Christian florist refuses deal from Wash. state att. general

[Aufan59 51]

In this case it seems she has no problem allowing anyone to be her clients. She just does not want to supply for a wedding. Long as she views it this way for all other marriages (like polygamy or something else also) then I don't have a problem with that.

Stick a sign in the window, All clients welcome but will only service heterosexual weddings. Like the people that didn't want to host the actual wedding somewhere else, but had no issue with holding the reception or any other services the couple would of wished for.

Like if you are a devout Catholic gyno. Notify the public you do not prescribe birth control before hand.

Not servicing homosexual weddings is discrimination against homosexuals, which is apparently illegal in that state.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

A Christian florist who was cited as being discriminatory for refusing to provide flowers for a same sex wedding has refused to take a deal for the Atty. General.

Leftists keep pushing their agenda of forced acceptance. They talk of tolerance and diversity but they are the most intolerant bunch you'll ever see. You can have your religious beliefs but you can't act on them outside of your home. http://www.foxnews.c...ont-betray-her/

That's exactly what many Christians were saying to resist integration.

homer your nonsensical arguments wear thin after a while. Liberals will go out of their way to trample rights of Christians but will bend over backwards to accommodate a Muslim. Right now they go after businesses. Its rather ironic because all these moral perversions that liberals love to promote will not be tolerated at all if Islam keeps marching forward like it is now.

Please explain how that argument was in any way "nonsensical."

A public business simply cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, etc.

If i open an all male athletic club, i can discriminate.

Private businesses can discriminate. There is nothing stopping them.

No shoes, No shirt, No business?

Cash Only?

No Checks?

No drinking on premises?

No smoking?

No one under 18 admitted?

Businesses discriminate all the time.

Factually, wrong. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or sexuality. Your emboldened list does not at all constitute discrimination of a particular set of people--it applies to all. If, for example, a business attempted to only allow latino patrons to smoke, then that would be discriminatory.

Correct, but too nuanced to stick.

Mr. Harf?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

A Christian florist who was cited as being discriminatory for refusing to provide flowers for a same sex wedding has refused to take a deal for the Atty. General.

Leftists keep pushing their agenda of forced acceptance. They talk of tolerance and diversity but they are the most intolerant bunch you'll ever see. You can have your religious beliefs but you can't act on them outside of your home. http://www.foxnews.c...ont-betray-her/

That's exactly what many Christians were saying to resist integration.

homer your nonsensical arguments wear thin after a while. Liberals will go out of their way to trample rights of Christians but will bend over backwards to accommodate a Muslim. Right now they go after businesses. Its rather ironic because all these moral perversions that liberals love to promote will not be tolerated at all if Islam keeps marching forward like it is now.

Please explain how that argument was in any way "nonsensical."

A public business simply cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, etc.

If i open an all male athletic club, i can discriminate.

Private businesses can discriminate. There is nothing stopping them.

No shoes, No shirt, No business?

Cash Only?

No Checks?

No drinking on premises?

No smoking?

No one under 18 admitted?

Businesses discriminate all the time.

Factually, wrong. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or sexuality. Your emboldened list does not at all constitute discrimination of a particular set of people--it applies to all. If, for example, a business attempted to only allow latino patrons to smoke, then that would be discriminatory.

Curves only allows women to join.

Has anyone tested their policy?

They have in a few states. And lost. As a result, there have been some male-only gyms open up as a place where guys too embarrassed to work out with their big bellies hanging out in front of women can go get in shape.

Which sort of goes against that whole slippery slope thing where if we allow even narrowly defined exceptions to these public accommodation policies, we're on a runaway rail car speeding downhill to the days of segregation and whites-only lunch counters again.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Well explain what I supposedly don't understand.

The argument is that it is not discrimination, because she has previously served and will continue to serve homosexuals, just not homosexual weddings.

I understand your confusion, it is complete nonsense.

It would be like a store having a no black Friday, and claiming it is not discriminatory because they do serve blacks on the other days.

Actually, it's more like...

...a photographer that serves female clients, but turns down a woman, who is also a stripper and wants some risque photos done for her adult website. The photographer isn't discriminating against her because she's female. She isn't even discriminating against her because of where she works. The photographer is turning down business that would cause them to be a material participant in something that goes against their religious beliefs.

