Rainbow Mafia Wins Against Florist: When up is down and down is up will you continue turning the other cheek ? The holy grail of the Left is the sexual revolution. Anything and...

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

When up is down and down is up will you continue turning the other cheek ?

The holy grail of the Left is the sexual revolution. Anything and everything that may discriminate against it is itself to be discriminated against. Any who dare refuse conformity to this new morality will be punished. Coming from this mindset one can then begin to understand the logic of the Washington State Supreme Courts ruling against florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlenes Flowers. She refused to provide service for a same-sex wedding, and therefore must be punished.

Using a creative form of epistemological gymnastics, the court interpreted the term orientation to mean not only a state of being but also to be an action as well. It would be akin to conflating ethnicity with activity.

While the primary focus of case is obviously over the question of freedom of religion, what might become the root factor in question is the impact of the ruling on freedom of speech. Stutzmans argument for refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding ceremony was based on a strongly held religious belief that prohibited her from condoning or participating in what she believes to be an immoral celebration. This is evidenced by the fact that she had previously sold flowers to the individuals fully knowing they were homosexuals. In so doing she was not making any kind of statement regarding an activity due to the context of the sale. When the context of the sale changed to one of a same-sex wedding, she refused to sell her service due to her personal moral convictions regarding marriage.

Stutzman and her legal representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom recently labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center are committed to taking the case to the Supreme Court, though given the unanimity of lower courts trampling religious liberty its unlikely the Court will take it on just yet. Still, because this case is one of many where religious liberty is being condemned in favor of sexual liberty, it needs its day in court.

ginger

missinglink wrote:

When up is down and down is up will you continue turning the other cheek ?

The holy grail of the Left is the sexual revolution. Anything and everything that may discriminate against it is itself to be discriminated against. Any who dare refuse conformity to this new morality will be punished. Coming from this mindset one can then begin to understand the logic of the Washington State Supreme Courts ruling against florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlenes Flowers. She refused to provide service for a same-sex wedding, and therefore must be punished.

Using a creative form of epistemological gymnastics, the court interpreted the term orientation to mean not only a state of being but also to be an action as well. It would be akin to conflating ethnicity with activity.

While the primary focus of case is obviously over the question of freedom of religion, what might become the root factor in question is the impact of the ruling on freedom of speech. Stutzmans argument for refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding ceremony was based on a strongly held religious belief that prohibited her from condoning or participating in what she believes to be an immoral celebration. This is evidenced by the fact that she had previously sold flowers to the individuals fully knowing they were homosexuals. In so doing she was not making any kind of statement regarding an activity due to the context of the sale. When the context of the sale changed to one of a same-sex wedding, she refused to sell her service due to her personal moral convictions regarding marriage.

Stutzman and her legal representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom recently labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center are committed to taking the case to the Supreme Court, though given the unanimity of lower courts trampling religious liberty its unlikely the Court will take it on just yet. Still, because this case is one of many where religious liberty is being condemned in favor of sexual liberty, it needs its day in court.

b When up is down and down is up will you continu... (show quote)

Personally, I think that's stupid. She has a right to her beliefs and there are other florists. And no I am not a gay hater. They have a right to their lives just like I do.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

ginger wrote:

Personally, I think that's stupid. She has a right to her beliefs and there are other florists. And no I am not a gay hater. They have a right to their lives just like I do.

Exactly

EL Loc: Massachusetts

ginger wrote:

Personally, I think that's stupid. She has a right to her beliefs and there are other florists. And no I am not a gay hater. They have a right to their lives just like I do.

They have a right to their lives as they are, but no right to stomp on other people's rights.

Mr Bombastic

missinglink wrote:

When up is down and down is up will you continue turning the other cheek ?

The holy grail of the Left is the sexual revolution. Anything and everything that may discriminate against it is itself to be discriminated against. Any who dare refuse conformity to this new morality will be punished. Coming from this mindset one can then begin to understand the logic of the Washington State Supreme Courts ruling against florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlenes Flowers. She refused to provide service for a same-sex wedding, and therefore must be punished.

Using a creative form of epistemological gymnastics, the court interpreted the term orientation to mean not only a state of being but also to be an action as well. It would be akin to conflating ethnicity with activity.

While the primary focus of case is obviously over the question of freedom of religion, what might become the root factor in question is the impact of the ruling on freedom of speech. Stutzmans argument for refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding ceremony was based on a strongly held religious belief that prohibited her from condoning or participating in what she believes to be an immoral celebration. This is evidenced by the fact that she had previously sold flowers to the individuals fully knowing they were homosexuals. In so doing she was not making any kind of statement regarding an activity due to the context of the sale. When the context of the sale changed to one of a same-sex wedding, she refused to sell her service due to her personal moral convictions regarding marriage.

Stutzman and her legal representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom recently labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center are committed to taking the case to the Supreme Court, though given the unanimity of lower courts trampling religious liberty its unlikely the Court will take it on just yet. Still, because this case is one of many where religious liberty is being condemned in favor of sexual liberty, it needs its day in court.

b When up is down and down is up will you continu... (show quote)

They haven't won anything. They are just digging the hole deeper. God is watching everything they do. There will be justice, in the end. Pity them.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

I always believed that your right to 'swing your fist' stopped short of the other person's nose. Apparently the stopping point varies depending on whose fist is swinging at whom.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Mr Bombastic wrote:

They haven't won anything. They are just digging the hole deeper. God is watching everything they do. There will be justice, in the end. Pity them.

