By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
We previously wrote HERE of Richland, Washington Florist Baronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, who caused a row when she refused to provide her floral services for a gay wedding. Now, a Benton County Superior Court Judge ruled that she violated the state’s consumer protection act that bars discrimination against a protected class.
The legal action was brought by customer Robert Ingersoll and the Washington Attorney General’s Office.
Judge Alex Ekstom rejected Baronelle’s arguments that her actions were protected by free speech and religious freedom guarantees stating in part:
“For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief. The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”
Robert had been a customer of Arlene’s Flowers for several years prior to the incident in question. Baronelle was aware that he was gay and had a partner Curt Freed for whom he purchased flowers. When Washington statutorily provided for gay marriage in 2012, Robert asked Baronelle to make the wedding arrangement for him. But, Baronelle declined, putting her hand upon Robert’s and stating that “because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ”, she would not be able to do so—according to her statement in a deposition.
Curt and Robert sued. They cited the Washington Consumer Protection Act and its laws against discrimination. They supported by the Washington Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the State Attorney General who welcomed the Superior Court ruling.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a statement said:
“The law is clear: If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples.”
The state is seeking the two thousand dollar fine the statute provides.
The Alliance Defending Freedom organization announced the day after it would on behalf of Baronelle appeal the ruling. The alliance claimed that the ruling would bring financial ruin Baronelle and Arlene’s Flowers
By Darren Smith
Source: KOMO News
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
To all those that fear a return to chaos by extracting ourselves from religion, think back to Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, the foundations of thought. They may have not been the first to think rationally, only the first recorded but they were a thousand years plus before Christianity and almost twice that before Islam. Research Pre Socratic fragments and you will find observations sufficient to guide you on your journey through life. These fragments are simple observations of humanity. They have nothing to do with walking on water, burning bushes, or riding horses to virgins in heaven. What tripe. ‘Man perishes because he fails to join the beginning with the end.’ ‘Nothing to excess.’ ‘Know thyself’, ‘Cattle have to be beaten to pasture.’ All religion does is add magic, mumbo jumbo, etc. They had their religions and believed there was a place for religion. What they believed was paramount was logic, reason, and representation by the thinking man.
Religion does not always demand that one adheres but it does ultimately demand that one does accept. When one’s glue comes undone, there is forgiveness. However, one must return to the church, mosque, temple, or whatever for redesign and redirection. This loop allows a mystical ingredient in the stuff that is mankind. That mystical ingredient is the weak spot. This has been illustrated down through history and is being illustrated right now in segments of all religions.
If there is free will then for it to be in ‘harmony’ or controlled by mysterious powers contradicts the concept of free will. Either one is free to understand life or not. It is a question of either being told or discovering. Today Americans are discovering that there should be no discrimination in the public sector against homosexuals. This is the point and the rest is religion.
If there is a god, it would want us to be atheists and do it by ourselves. You have to leave home sometime.
Issac
They had their temple to the unknown god agnostos theos
David,
Thanks for fighting the good fight but I must imagine that you are seeing that you will not convince people that don’t believe in the first amendment in the rights of the individual. The state is all powerful and will make us all atheists and issac and Happy will be applauding all the way. Remember, it’s better this way, we are just living in the past. They want to live in another past where you were crucified for your beliefs.
happypappies – ”
Jim22
I am afraid I don’t understand that last comment. Discrimination is not letting people be. No matter if it’s race religion or sexual orientation
As Mike Appleton pointed out Religious Balkanisation is something we need to get away from. She sold the customers flowers when they were living “in sin” against “Jesus Christ’s (cringe) laws 20 times. It must have felt like a punch in the gut. Those floral arrangements for weddings comprise 3 percent of her business according to the information in the papers if it is accurate.”
You are afraid to let this women live her life. For some reason you and others here are threatened by her exercising her right to freedom and feel you need to “control” her actions by forcing her to do things she wouldn’t do. You kind of creep me out. Also, It doesn’t matter what her religion is. She could worship mushrooms and not sell to mushroom haters and it shouldn’t matter. Mushroom haters and people who love mushrooms will vote with their dollars by going elsewhere.
Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you have to hide your religion.