...a photographer that serves black clients, but turns down a black rap artist who wants them to do a photo shoot for his upcoming album cover. The rapper in question has lyrics that are filled with profanity, crude sexual references, are misogynist and advocate violence. The photographer isn't guilty of racial discrimination. They are turning down a specific kind of shoot or event because the content violates their conscience.

...a sign printing company that serves all kinds of clients of all races. But a white customer comes in asking for a sign to be printed for a rally his organization is sponsoring. The organization is a "white heritage" group that is really a front for a white supremacist group. The owner of the sign company declines the business because the racist positions of this group violate his religious beliefs and he does not want to help in any way to promote a rally for them.

In each of these cases, the business in question demonstrably serves customers of all kinds, including the race or gender group that the person whose business they refuse belong to. But in each case, the business that's being turned down is not being turned down because of the person asking for the job to be done. The photographer is happy to do family photos for the stripper or the rapper for instance. The sign printer is perfectly happy to print a sign promoting a food truck the white guy owns. But there are some events, occasions or types of projects they cannot in good conscience accept. Nor should they have to.

That is what being demonstrably willing to serve gay clients over the years (including the couple that sued her) but declining work on a gay wedding is like. And it makes complete sense.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

Well explain what I supposedly don't understand.

The argument is that it is not discrimination, because she has previously served and will continue to serve homosexuals, just not homosexual weddings.

I understand your confusion, it is complete nonsense.

It would be like a store having a no black Friday, and claiming it is not discriminatory because they do serve blacks on the other days.

Actually, it's more like...

...a photographer that serves female clients, but turns down a woman, who is also a stripper and wants some risque photos done for her adult website. The photographer isn't discriminating against her because she's female. She isn't even discriminating against her because of where she works. The photographer is turning down business that would cause them to be a material participant in something that goes against their religious beliefs.

...a photographer that serves black clients, but turns down a black rap artist who wants them to do a photo shoot for his upcoming album cover. The rapper in question has lyrics that are filled with profanity, crude sexual references, are misogynist and advocate violence. The photographer isn't guilty of racial discrimination. They are turning down a specific kind of shoot or event because the content violates their conscience.

...a sign printing company that serves all kinds of clients of all races. But a white customer comes in asking for a sign to be printed for a rally his organization is sponsoring. The organization is a "white heritage" group that is really a front for a white supremacist group. The owner of the sign company declines the business because the racist positions of this group violate his religious beliefs and he does not want to help in any way to promote a rally for them.

In each of these cases, the business in question demonstrably serves customers of all kinds, including the race or gender group that the person whose business they refuse belong to. But in each case, the business that's being turned down is not being turned down because of the person asking for the job to be done. The photographer is happy to do family photos for the stripper or the rapper for instance. The sign printer is perfectly happy to print a sign promoting a food truck the white guy owns. But there are some events, occasions or types of projects they cannot in good conscience accept. Nor should they have to.

That is what being demonstrably willing to serve gay clients over the years (including the couple that sued her) but declining work on a gay wedding is like. And it makes complete sense.

Excellent analogies Titan.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I can go on...

...a local radio station turns down some advertising for an upcoming comedy show in town. They've accepted ads for shows before, promoting comedians of all difference races, genders and so on. But this particular one is a well known Hispanic comedian whose show is exceptionally raunchy and uses a ton of foul language. The station's owner feels the content of the show goes too far and violates his conscience and turns down the ads. He is not discriminating against the comedian because he is Hispanic. It is solely the content of his act that is the reason for the refusal to accept the advertising.

[Aufan59 51]

Well explain what I supposedly don't understand.

The argument is that it is not discrimination, because she has previously served and will continue to serve homosexuals, just not homosexual weddings.

I understand your confusion, it is complete nonsense.

It would be like a store having a no black Friday, and claiming it is not discriminatory because they do serve blacks on the other days.

Actually, it's more like...

...a photographer that serves female clients, but turns down a woman, who is also a stripper and wants some risque photos done for her adult website. The photographer isn't discriminating against her because she's female. She isn't even discriminating against her because of where she works. The photographer is turning down business that would cause them to be a material participant in something that goes against their religious beliefs.