You are so right and I agree with you, but most of the leaners and queers think that social justice is all we need to work toward. This question is one of the best ones that leaners have found to work with against those of us who don't lean with them. I do wonder how many atheists agree with them other than about the religious questions and the desire of both groups to weaken the nation they want all the goodies from, if they can get them.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

EL wrote:

They have a right to their lives as they are, but no right to stomp on other people's rights.

Ditto

CanSEE

How about demanding all muslim food services
. . . . . . PROVIDE CATERING that includes bacon

Mr Bombastic

oldroy wrote:

You are so right and I agree with you, but most of the leaners and queers think that social justice is all we need to work toward. This question is one of the best ones that leaners have found to work with against those of us who don't lean with them. I do wonder how many atheists agree with them other than about the religious questions and the desire of both groups to weaken the nation they want all the goodies from, if they can get them.

One thing I know for certain. Almost every culture that has ever self destructed openly embraced homosexuality. Not saying that it was the only cause, but it is one of several related causes. Coincidence? I think not.

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

Mr Bombastic wrote:

One thing I know for certain. Almost every culture that has ever self destructed openly embraced homosexuality. Not saying that it was the only cause, but it is one of several related causes. Coincidence? I think not.

skopii

Homosexuality cannot be displayed as a "special condition for special treatment" as it would Violate, the "Equal Treatment Under the Eyes of the Law." Homosexuality is a Choice of behavior, that is and always has been counter productive to civilizations. Homosexuality breeds disease and mental illness. These cases are illegally brought to colluding homosexual peers for review, and are illegally adjudicated for the homosexual. Just as robbers or rapists or thief's or serial killers are a group of illegal, immoral behaviors that should not be condoned by Law; but instead they should be Opposed, by Law. They are counter-productive to the interests of civilization. The Constitution, does not, and should not give "special consideration" to "Chosen, counter productive group behaviors." All of these "deceitful, colluding homosexual commissions" should be stricken down as Unconstitutional, for once and for all. "Equal Treatment Under the Eyes of the Law." Not "Special Treatment!" We have far, far too many homosexual judges and govern-Mental officials who are deceitfully colluding for the advancement of the lgbt agenda and homosexuality. It is Wrong. Homosexuals want the rest of us to believe they only want "equal treatment." They are Liars, they want special treatment; in direct violation of the Constitution. While here, I ask that you kindly remember the Political Corruption Solution, for the Govern-Mentals. One Term Only. Vote Incumbents OUT! Thank You.

Looneytunabin

missinglink wrote:

When up is down and down is up will you continue turning the other cheek ?

The holy grail of the Left is the sexual revolution. Anything and everything that may discriminate against it is itself to be discriminated against. Any who dare refuse conformity to this new morality will be punished. Coming from this mindset one can then begin to understand the logic of the Washington State Supreme Courts ruling against florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlenes Flowers. She refused to provide service for a same-sex wedding, and therefore must be punished.

Using a creative form of epistemological gymnastics, the court interpreted the term orientation to mean not only a state of being but also to be an action as well. It would be akin to conflating ethnicity with activity.

While the primary focus of case is obviously over the question of freedom of religion, what might become the root factor in question is the impact of the ruling on freedom of speech. Stutzmans argument for refusing to provide flowers for the same-sex wedding ceremony was based on a strongly held religious belief that prohibited her from condoning or participating in what she believes to be an immoral celebration. This is evidenced by the fact that she had previously sold flowers to the individuals fully knowing they were homosexuals. In so doing she was not making any kind of statement regarding an activity due to the context of the sale. When the context of the sale changed to one of a same-sex wedding, she refused to sell her service due to her personal moral convictions regarding marriage.

Stutzman and her legal representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom recently labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center are committed to taking the case to the Supreme Court, though given the unanimity of lower courts trampling religious liberty its unlikely the Court will take it on just yet. Still, because this case is one of many where religious liberty is being condemned in favor of sexual liberty, it needs its day in court.

b When up is down and down is up will you continu... (show quote)

I'm from Washington and I left my comments to the Fudge Packers to let them know that not everyone supports their lifestyle. I made the comment that they're punishing her because she has her beliefs. I asked them if they wanted to take everything away from her and leave her homeless and out on the streets!!!!!! They pissed me off and I let them know in uncertain terms. YOU WILL NOT FORCE ME TO ACCEPT THE GAY LIFESTYLE, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, OR THE TRANSGENDER AGENDA. Plenty of Flower shops offered their services, so why didn't they take them up on their offer? BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HER!!!!! SATAN IS BUSY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY HE'S STILL FIGHTING, THE VICTORY HAS ALREADY BEEN WON!!!!! THANK YOU JESUS!!!!!

Looneytunabin

EL wrote:

They have a right to their lives as they are, but no right to stomp on other people's rights.

Looneytunabin

Mr Bombastic wrote:

They haven't won anything. They are just digging the hole deeper. God is watching everything they do. There will be justice, in the end. Pity them.

You know what really chaps my hyde? The fact that some of these people (gay's) go to church and claim to be christians. There's a Scripture that states "LEAN NOT INTO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING!" I consider myself a christian but I also know that I'm a sinner and always will be, but when you mess with God's word and try to twist it around, that's just wrong. All those people are in for a very "RUDE AWAKENING!" Forgive them for they know not what they do. Too bad they can't see the truth!