Jim22
Poor woman
I don’t feel sorry for her. My sympathies lie with the couple who bought flowers from her 20 times before as friends and then suddenly it’s “religious” I would have felt like someone punched me in the stomach right were I lived because of the so called “perversion”
As it is called by a bunch of Pontiffs who are regular Pederasts. It would be funny if it wasn’t so absurd and taken so seriously by post modern evangelicals. I am sorry to creep you out. I don’t think it’s me.
If you pay attention, it is no surprise that women and effeminate men are leading this charge to change the laws. That is because the foundation for changing marriage is not based in rational thinking but in emotional feelings.
That is correct Davidm2575. Not everything is based on rational thinking nor should it be. People become unbalanced when they place too much of a premium of Rationality.
This is a clear cut case of discrimination imo. The woman was inconstant in her feelings regarding the couple. Had she shown up front any animus regarding selling flowers and gifts towards them regarding their status or was cold to them they probably would have gone elsewhere. But money is a good way to keep the gays coming it now isn’t it. Commerce is a great lubricant.
david
Like I said you are selective in choosing your sources. However, James Madison is of another era. So is Islam. Today in the Western World, people whether through a republic or a democracy determine the law. Some of those participating are influenced by their religious beliefs. Some of those participating are influenced by their own sense of right and wrong. This determines the law and the law says that these guys are right and the florist is wrong. If you have a time machine you can go back to the times of those sources you reference. You might find that your selection of their words does not completely illustrate them or their beliefs.
I am happy to be a citizen of two countries where religion is superseded by the law, the law that is the result of majority opinion.
I understand your position. I don’t agree with it. History does not agree with it.
issac wrote: “Like I said you are selective in choosing your sources.”
Of course I am selective. I choose the best authorities and the most significant words for the discussion at hand. I guess the words of Jefferson and Madison left you speechless. You obviously disagree with them, but you do not seem to have the integrity to say it.
The bottomline is that our founding fathers did not want people to suffer fines and imprisonment for their religious convictions and beliefs. They dreamed of a society where a person’s religion would be outside the reach of government. They dreamed a society where the minds of people would be free to decide for themselves about religious beliefs. Now we are heading back to the past when the government oppressed people for their opinions. Instead of having religious tests, now we have secular tests of equality, and if you don’t follow that kind of secular humanism, then you will be fined or imprisoned.
david
You can cherry pick all you want but the freedom of religion does not mean that religion is free to rule over all. It means simply that religion will not be forced upon an American but an American will be free to choose the religion he or she wishes to follow. You take it in the same direction that we see in Islam. Religion is not free to impose itself on Americans. Americans are free from religious persecution and have as their over all rule the rule of law, law made by the people, not religions.
The reverence for an almighty and reverent god has always been there with most Americans. However, the design of the Constitution and all the sacred papers and declarations that this country started with is to rule by law. Law is decided by the people, not the church.
issac wrote: “Law is decided by the people, not the church.”
Neither of your choices are correct. Law is decided by elected representatives, not the people. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
The point you seem to miss is that a person’s religious convictions supersedes the reach of government. This is what the First Amendment is all about. A person’s allegiance is FIRST to God, then to civil society. The government of civil society cannot reach out and disturb that person’s first allegiance, which is to her Creator.
Do you agree or disagree with what James Madison wrote? Specifically:
“Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.”
The United States was also started by Revolutionaries and Social Progressives
Davidm2575
That is your opinion
issac responded to ‘her religious principles’ with: “Like I said separation between church and state. The moment ‘religious principles’ become the foundation for law, the moment we turn into the mess that was Christianity and that is Islam.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Gee, and here I thought all along that the United States was founded on the principles of Christianity
Silly me…………………………………………………………………….
Xhawke
Freedom of Religion
Most of the Founders were not of the Great Awakening school of Jonathan Edwards since he had not happened yet.