...a photographer that serves black clients, but turns down a black rap artist who wants them to do a photo shoot for his upcoming album cover. The rapper in question has lyrics that are filled with profanity, crude sexual references, are misogynist and advocate violence. The photographer isn't guilty of racial discrimination. They are turning down a specific kind of shoot or event because the content violates their conscience.

...a sign printing company that serves all kinds of clients of all races. But a black customer comes in asking for a sign to be printed for a rally his organization is sponsoring. The organization is a "white heritage" group that is really a front for a white supremacist group. The owner of the sign company declines the business because the racist positions of this group violate his religious beliefs and he does not want to help in any way to promote a rally for them.

In each of these cases, the business in question demonstrably serves customers of all kinds, including the race or gender group that the person whose business they refuse belong to. But in each case, the business that's being turned down is not being turned down because of the person asking for the job to be done. The photographer is happy to do family photos for the stripper or the rapper for instance. The sign printer is perfectly happy to print a sign promoting a food truck the white guy owns. But there are some events, occasions or types of projects they cannot in good conscience accept. Nor should they have to.

That is what being demonstrably willing to serve gay clients over the years (including the couple that sued her) but declining work on a gay wedding is like. And it makes complete sense.

None of those examples are analogous, the reason for denying services is independent of the person asking for those services.

Being against stripping/pornography is not discriminating against a gender.

Being against offensive lyrics is not discriminating against a race.

Being against racial supremacy movements is not discriminating against a race.

In contrast, being against gay marriage is discriminating against gays, which is illegal in that state.

Discriminating against gay marriage is discriminating against gays. No amount of idiotic examples or word play can circumvent this obvious fact.

[AUTUmike 79]

A Christian florist who was cited as being discriminatory for refusing to provide flowers for a same sex wedding has refused to take a deal for the Atty. General.

Leftists keep pushing their agenda of forced acceptance. They talk of tolerance and diversity but they are the most intolerant bunch you'll ever see. You can have your religious beliefs but you can't act on them outside of your home. http://www.foxnews.c...ont-betray-her/

That's exactly what many Christians were saying to resist integration.

homer your nonsensical arguments wear thin after a while. Liberals will go out of their way to trample rights of Christians but will bend over backwards to accommodate a Muslim. Right now they go after businesses. Its rather ironic because all these moral perversions that liberals love to promote will not be tolerated at all if Islam keeps marching forward like it is now.

Please explain how that argument was in any way "nonsensical."

A public business simply cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, etc.

If i open an all male athletic club, i can discriminate.

Private businesses can discriminate. There is nothing stopping them.

No shoes, No shirt, No business?

Cash Only?

No Checks?

No drinking on premises?

No smoking?

No one under 18 admitted?

Businesses discriminate all the time.

Factually, wrong. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or sexuality. Your emboldened list does not at all constitute discrimination of a particular set of people--it applies to all. If, for example, a business attempted to only allow latino patrons to smoke, then that would be discriminatory.

Curves only allows women to join.

He missed the opening points and focused on the secondary points. But back to his point, i did skip over sexual orientation and race. Those are not allowed nor should be. My primary point was that businesses DO discriminate and get away with it, just not in those two areas.

Yeah I caught your opening points, they were incorrect as well. Truly private clubs CAN discriminate (like Augusta National) based on gender; however, clubs that are "private" but have de facto public membership cannot. That is why the Boys and Girls Clubs now includes females (it used to just be the Boys Clubs). But to your latest emboldened point, I agree that many businesses do discriminate and get away with it--but it is illegal to do so...hence my original statement.

[Aufan59 51]

The businesses that discriminate on gender (gyms) do so on the basis of privacy for the members.

Pretty much irrelevant in this case of flowers for weddings.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

In this case it seems she has no problem allowing anyone to be her clients. She just does not want to supply for a wedding. Long as she views it this way for all other marriages (like polygamy or something else also) then I don't have a problem with that.

Stick a sign in the window, All clients welcome but will only service heterosexual weddings. Like the people that didn't want to host the actual wedding somewhere else, but had no issue with holding the reception or any other services the couple would of wished for.

Like if you are a devout Catholic gyno. Notify the public you do not prescribe birth control before hand.

Not servicing homosexual weddings is discrimination against homosexuals, which is apparently illegal in that state.

Ah, ok. I'm more pointing out that I don't have a problem with that when people claim religious reasons as long as they make people aware and don't just pick and choose.

