slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

That's it, in a nutshell, L-J...I think

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Thank You, I think it is as well given some legal preference known on the topic... Mind you " just a little"... :

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Starting with the same premise, you would have to also validate "marriage"of more than two people. After all most earlier cultures allowed one man and a number of women. Now, the second largest "religion" in the world commands men to have up to four brides, and as many short term marriages as the man wishes. Jews and Christians have defined marriage as one man and one woman for thousands of years but pagan society allowed one man and a number of women. Some allowed for men to "marry" boys or girls as young as 5. So if you are willing to validate two men or two women as married couples the rest must also be validated..If you don't then you are discriminating against such combinations for no reason at all except your "feelings" that they are wrong. You can't have it both ways. Marriage of one man and one woman has been proven by experience to produce the most stable societies, which may well be because God designed it to be so. The goal of Marxist socialists is to destabilize western society and they are doing an excellent job of it through the LGBTQ concepts. Apparently, in our quest for "go along to get along" we are willing to abandon the family structure that has been the most successful.

Docadhoc Loc: Elsewhere

There is no denying the proprietor broke the law. The question and ensuring discussion is about why.

It seems that this concept of understanding someone's perspective is one sided in this area.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Perhaps were being political correct in theory doesn't make it correct at all morally.....

Some will abanbon it, don't even care if that is what it equates to as for them that aspect is not considered as valid.. presumed cultural..... .

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Very true....Then the crux of the discussion shifts to religion as if that defines...Morally it does but for those whom do not belief anyway it is moot...

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

Exactly,
It wasn't an issue.
It wasn't an issue until companies were FORCED to comply, then it became an issue.
Apparently, the owner didn't care what the customer was, until the customer wanted them to take part in a celebration that is in direct conflict with the owners beliefs.

moldyoldy

The hypocritical owner had no problem with selling them flowers before, no matter what the occasion.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Complete nonsense.
Following your reasoning one could easily conclude that the killing of one individual in capital punishment one would also have to validate the state's killing of anyone for any reason now. Same for going to war.

The reality is that the nature and definition of marriage has changed many,many, many times over the course of history. Will it change again at some point to include multiple partners? Possibly. Certainly the Mormons felt so. But that seems unlikely to happen in our lifetime, perhaps ever. You and others simply do not like this particular movement towards inclusion of same-sex couples. Of course that is your right, but you do not have the right to deny the civil sanctioning of a marriage, in which the state has a vested interest. Your inability to separate religion and government is at the crux of that particular issue.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

[quote=moldyolJewtical owner had no problem with selling them flowers before, no matter what the occasion.[/quote]

Not even really hypocritical, at that point they were just people buying flowers.
When it came to the wedding, she believed it was against her religion l, as it wasn't a wedding between a male and female.
Not saying I agree with her decision, just saying that was her stance.
Altimatley, i don't see the big deal, I would have taken the money, but she believed otherwise.
Right or wrong, she took a stance for what she believes.
It's a slippery slope when we start forcing people to work for others.
I wonder, should a Muslim owned florist be forced to work at a gay wedding? As the two ideologies do NOT coincide.
Or should a Jewish owned catering service be forced to cater for a KKK rally?
Also, I wonder, is this case going to strengthen the situation, or make it worse?

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

When I saw this in my FB feed I, of course, thought of you.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

Interesting take,
How many times has the definition of marriage been changed?
Has it not always been between a man and a woman.
Also, marriage has been define as a religious arrangement well before it was ever recognized by the state.
Technically, the separation of state and religion is being violated here, but not in the way you have seemed to identify.
There were civil unions, it was the left that adopted the sanctity of marriage, and perverse it to fit theyre agenda.
I am confused on how the state has a "vested interest" in a religious coupling.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

I certainly laud anyone for taking a stance for what they believe. Some may not think so, but I actually respect that NPP, for example, is so committed to his particular set of beliefs. I can respect him for his commitment while at the same time arguing against those particular beliefs that I find faulty. As many know, I have never demanded that someone stop sharing their particular position, no matter how much I disagree with it.

In this particular case I find the selling of "non-wedding" flowers to be particularly galling. Did she ask if the flowers were to decorate at a gay orgy? Perhaps the were for the christening of a god-daughter for whom the couple were co-godparents. Maybe they were taking the flowers to a brunch to celebrate the marriage of their best lesbian friends. Would selling any of those flowers have been deemed participating in those occasions? No, the selling of flowers is a business transaction, which is the whole reason she is doing it and charging money for it.

I will cede this part. If she was asked to go to the church or venue and install the flowers I could see her discomfort and try to work out a solution that accommodated both sides. But if that is the case, it has not been brought up in the discussions I have seen.

Loki Loc: Georgia

You could not have thought of a more appropriate person. Like I said, my coffee is not to be lingered over; it will eat through the cups enamel if you try.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Had the two men gotten flowers from this vendor and arranged them themselves to celebrate their union, I don't believe that the vendor would have cared. But when you make flower for a wedding you are then part of the cellibratng. why did the two men just go to Wallmart and buy their flowers and arrange the flowers as they wanted. More important is that the men specifically went to a vendor who they knew would NOT provide flowers. the only reason, as I see it was to push an agenda that Christians honestly believe is immoral. In all my years and weddings I have been to (only one for me and SWMBO, we are old fashioned that way) I have never seen a flower vendor who did not be at the service to arrange the flowers, they do not just drop them at the back door.