Locke is adamant in his criticism of religious fanaticism and forcefulness and goes onto advocate a separation between Church and State; one of the first, if not the first, modern philosophers to do so. In support of this severance he says; “I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other” (Locke, Toleration, 2). This philosophy is in fact the basis for modern democracy and a cornerstone of the American constitution. The term ‘separation of Church and State’ was coined by Thomas Jefferson, who was greatly influenced by Locke’s writings. Locke feared, as is still a concern today, that without a clear distinction between the two, the care of the commonwealth will be distorted by personal beliefs and will not be the priority, as it should be. Every member of the commonwealth, regardless of affiliation, merits equality under the law. Everyone that is, except for atheists, according to Locke`
Why he makes this distinction, idk, because he is not here to ask and that was 400 years ago and advanced thinking for then as you don’t even agree with he and Jefferson and Franklin.
happypappies wrote: “Why he makes this distinction, idk, because he is not here to ask …”
Locke explained it if you just go back to the original source material. Locke believed that promises, covenants, and oaths are the bonds of human society. Therefore, atheists were not to be tolerated equally under the law because taking away God, if even just in thought, dissolves all these bonds.
This is a foundation for why many object to our government being labeled a secular government. Without the acknowledgment of God, a person’s word means little to them.
Davidm2575
Locke explained it if you just go back to the original source material. Locke believed that promises, covenants, and oaths are the bonds of human society. Therefore, atheists were not to be tolerated equally under the law because taking away God, if even just in thought, dissolves all these bonds.
This is a foundation for why many object to our government being labeled a secular government. Without the acknowledgment of God, a person’s word means little to them.
Well, that is an interesting comment. But we know now as an enlightened society 500 years later that this is not true. I know lots of atheist people I would take at their word before so called Christians I know
To admit you don’t know or believe in a God you don’t see takes 10 times the integrity, especially 500 years ago, than it does now.
Or does it especially with the atheist that was told to swear to God or leave the Air Force.
http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-must-swear-god-leave-us-air-force-232153866.html
Wait – scratch that
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/air-force-backs-down-lets-creech-airman-go-without-god
I am just saying. God loves the atheist too you know and he has all the way up to his death to come back to him. And unless you have ever seen someone truly not know and then know God and realize their life was a comedy of errors at the end of it, you might not believe this.
Surely you don’t believe people don’t lie all the time when they say “So help me God” do you? They would be more inclined to be truthful in refusing.
Happy wrote: “I know lots of atheist people I would take at their word before so called Christians I know.”
Many Christians are atheists. We use to have a Christian post regularly here who openly admitted that he was an atheist. He was a Christian for social reasons. And even among those Christians who are theists, they do not honestly follow their faith from their heart. They are mostly hypocrites using the name of Christianity to their own advantage. I am not sure if there are many today, whether theist or atheist, whose word and oath is sure. Integrity is almost non-existent. Back in Locke’s day, there were people who would die before breaking their word.
Happy wrote: “To admit you don’t know or believe in a God you don’t see takes 10 times the integrity, especially 500 years ago, than it does now.”
Locke lived slightly over 300 years ago, not 500 years. You must have a very strange definition of integrity. My perspective is that everyone, without exception, knows deep down within themselves that there is a God. When someone comes to the place of denying that inner knowledge and denying his existence, he becomes a fool. It is the violation of this personal integrity that suggests a defect and makes that person untrustworthy. Nothing is wrong with questioning or being unsure, but to take the position that there is no Creator when there is so much proof internally and externally indicates a complete loss of personal honesty and integrity.
Your position on atheism and homosexuality is like that of many Christians, which is one reason why I am not a Christian. You call it love to open your tent wide to every abomination. If your god is really like that, then he is my enemy. My perception of God is that he is holy. Why else would a good man like Jesus come preaching repentance? Why repent if God accepts you just the way you are? This new gospel of Christianity is what has brought us to the place now where evil is good and good is evil. Not even civil law has any integrity anymore. The law now is whatever men decide it to be. The concept of answering to the Supreme Lawgiver or even the consideration of Natural Law is merely a vague memory in the minds of most jurists. Not even our legal system of checks and balances is working.
Davidm2575
John Locke (1632—1704)
LockeJohn Locke was among the most famous philosophers and political theorists of the 17th century. He is often regarded as the founder of a school of thought known as British Empiricism, and he made foundational contributions to modern theories of limited, liberal government. He was also influential in the areas of theology, religious toleration, and educational theory. In his most important work, the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke set out to offer an analysis of the human mind and its acquisition of knowledge.