[Aufan59 51]

In this case it seems she has no problem allowing anyone to be her clients. She just does not want to supply for a wedding. Long as she views it this way for all other marriages (like polygamy or something else also) then I don't have a problem with that.

Stick a sign in the window, All clients welcome but will only service heterosexual weddings. Like the people that didn't want to host the actual wedding somewhere else, but had no issue with holding the reception or any other services the couple would of wished for.

Like if you are a devout Catholic gyno. Notify the public you do not prescribe birth control before hand.

Not servicing homosexual weddings is discrimination against homosexuals, which is apparently illegal in that state.

Ah, ok. I'm more pointing out that I don't have a problem with that when people claim religious reasons as long as they make people aware and don't just pick and choose.

Well as weegle777 has pointed out, this really is a matter of picking and choosing. She apparently hasn't discriminated against a multitude of other positions that the bible frowns upon.

Additionally, are religious reasons enough to justify discrimination? I can easily claim religious reasons to discriminate against absolutely anything.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

None of those examples are analogous, the reason for denying services is independent of the person asking for those services.

As is the denying of service for a gay wedding.

Being against stripping/pornography is not discriminating against a gender. Correct.

Being against offensive lyrics is not discriminating against a race. Also correct.

Being against racial supremacy movements is not discriminating against a race. You're on a roll!

In contrast, being against gay marriage is discriminating against gays, which is illegal in that state. BZZZT. Wrong. Being against gay marriage is completely analogous to being against other activities, events, actions, and so on that various people participate in. Shockingly, you can actually not be discriminating against people even if you are opposed to something they are doing and asking you to materially participate in. Not sure why this is such a mindblowing concept to you.

[Aufan59 51]

None of those examples are analogous, the reason for denying services is independent of the person asking for those services.

As is the denying of service for a gay wedding.

Being against stripping/pornography is not discriminating against a gender. Correct.

Being against offensive lyrics is not discriminating against a race. Also correct.

Being against racial supremacy movements is not discriminating against a race. You're on a roll!

In contrast, being against gay marriage is discriminating against gays, which is illegal in that state. BZZZT. Wrong. Being against gay marriage is completely analogous to being against other activities, events, actions, and so on that various people participate in. Shockingly, you can actually not be discriminating against people even if you are opposed to something they are doing and asking you to materially participate in. Not sure why this is such a mindblowing concept to you.

I didn't read where she was opposed to marriage (the activity, event, action, and so on).

She is opposed to gay marriage, but not straight marriage. The only difference is that straight marriage involves straights, and gay marriage involves gays. This is unlike all your other examples where the reason for denial of service has nothing to do with the person asking for the service,

You have a severe case of cognitive dissonance with this issue.

[DKW 86 7,410]

A Christian florist who was cited as being discriminatory for refusing to provide flowers for a same sex wedding has refused to take a deal for the Atty. General.

Leftists keep pushing their agenda of forced acceptance. They talk of tolerance and diversity but they are the most intolerant bunch you'll ever see. You can have your religious beliefs but you can't act on them outside of your home. http://www.foxnews.c...ont-betray-her/

That's exactly what many Christians were saying to resist integration.

homer your nonsensical arguments wear thin after a while. Liberals will go out of their way to trample rights of Christians but will bend over backwards to accommodate a Muslim. Right now they go after businesses. Its rather ironic because all these moral perversions that liberals love to promote will not be tolerated at all if Islam keeps marching forward like it is now.

Please explain how that argument was in any way "nonsensical."

A public business simply cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, sexuality, etc.

If i open an all male athletic club, i can discriminate.

Private businesses can discriminate. There is nothing stopping them.

No shoes, No shirt, No business?

Cash Only?

No Checks?

No drinking on premises?

No smoking?

No one under 18 admitted?

Businesses discriminate all the time.

Factually, wrong. Businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or sexuality. Your emboldened list does not at all constitute discrimination of a particular set of people--it applies to all. If, for example, a business attempted to only allow latino patrons to smoke, then that would be discriminatory.

Curves only allows women to join.

He missed the opening points and focused on the secondary points. But back to his point, i did skip over sexual orientation and race. Those are not allowed nor should be. My primary point was that businesses DO discriminate and get away with it, just not in those two areas.

