, many "fundamentalists" worship humanistic laws almost as much as you do.)
At the very core minimum, a government cannot justly punish someone for doing something that is not immoral (even more so doing the RIGHT thing.) As I said, its one thing to tolerate certain immoral actions (which I'm for doing in numerous, though not all, circumstances), its another thing to punish people for refusing to engage in immorality.
Yeah, I think what I'd endorse is a lot closer to "theocracy" than what you'd care for, since I believe the Bible is the standard for all ethics, including governmental ethics. But, if you think that means I'd support some version of Christianized Sharia, you are so very wrong...
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I don't think any genuine Christian theocracy could be nearly as immoral as the society we live in today. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a neoconservative hijacking of Christian theocracy in someone's mind that would be worse.
Jose Fly
New member
Jose Fly
New member
No, it's because you just got done complaining about judges throwing out the Bible and our society moving away from your religion. So obviously you'd prefer a government system run according to your religion. IOW, a theocracy.
That's exactly what a theocracy is.
shagster01
New member
It's not Jim Crow. The article states they were long time customers. She was not refusing gay business like a Jim Crow law. She was refusing to do the specific event.
She was not refusing them because they are gay. She is refusing to take part in an event she doesn't agree with. It's absolutely ridiculous that the law would make her.
Lon
Well-known member
I can. That's not the problem. The problem is a florist has to come into the chapel to set up the floral arrangements. It isn't just 'selling flowers.' It involves rubbing elbows right smack in the middle.
Jose Fly
New member
Stupid arguments like that are why your side keeps losing in court. She had provided flowers for opposite-sex couples before. The only reason she wouldn't do the same for this couple is because they're gay. That's illegal.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
OK then, by your standards I definitely and absolutely support "theocracy." But usually when people use that term they mean more than that.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
shagster01
New member
Doesn't matter. That does not change the fact that she does not want to participate in this particular event. She serves gay people otherwise, obviously.
No. It's because it was a gay celebratory event they wanted to pay her to be involved with and she had a problem with it.
Business owners are being made into slaves by these laws.
Jose Fly
New member
Yeah, it does and the courts agree with me.
Wrong. She had shown that she would provide flowers for same-sex weddings, but not opposite-sex ones. The only difference between the two is serial orientation. The law says you can't do that.
Really? A florist open to the public having to provide flowers to the public is akin to slavery....one of the worst chapters in human history? Can you say "taking hyperbole to a new level of stupid"?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
No, you people are even worse than the 19th century slaveholders. Not only do you wish to force people to perform labor on your behalf, but you want them to force them to do something that is objectively immoral for them to perform.
I wonder how long Christians can remain at peace with rabid secularists, they will keep pushing and pushing until we fight back.
I wonder how long Christians can remain at peace with rabid secularists, they will keep pushing and pushing until we fight back.
Jose Fly
New member
Oh no, the entertainment is in watching the absurd arguments from these folks. Now a business open to the public having to serve the public is no longer slavery, it's WORSE THAN slavery! I mean, come on...does it get any funnier than that?
And what's truly funny is how they can't figure any of this out, so the only thing they can do is chalk the whole thing up to some shadowy conspiracy among "activist liberal judges" and/or a nebulous "agenda" that eventually will lead to them being locked up (or worse) just for being Christians. And they're serious...they really have no other explanation. :rotfl:
And what's truly funny is how they can't figure any of this out, so the only thing they can do is chalk the whole thing up to some shadowy conspiracy among "activist liberal judges" and/or a nebulous "agenda" that eventually will lead to them being locked up (or worse) just for being Christians. And they're serious...they really have no other explanation. :rotfl:
You have demonstrated on this very thread WHY I (as well as others) oppose these types of laws.
They are made based on ASSUMPTIONS. You made the ridiculous assumption that because I supported the business owners right to make the decisions of what services they will offer or refuse that I must be a Christian.
Unlike you, I support the freedoms and rights of all law-abiding citizens, including those I disagree with. You, OTOH, wish to strip business owners of their rights without sound reasoning.
We are not speaking of surgery or a life saving procedure. It's a flower arrangement. Or a cake. Or a wedding. Whatever.
In a free society, everyone isn't required to agree with OR accommodate your every whim.
What kind of free market can you possibly call it if it doesn't have open access protections?
shagster01
New member
A free one.