Jim22
David,
Thanks for fighting the good fight but I must imagine that you are seeing that you will not convince people that don’t believe in the first amendment in the rights of the individual. The state is all powerful and will make us all atheists and issac and Happy will be applauding all the way. Remember, it’s better this way, we are just living in the past. They want to live in another past where you were crucified for your beliefs.
I just keep saying this over and over again and its Blowing in the Wind
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
All Men are Created Equal and should not be discriminated against by Religious Balkanism right here in our United States.
Here I thought that the Constitution (which everyone seems to have forgotten in their replies), the FIRST, UNO, Number 1 amendment was to PREVENT the state from establishing a religion, as they had just gone through this with the Church of England.
By the court ruling against this women’s religious rights, isn’t the court forcing / establishing it’s religious views (IE; None or evil) and establishing an anti-church?
Sharia law is on the way, people……………………………………..
Beth-ann
$250k? I thought the article stated $2,000 fine. This would be a fine not a personal injury BS lawsuit. Perhaps it is in some other article. Myself, I also get a little miffed at the ease at which people sue, especially if some one is a lawyer and can do so for free and with ease. However, that is another issue. I am not gay and really don’t sympathize with gays. I have friends who are gay and other than professional interests have nothing in common. Perhaps I am biased but there are simply too many other groups out there being whacked for not being the norm. It is beyond me and therein lies their credibility. I simply don’t understand so must rely on the law.
The law is there to set standards that are above personal bias. As much as this may seem to be unnecessary, her position does lie on the side of the line along with all the other mistreatment of people for reasons unrelated to their abilities and rights. The florist runs a business that is not supposed to discriminate. She deals with the public. She has sold to these guys before and therefore has set a precedent. Their getting married has nothing to do with her religion. Her imposing her religious beliefs on them violates the separation of church from state. Business is a civil issue. Civil issues are governed by civil law and not religious law. If she wanted to integrate religious beliefs in a business she should do it within the confines of her religion, i.e. not open to those outside of the faith. Her actions are emotional and contradict themselves. They are also against the law.
This is a point of law, not personal bias, regardless of your sexual orientation.
issac wrote: “Her imposing her religious beliefs on them violates the separation of church from state.”
She was not imposing her beliefs upon them. She was asking them to respect her beliefs and not to impose their beliefs upon her. They and the State decided to impose their belief system upon the woman by force. That is wrong and it violates the separation of church and state. It is amazing to me how you turn this issue upside down. Who is being fined by the State? The homosexuals or the florist? The florist is. She is the victim of the State’s legislation and action against her. When our founding father’s saw the State fining people of different religions, or worse, flogging them, or putting them in prison, they were appalled by it. That is why they drafted the First Amendment and other laws like Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom and Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.
Here’s a clip from Jefferson:
“Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions … That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; … Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be … enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. … we are free to declare and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”
And from Madison:
====
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
=====
These words by Jefferson and Madison protect the actions of this florist, as does the First Amendment of our Constitution which has not yet been repealed, though many have attempted to twist it and redefine it in a completely different way from the principle which inspired it.
Hi I am gay and I am here to say that I stand with this woman.. Did she have the right to refuse? No.. But I am sick of every time I turn around I hear of gay couple suing the living crap out of people. They take them for so much money.. They are trying to take everything this woman has.. Even her home so are they right in doing so? NO! Why don’t they try to sue them to make them do their flowers/cakes! There is NO need to sue for $250,000+ if it hurt your feelings that damn bad how the hell can u be handle all the hurtful things being said to you daily?? I know like I said I am gay myself! I would just go somewhere else! The woman even told them where they can go to get services which they went to.. Everyone (not just gays) are suing for so much because they want everything for nothing these days!
issac – “So, it is not barbaric to ostracize and discriminate against those who are different and do no harm but contribute equally?”
No, it’s called freedom. You and Happy are just scared to let people be.