Yeah I caught your opening points, they were incorrect as well. Truly private clubs CAN discriminate (like Augusta National) based on gender; however, clubs that are "private" but have de facto public membership cannot. That is why the Boys and Girls Clubs now includes females (it used to just be the Boys Clubs). But to your latest emboldened point, I agree that many businesses do discriminate and get away with it--but it is illegal to do so...hence my original statement.

Like was stated above :

http://freebeacon.com/issues/lois-lerner-received-129k-in-bonuses/

http://fitnessmarketing.com/2011/04/are-women-only-gyms-guilty-of-discrimination/

ad nauseum.

There are certainly gender biased private businesses out there. Privately Owned versus Privately Chartered does not seem to matter.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

None of those examples are analogous, the reason for denying services is independent of the person asking for those services.

As is the denying of service for a gay wedding.

Being against stripping/pornography is not discriminating against a gender. Correct.

Being against offensive lyrics is not discriminating against a race. Also correct.

Being against racial supremacy movements is not discriminating against a race. You're on a roll!

In contrast, being against gay marriage is discriminating against gays, which is illegal in that state. BZZZT. Wrong. Being against gay marriage is completely analogous to being against other activities, events, actions, and so on that various people participate in. Shockingly, you can actually not be discriminating against people even if you are opposed to something they are doing and asking you to materially participate in. Not sure why this is such a mindblowing concept to you.

I didn't read where she was opposed to marriage (the activity, event, action, and so on).

She is opposed to gay marriage, but not straight marriage. The only difference is that straight marriage involves straights, and gay marriage involves gays. This is unlike all your other examples where the reason for denial of service has nothing to do with the person asking for the service,

You have a severe case of cognitive dissonance with this issue.

You mean like being opposed to creating signs for a white supremacy rally but not all rallies or even all rallies that promote a racial point of view?

Or like being opposed to doing photos for a rap album with certain kinds of offensive content, but not being opposed to doing album covers in general, even rap album covers, or even ones with lyrics that may contain some rough language here and there?

Or like being opposed to doing shots that are sexually provocative or risque, but not modeling shots in general, even ones that have a more subtle or flirtation sexuality expressed in them?

She may well turn down other weddings as well, such as one where she knows the man left his wife and kids for no other reason than to chase a woman 10 years younger. Or she might turn down a wedding where she knows it's the woman's 4th marriage the previous ones ended for rather frivolous reasons. Or she may turn down doing flowers/photography for one where some 22 year old bombshell is marrying an 88 year old, filthy rich geezer because she knows the marriage is a sham and she's a blatant golddigger. Or she could turn down doing a "wedding" for a polyamorous group. In all of these in different ways, including the gay marriage, the business is being turned down for the same reason: they violate her conscience and religious beliefs as to what marriage is. It is not something to be mocked. It is not whatever arrangement people want it to be. It is not something you just flit from one to the next. They are all variations of the same issue. So no, she is not merely opposed to gay marriage as there are straight marriages she would also oppose and not want to materially participate in. Some of these are readily apparent on the surface and others may not become known unless you ask the right questions, but they are all in the same category, regardless.

In fact, one of these specific ones, I know of a caterer that turned down a straight wedding for one of these reasons. The man attended our church. He'd been married 5 times and was going on number 6. The minister had long since refused to preside over his weddings. But a woman who went to our church had a catering business and the man approached her about catering a small reception after his next wedding. She turned him down because of her conscience concerns with yet another marriage and the string of divorces in his wake. So this is not just an academic or hypothetical exercise here. Marriage actually means specific things to many people in this country and to be compelled to materially participate in events that mock, undermine, or portray marriage as something else is a violation of their religious rights.

You have a severe case of cultural myopia on this issue.

[Aufan59 51]

You mean like being opposed to creating signs for a white supremacy rally but not all rallies or even all rallies that promote a racial point of view?

Or like being opposed to doing photos for a rap album with certain kinds of offensive content, but not being opposed to doing album covers in general, even rap album covers, or even ones with lyrics that may contain some rough language here and there?

Or like being opposed to doing shots that are sexually provocative or risque, but not modeling shots in general, even ones that have a more subtle or flirtation sexuality expressed in them?

Why are you repeating the same bad examples? All of the reasons for refusal are independent of the person. She would refuse them no matter who was asking for these services.

