WA State Judge Explains Ruling Against Christian Florist

[shagster01]

Yeah, it does and the courts agree with me.

I know the courts agree with you. But you and the courts are wrong.

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"?

Are you pretending that something can't be slavery unless it matches the atrocious level of slavery that Blacks had, for example?

 

[PureX]

From the article:

“Religious freedom is a fundamental part of America. But religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or harm others because of who they are,” said Sarah Dunne, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which backed Ingersoll.

I agree that the right to religion ends when it includes harming others. I am just not seeing how refusing anyone flowers constitutes harm.

Anger. Sure. Hurt feelings. Possibly. Harm? THAT is a huge stretch.

It's the precedent. First it's flowers. Then it's lodgings. Then it's food. And ultimately, it's the loss of equal justice under the law. We have been down this road before. And enormous harm was done to a great many people, because of it.

 

[shagster01]

It's the precedent. First it's flowers. Then it's lodgings. Then it's food. And ultimately, it's the loss of equal justice under the law. We have been down this road before. And enormous harm was done to a great many people, because of it.

Now the harm is just being swapped to the business owners instead, being forced to take part in events that they disagree with. How is that better?

 

[Rusha]

It's the precedent. First it's flowers. Then it's lodgings. Then it's food. We have been down this road before. And enormous harm was done to a great many people, because of it.

Mountain. Molehill. Apples. Oranges. It's a simple floral arrangement. No one is being denied shelter and food. As a matter of fact, the very idea that this comparison would be used further endorses my position on this issue.

 

[shagster01]

Take note:

Christian PureX - On the side of the gay couple

Heathen shagster - On the side of the religious lady

 

[PureX]

Now the harm is just being swapped to the business owners instead, being forced to take part in events that they disagree with. How is that better?

Business owners are in business to sell their products and services. They are not being harmed by doing what they went in business to do. Nor are they giving or denying their 'approval' simply because they engaged in a business transaction. It's only the insanity of egotism that makes people think they have the right or the ability to 'approve' or 'disapprove' who other people are or the way other people choose to live. And the principal of equality under the law is far, FAR more important than some business owners over-inflated ego.

 

[PureX]

Mountain. Molehill. Apples. Oranges. It's a simple floral arrangement. No one is being denied shelter and food. As a matter of fact, the very idea that this comparison would be used further endorses my position on this issue.

Yep, and Jim Crow was just a character in a novel - never hurt no one.

 

[Rusha]

Business owners are in business to sell their products and services.

Still waiting for you to show *actual* harm. I am not interested in what you believe this could lead to. What happened in the bad old days. I am specifically interested how the couple who left the shop with no more or less than they came in with was harmed.

Nothing says "a lifetime event to remember" like flowers laced with malice.

Then again, it was never about the flowers. Happy soon to be wed couples do not focus on such petty issues. They look to those who willingly and gladly help them with their wedding.

 

[Rusha]

Yep, and Jim Crow was just a character in a novel - never hurt no one.

F.L.O.W.E.R.S.

Focus.

 

[resodko]

What kind of free market can you possibly call it if it doesn't have open access protections?

we're discussing a business transaction, entered into freely on both sides

why should the customer have more freedom than the seller?

 

[shagster01]

Business owners are in business to sell their products and services. They are not being harmed by doing what they went in business to do. Nor are they giving or denying their 'approval' simply because they engaged in a business transaction.

The lady does not want to profit off of something she finds wrong. You are forcing her to. You don't see a problem with forcing people to profit off things they find to be wrong?

It's only the insanity of egotism that makes people think they have the right or the ability to 'approve' or 'disapprove' who other people are or the way other people choose to live.

It's only the insanity of egotism that makes people like you think that you can force people to profit off things they find to be sin and claim you know why they don't want to.

And the principal of equality under the law is far, FAR more important than some business owners over-inflated ego.

equality is useless if it kills freedom. We will all be equal slaves under your views.

 

[PureX]

equality is useless if it kills freedom. We will all be equal slaves under your views.

Freedom must be tempered by the rule of law. Otherwise, the powerful are free to do as they please, while the weaker suffer the consequences. Freedom that is not equally limited, by the law, is called oppression. This is why the principal of equal justice for all is the mainstay of any "free" society. That you don't seem to understand this, is very worrisome.

 

[PureX]

F.L.O.W.E.R.S.

Focus.

LEGAL PRECEDENT: equal liberty and justice FOR ALL! Grow up!

 

[resodko]

Freedom that is not equally limited, by the law, is called oppression.

no more oak oppression

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

What rights has the florist lost?

In a free society, everyone isn't required to agree with OR accommodate your every whim.

Nor are they required to do so with you; that's why we have courts, to settle these sorts of disagreements. And guess what? The courts have been and are agreeing with me.

So unless you want to change society and gov't to stop that from happening, you're just going to have to find a way to deal with it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know the courts agree with you. But you and the courts are wrong.

I'm sure that's what you believe.

Are you pretending that something can't be slavery unless it matches the atrocious level of slavery that Blacks had, for example?

If you truly think this is anything near slavery, then you're more delusional than I thought.

 

[shagster01]

Freedom must be tempered by the rule of law. Otherwise, the powerful are free to do as they please, while the weaker suffer the consequences. Freedom that is not equally limited, by the law, is called oppression. This is why the principal of equal justice for all is the mainstay of any "free" society. That you don't seem to understand this, is very worrisome.

I do understand. I also understand that there are MANY flower companies in Washington that would have loved their business. That is the beauty of the free market.

The fact that many florists would love to help them make their special day beautiful but they insist on forcing someone who does not want to do it to do it says a lot about them as well.


What will come of this is less and less florists wanting to do business at all, resulting in less options and higher prices. But hey, as long as we all have equal opportunity to force others to do what we want, all is ok.

 

[shagster01]

If you truly think this is anything near slavery, then you're more delusional that I thought.

What is your definition of slavery? What must happen for something to become slavery?

 

[Jose Fly]

What is your definition of slavery? What must happen for something to become slavery?

Seriously? I'm not even going down this absurd road with you. Your delusions are your own...don't expect everyone else to engage them.

 

[resodko]

What is your definition of slavery? What must happen for something to become slavery?

there is a record of a former slave, in late 1700's Quebec, voluntarily re-entering servitude in order to marry his enslaved lover and live with her as man and wife, while both existed as the property of their owner


the history of slavery ain't all black and white