Jim22
I am afraid I don’t understand that last comment. Discrimination is not letting people be. No matter if it’s race religion or sexual orientation
As Mike Appleton pointed out Religious Balkanisation is something we need to get away from. She sold the customers flowers when they were living “in sin” against “Jesus Christ’s (cringe) laws 20 times. It must have felt like a punch in the gut. Those floral arrangements for weddings comprise 3 percent of her business according to the information in the papers if it is accurate.
david
If you don’t like your church when it allows marriage between homosexuals, you can leave and join another church that does discriminate. That is religious freedom. To have religions dictate what goes on in the society that is open and advertised to all is religious discrimination and the American citizenry is protected from religion. This has been determined time and time again and is increasing as we evolve as a society. If you want to live in a society that is frozen in time, there are many countries that take care of this. In the US the people have always determined that they will evolve, change, and strive for the better. Sometimes that better coincides with religious values and sometimes it does not. When it does not the civil and legal dictates prevail.
Beth Anne and Issac
This case is obviously at matter of principle
The penalty against Stutzman and her business will be settled via summary judgment, or without a full trial. Ingersoll and Freed, who have since married, had sued for $7.91 (the cost of driving to find a new florist). Stutzman also faces a fine of up to $2,000 under Washington’s anti-discrimination law, as well as the cost of legal fees.
“The ruling basically said that if you dare to not celebrate same-sex marriage because it violates your religious convictions, that the government has a right to bring about your personal and professional ruin,” Kristen Waggoner, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Los Angeles Times. “Her home, her business … her life savings and retirement, these are all in jeopardy … all because of her deeply held religious views.”
(really? no one told her to garner national attention on this.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/19/relationship-with-jesus-doesnt-justify-florists-refusal-to-serve-gay-couple-judge-rules/
issac wrote: “To have religions dictate what goes on in the society that is open and advertised to all is religious discrimination and the American citizenry is protected from religion.”
If you think that the American citizenry needs to be protected from religion, you will need to repeal the First Amendment. It guarantees the freedom OF religion.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee freedom of sexual behavior, the power of the federal government to redefine marriage, or the freedom of same sex couples to violate the institution of marriage.
issac wrote: “In the US the people have always determined that they will evolve, change, and strive for the better.”
Yes, I agree with this, but as seen in this case with the florist, we are moving in a worse direction, toward the stone age. All the advances and progress we have made are being undone by idiots who are without understanding.
david
‘her religious principles’
Like I said separation between church and state. The moment ‘religious principles’ become the foundation for law, the moment we turn into the mess that was Christianity and that is Islam.
‘barbarism and perversion’
So, it is not barbaric to ostracize and discriminate against those who are different and do no harm but contribute equally? So, it is perverse to be physiologically different from the average. You are on the wrong side of the line here. Homosexuality may be minimal in its representation in society but those that are offended might look to their own foundations.
There is no law obligating a religion to marry homosexuals. If there were it would be wrong in every way. As long as religions do not obstruct the basic rights of Americans they should be free to run their operations. They should not be integrated in the determining of basic human rights in the American society.
That religious values often coincide with civil values does not make them the comptroller of those civil values.
issac responded to ‘her religious principles’ with: “Like I said separation between church and state. The moment ‘religious principles’ become the foundation for law, the moment we turn into the mess that was Christianity and that is Islam.”
This is NOT about religious principles being the foundation for law. This is about the law not respecting the religious freedom of one of its citizens. This is about government not forcing a particular sexual ideology upon everyone else in society. It is about people being free to think in their own mind what constitutes a proper standard of sexual morality. And it is about preserving the cornerstone of the institution of marriage which is gender diversity.
Same sex unions being recognized as domestic partnerships does not harm them one bit. They lose no rights. They claim they just want the status symbol of being married, to make them feel good and accepted. Well, I’m sorry, but the law is not there to make people feel good about themselves. That is a perversion of the law.
If you pay attention, it is no surprise that women and effeminate men are leading this charge to change the laws. That is because the foundation for changing marriage is not based in rational thinking but in emotional feelings.
In my view, the case was correctly decided. The Free Exercise arguments advanced by supporters of Ms. Stutzman create a recipe for religious balkanization and are wholly inconsistent with the principle of religious pluralism.