However if she were asked to do a traditional wedding arrangement, she would accept or deny based not on the content of the wedding, but who is getting married. This is discrimination against who is getting married.

She may well turn down other weddings as well, such as one where she knows the man left his wife and kids for no other reason than to chase a woman 10 years younger. Or she might turn down a wedding where she knows it's the woman's 4th marriage the previous ones ended for rather frivolous reasons. Or she may turn down doing flowers/photography for one where some 22 year old bombshell is marrying an 88 year old, filthy rich geezer because she knows the marriage is a sham and she's a blatant golddigger. Or she could turn down doing a "wedding" for a polyamorous group. In all of these in different ways, including the gay marriage, the business is being turned down for the same reason: they violate her conscience and religious beliefs as to what marriage is. It is not something to be mocked. It is not whatever arrangement people want it to be. It is not something you just flit from one to the next. They are all variations of the same issue. So no, she is not merely opposed to gay marriage as there are straight marriages she would also oppose and not want to materially participate in. Some of these are readily apparent on the surface and others may not become known unless you ask the right questions, but they are all in the same category, regardless.

In fact, one of these specific ones, I know of a caterer that turned down a straight wedding for one of these reasons. The man attended our church. He'd been married 5 times and was going on number 6. The minister had long since refused to preside over his weddings. But a woman who went to our church had a catering business and the man approached her about catering a small reception after his next wedding. She turned him down because of her conscience concerns with yet another marriage and the string of divorces in his wake. So this is not just an academic or hypothetical exercise here. Marriage actually means specific things to many people in this country and to be compelled to materially participate in events that mock, undermine, or portray marriage as something else is a violation of their religious rights.

You have a severe case of cultural myopia on this issue.

All this was completely irrelevant. I don't disagree that she is following her religious conviction. But she is clearly discriminating against gays by not serving gay weddings.

If you want to argue that she has the right to follow her religious conviction and discriminate against gays, I would respect(but disagree with) that argument. However, arguing that she is not discriminating is complete nonsense.

It is a clear case of cognitive dissonance. You are against discriminating against gays, but in favor of being able to refuse service to gay weddings. To solve this dissonance, you've created this notion that refusing service to gay weddings is not discrimination against gays.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I bring up the same issues and drill down deeper into them because I reject your dismissal of them.

She is not discriminating against gays for "being gay" anymore than she is discriminating against a straight person for being straight if she turns down a wedding that violates her religious convictions.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. If it is discriminating against gays, it is no more so than rejecting the other types of business (including from some straights) on the basis of them being black or female or straight. Getting married is not anymore intrinsic to being gay than any of these other things. The two concepts are not inextricably linked to one another. So yes, you can discriminate based on an action or event and not be doing so on the basis of the person. And the fact that she serves gays in virtually every other capacity underscores that. If she were someone that does not wish to do business with people because they are gay she wouldn't accept ANY business from them. Not a party or celebration of any sort.

So yes I do think people should have the right to discriminate based on the content, purpose, or nature of the event in question. That is not the same thing as discriminating against the people.

[cooltigger21 0]

Well explain what I supposedly don't understand.

The argument is that it is not discrimination, because she has previously served and will continue to serve homosexuals, just not homosexual weddings.

I understand your confusion, it is complete nonsense.

It would be like a store having a no black Friday, and claiming it is not discriminatory because they do serve blacks on the other days.

Actually, it's more like...

...a photographer that serves female clients, but turns down a woman, who is also a stripper and wants some risque photos done for her adult website. The photographer isn't discriminating against her because she's female. She isn't even discriminating against her because of where she works. The photographer is turning down business that would cause them to be a material participant in something that goes against their religious beliefs.

...a photographer that serves black clients, but turns down a black rap artist who wants them to do a photo shoot for his upcoming album cover. The rapper in question has lyrics that are filled with profanity, crude sexual references, are misogynist and advocate violence. The photographer isn't guilty of racial discrimination. They are turning down a specific kind of shoot or event because the content violates their conscience.

...a sign printing company that serves all kinds of clients of all races. But a black customer comes in asking for a sign to be printed for a rally his organization is sponsoring. The organization is a "white heritage" group that is really a front for a white supremacist group. The owner of the sign company declines the business because the racist positions of this group violate his religious beliefs and he does not want to help in any way to promote a rally for them.

