Florist convicted in Washington State for refusing to serve a gay marriage
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Man, this one is so dynamic.
On one hand, I think it's discriminatory. On the other, I understand the religious component of it and am sensitive to that regardless of my own conflicting belief and ideology. I'll say, this business owner better damn well be able to show a true competency in the scripture etc and faithful attendance. Then go one further, do we allow divine law to supersede federal law? How would this be different than a Sharia belief?
I'll be honest and say that I tend to lean on the side of the aggrieved.
The point i heard the court use was that a cake for a Islamic couple doesn't endorse Islam. A cake for an atheist heterosexual couple doesn't endorse atheism. Therefore a cake for a homosexual couple doesn't endorse homosexuality.
I could not perform the vows for any of those three weddings. I would have premarital counselling where I would determine that they would not be following the Christian model for marriage, and I would then not perform. Baking a cake for weddings is not as intimate. You don't ask those questions, and wouldn't receive any business if you did. However, it's quite obvious when you put two figures of the same gender on the cake what it is intended for.
Let's say I build apps, which I do. I would not build one for a homosexual promoting business. I would also not build one for a rival football team from my coaching career. What difference is there?
I don't consider it divine law, I consider it the First Amendment. This is not Christianity vs. the State, this is the Second Amendment vs. the State of Washington. SCOTUS has already ruled that Hobby Lobby does not need to follow federal law under Obamacare by being forced to provide abortifacients, in violation of their faith. Same with the Little Sisters of the Poor that also run a business. Do you think this is discriminatory?
Why must the business owner be forced to show a "true competency" in his faith? Is the media required to show a true competency in their jobs under the First Amendment? Or does the First Amendment protect them even if they're very, very bad at their jobs?
As for Sharia, when it is consistent with the Constitutional, it is lawful. When it conflicts, it is not.
We are a secular nation ruled by laws. But the Constitution protects the people as do the Bill of Rights. It is not divine law vs. the Constitution. It is a person's actions and their defense under the Constitution.
Last edited:
It's not illegal for gays marry. It is illegal to discriminate based on prejudices. In this case, the prejudice is based on divine law/Christian beliefs. So in effect, you are placing Christian law above constitutional law.
My point to the "true competency" is so some random hater can't just claim, I'm a Christian, you gays aren't shopping in my store for your marriage. The business owner is claiming it violates his faith. If you are a Christmas/Easter kind of Christian, it's kind of hard to claim you are violating your faith. In this instance, at least in my opinion, you are cloaking bigotry in the blanket of faith.
I'll caveat all of this and say under no circumstance would I support the Gov't forcing a church to marry a gay couple.
Don't accept your first argument. The Hobby Lobby case, already decided, provides the evidence. Abortifacients are not illegal. In fact, insurance provisions are required under Obamacare. Was Hobby Lobby discriminating against their employees that wanted this coverage? SCOTUS said no due to their First Amendment protections afforded Hobby Lobby (BTW, a much bigger business than the providers of cakes or flowers), not divine law. And if a religion prohibits a belief in gay marriage, you call them prejudiced? It's their faith. You may not be one of faith, but to call someone prejudiced for following Christian scripture is absurd, imo.
Your point about competency is a good one upon reflection. I think to quality as a religion, it must meet certain criteria. Not sure what they all are, but I accept your point.
On your last point, I would only state the First Amendment is not confined to the four walls of a church. It is called the "Free Exercise Clause" for a reason. A Christian may want to lead a life of faith, both inside and outside the Church. In fact, we are all called to do so by Christ. Again, Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor demonstrate this fact as do many, many Catholic hospitals that will not perform abortions.
Last edited:
That is the exact same point that Dave Rubin, a liberal, gay, married man, recently stated. He said that if a florist does not want your business walk down the street. Same with a baker. It is part of his rationale for calling modern liberals, regressives.
True. I don't get either side on these type of cases.
1) If they don't like you and don't want to bake your cake, frack'em and find another baker. Better than then a cake made by someone forced to.
2) If you don't like the sexuality of the people who want you to bake their cake, then ignore. Customers are customers. Make the cake, take their money, give their money to your church if you want.
Everyone... and I mean everyone, needs to stop being such sensitive ninnies.
Putting all the legalities to the side for a second (cause I can't even pretend to be a legal expert like most people on this board) it just totally seems wrong to force a business to do a job. As Don Draper once pointed out, "That's what the money is for." If I chose to not do a job/service I don't get paid. Pretty simple. Now I believe refusing services based on race, gender, religion, who you bang etc is completely wrong, but this is the year 2017. I think we, as a society, can come up with a yelp type system to point out the businesses that discriminate and avoid them.
I couldn't agree more. Another example for me is smoking. I don't smoke, never have. But cities all across the country have banned smoking in a restaurant. Shouldn't the restaurant owner decide what he or she wants to permit that is legal? If a patron does not want to smell cigarette or cigar smoke, go to another restaurant. Same with the employees. If they don't want the smell, don't apply for work there. We have millions of restaurants and bars in this country, there are lots of choices for everyone. Why government needs to step in and dictate only takes away more of our freedoms, imo.
With smoking, at least that is a local government stepping on your cancer freedoms.
I thought you had typed the 2nd amendment in an earlier thread as well and it had me totally confused. lol. I'm no law expert enough as it is.
Frankly, local governments can be just as draconian as Federal. If you want to avoid cancer, don't go to the restaurant or the bar, it's your choice. Most cities won't even permit smoking rooms (separate and distinct from the rest of the restaurant). In Dallas, where I live, you can't smoke outdoors of a restaurant if you are within 50 feet of the restaurant. So, smoking on outdoor patios is now illegal.
We all have choices. You don't like smoke, walk down the street. If the owner sees a drop in business, he or she will adapt.
Damn, I did. What a brain fart. Thanks for pointing that out. I made the corrections.