Mike Appleton
I concur and the Religious Balkanizations are precisely why people came to this country in the first place as far as I know. So, it would seem that to persecute people on “religious principles” is indeed against our constitution and it does go both ways as it is used in a hostile and inconstant matter.
It is okay to sell the flowers if they are living “in sin” but not for a “marriage”.
davidm
Again, you define marriage for all. Marriage came about much later, after it was understood that families were the best way to procreate and add members to the tribe. Marriages, religious in nature are the subject of that religion and have nothing to do with the concept of civil marriage. Civil marriage stems from the joining of two people with the focus on property and wealth. Most Western Nations define this quite clearly, the US included. It is not necessary to marry in a church, however, it is necessary to register a marriage for: tax, inheritance, and other civil reasons. The civil part of society has been slowly extracting itself from the bedroom as well as the other more private aspects of marriage. Your views may have been the norm some decades ago, but slowly they are evolving out of our common law, as they should. Your statements pertaining to superiority are no longer relevant and expose your biased perceptions of homosexuality. Personally, I don’t understand the state, however, I do understand the concept. Homosexuals have as good a track record regarding family, child raising, and participation in society as do heterosexuals.
These guys made a point that wasn’t that much different than the point that the florist made. Both sides have a position. However the position of the two guys is based on civil law where the position of the florist is based on her own personal religious beliefs, contradictory as they are.
If she was granted some absolute right to refuse service to anyone in her civil and non discriminatory, open to the public, business then the door would be open for her to refuse on the argument of race, religion, etc.
The lawsuit is necessary if only to clarify the separation between church and state.
issac wrote: “Civil marriage stems from the joining of two people with the focus on property and wealth.”
Civil marriage is based in reproduction and the creation of a family and new family relationships based upon a male and female coming together. The property issues and the duty and obligations that come about from an opposite sex union are unique to the male and female union. My arguments are based in civil law, not religious law.
Same sex unions should not be conflated with civil marriage. It distorts the natural biology of our species and does not reflect reality. It reflects a fiction made up by gay activists that has never before in human history ever been an issue. There is no civil progress being made here. It is a destruction of civil society and a move toward barbarism and perversion. It is a, “if it feels good let me be free to do it mentality.”
issac wrote: “The lawsuit is necessary if only to clarify the separation between church and state.”
If separation of church and state really existed here, the government would not create laws that force her to violate her religious principles. When the law makes exceptions for priests but not for the common citizen who shares the same religious beliefs, there is something very wrong with that law. It is a law that is not applied equally to all.
How do you know – we are no longer under the old covenant and Jesus taught us how to live differently. He never ever once spoke as you are now speaking and there is nothing in the Bible with reference to Homosexuals regarding Jesus’ teachings. It is mysteriously absent. : happypappies…………………….
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
That is a canard. The Ten Commandments are also part of ‘the old covenant’
Are you saying that they also don’t apply??
Jesus stated that HE came to fulfill the Law, not to change it.
He said that not one jot in the Law was gone until the world was gone.
Here’s the NIV which I don’t like, but it’s simple:
Matthew 5:18 ►
New International Version
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
The Law is VERY much still in affect, aside from some statutes regarding sacrifices–nothing else.
You’re STILL not suppose to eat pork, that’s a health Law.(Jewish or not)
Secondly and most importantly–GOD NEVER CHANGES
So if He hated things before, He most certainly hates them now………..
This country is becoming another Sodom–9/11 was a warning, as far as I’m concerned.
I hate to be so brash, but I’m afraid that you really need a new Bible school..
Google is your friend…………………..
Xhawke
Jesus Christ came to fufill the law as outlined in Jeremiah 31:31-34
Jeremiah 31:31-34New International Version (NIV)
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
It seems to me that I remember seeing signs in stores that said
:
No shoes-, No shirt –NO SERVICE!
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who is in MY business”
Wow, people are multiplying
k
k
k
The homos don’t have a chance here. 😉 😉
do not care what you do in private … but same sex marriage amounts to society and cultural death …long term suicidal .. suicide is considered a sin by many mainstream religions because they equate it with murder. abortions also long term cultural suicide.
TSK–TSK- TSK to all you Democrats……………………………………..