In each of these cases, the business in question demonstrably serves customers of all kinds, including the race or gender group that the person whose business they refuse belong to. But in each case, the business that's being turned down is not being turned down because of the person asking for the job to be done. The photographer is happy to do family photos for the stripper or the rapper for instance. The sign printer is perfectly happy to print a sign promoting a food truck the white guy owns. But there are some events, occasions or types of projects they cannot in good conscience accept. Nor should they have to.

That is what being demonstrably willing to serve gay clients over the years (including the couple that sued her) but declining work on a gay wedding is like. And it makes complete sense.

None of those examples are analogous, the reason for denying services is independent of the person asking for those services.

Being against stripping/pornography is not discriminating against a gender.

Being against offensive lyrics is not discriminating against a race.

Being against racial supremacy movements is not discriminating against a race.

In contrast, being against gay marriage is discriminating against gays, which is illegal in that state.

Discriminating against gay marriage is discriminating against gays. No amount of idiotic examples or word play can circumvent this obvious fact.

no they are refusing to be a participant in that specific event. They have that right. Titan already explained that they had served these people before in other ways. To you it boils down to this. You are allowed religious freedom but only in the walls of a church. Once you leave that church then your religious freedom must come second to anything else

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I bring up the same issues and drill down deeper into them because I reject your dismissal of them.

She is not discriminating against gays for "being gay" anymore than she is discriminating against a straight person for being straight if she turns down a wedding that violates her religious convictions.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. If it is discriminating against gays, it is no more so than rejecting the other types of business (including from some straights) on the basis of them being black or female or straight. Getting married is not anymore intrinsic to being gay than any of these other things. The two concepts are not inextricably linked to one another. So yes, you can discriminate based on an action or event and not be doing so on the basis of the person. And the fact that she serves gays in virtually every other capacity underscores that. If she were someone that does not wish to do business with people because they are gay she wouldn't accept ANY business from them. Not a party or celebration of any sort.

So yes I do think people should have the right to discriminate based on the content, purpose, or nature of the event in question. That is not the same thing as discriminating against the people.

What if,,,,, she were refusing service to Jewish people? Would you feel the same way?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I bring up the same issues and drill down deeper into them because I reject your dismissal of them.

She is not discriminating against gays for "being gay" anymore than she is discriminating against a straight person for being straight if she turns down a wedding that violates her religious convictions.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. If it is discriminating against gays, it is no more so than rejecting the other types of business (including from some straights) on the basis of them being black or female or straight. Getting married is not anymore intrinsic to being gay than any of these other things. The two concepts are not inextricably linked to one another. So yes, you can discriminate based on an action or event and not be doing so on the basis of the person. And the fact that she serves gays in virtually every other capacity underscores that. If she were someone that does not wish to do business with people because they are gay she wouldn't accept ANY business from them. Not a party or celebration of any sort.

So yes I do think people should have the right to discriminate based on the content, purpose, or nature of the event in question. That is not the same thing as discriminating against the people.

What if,,,,, she were refusing service to Jewish people? Would you feel the same way?

I'd put it under the same stipulations as above. If she refused to serve Jewish people simply for being Jewish, that's a problem. If she refused to serve Jewish people because they wanted to use her services to promote an event for an ultra-Zionist group that essentially operates as a "Jewish supremacy" type of outfit and says terrible things about Palestinians and Arabs, then I'd say that's a perfectly legitimate reason to turn down the business. And if it can be demonstrated that she serves Jewish customers for all sorts of other events but just not this particular one because of its content, then she should not be prosecuted or made to accept the business.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I bring up the same issues and drill down deeper into them because I reject your dismissal of them.

She is not discriminating against gays for "being gay" anymore than she is discriminating against a straight person for being straight if she turns down a wedding that violates her religious convictions.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. If it is discriminating against gays, it is no more so than rejecting the other types of business (including from some straights) on the basis of them being black or female or straight. Getting married is not anymore intrinsic to being gay than any of these other things. The two concepts are not inextricably linked to one another. So yes, you can discriminate based on an action or event and not be doing so on the basis of the person. And the fact that she serves gays in virtually every other capacity underscores that. If she were someone that does not wish to do business with people because they are gay she wouldn't accept ANY business from them. Not a party or celebration of any sort.

So yes I do think people should have the right to discriminate based on the content, purpose, or nature of the event in question. That is not the same thing as discriminating against the people.

What if,,,,, she were refusing service to Jewish people? Would you feel the same way?

I'd put it under the same stipulations as above. If she refused to serve Jewish people simply for being Jewish, that's a problem. If she refused to serve Jewish people because they wanted to use her services to promote an event for an ultra-Zionist group that essentially operates as a "Jewish supremacy" type of outfit and says terrible things about Palestinians and Arabs, then I'd say that's a perfectly legitimate reason to turn down the business. And if it can be demonstrated that she serves Jewish customers for all sorts of other events but just not this particular one because of its content, then she should not be prosecuted or made to accept the business.

She is refusing to provide services for a gay wedding based on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what?

If she refused to provide services for a Jewish wedding on the same basis?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I bring up the same issues and drill down deeper into them because I reject your dismissal of them.

She is not discriminating against gays for "being gay" anymore than she is discriminating against a straight person for being straight if she turns down a wedding that violates her religious convictions.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. If it is discriminating against gays, it is no more so than rejecting the other types of business (including from some straights) on the basis of them being black or female or straight. Getting married is not anymore intrinsic to being gay than any of these other things. The two concepts are not inextricably linked to one another. So yes, you can discriminate based on an action or event and not be doing so on the basis of the person. And the fact that she serves gays in virtually every other capacity underscores that. If she were someone that does not wish to do business with people because they are gay she wouldn't accept ANY business from them. Not a party or celebration of any sort.

So yes I do think people should have the right to discriminate based on the content, purpose, or nature of the event in question. That is not the same thing as discriminating against the people.

What if,,,,, she were refusing service to Jewish people? Would you feel the same way?

I'd put it under the same stipulations as above. If she refused to serve Jewish people simply for being Jewish, that's a problem. If she refused to serve Jewish people because they wanted to use her services to promote an event for an ultra-Zionist group that essentially operates as a "Jewish supremacy" type of outfit and says terrible things about Palestinians and Arabs, then I'd say that's a perfectly legitimate reason to turn down the business. And if it can be demonstrated that she serves Jewish customers for all sorts of other events but just not this particular one because of its content, then she should not be prosecuted or made to accept the business.

She is refusing to provide services for a gay wedding based on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what?

If she refused to provide services for a Jewish wedding on the same basis?

She's refusing based on it not being marriage or tell something false about what marriage is. I mentioned other instances that would be a mockery or false impression of marriage such as polyamory, a straight marriage where one of the partners has been divorced multiple times and so on. Being Jewish (or any particular religion or non-religion) isn't a stipulation or criteria in what a marriage is. They wouldn't be able to make any valid claim that Jewishness is something the cuts to the very definition of marriage, so it wouldn't stand. But there is a long, established, objective record that shows the other aspects of marriage to have a historical definition dating back 1000s of years.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I think part of the problem here is that some seem to think there's this blanket rule you can apply to every situation that makes sense. "You can't discriminate on ____________ basis" and it neatly fits into our various societal structures and associations. But it doesn't. There are and should be grey areas and some limited "discrimination" can be permitted. We already do this with things like female-only gyms (and now their male-only counterparts) and in those cases they are *definitely* discriminating based on sex. I don't believe the solution to this are unattainable and undesirable blanket rules that compel people to do things or be forced out of the public square. Folks just need to understand that not everyone agrees with them and just give each other the space to 'be'. If someone doesn't want to serve me because I'm white, or male, or Christian, or straight or...so what? I could probably take them to court, but why would I want to force them to serve me? I'll patronize someone who doesn't have such stipulations. And I'll make sure the word gets out that they are that way and the marketplace can decide if they will be successful with such a model. But that's just me. I wouldn't want to give someone business knowing that's how they felt.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I bring up the same issues and drill down deeper into them because I reject your dismissal of them.

She is not discriminating against gays for "being gay" anymore than she is discriminating against a straight person for being straight if she turns down a wedding that violates her religious convictions.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. If it is discriminating against gays, it is no more so than rejecting the other types of business (including from some straights) on the basis of them being black or female or straight. Getting married is not anymore intrinsic to being gay than any of these other things. The two concepts are not inextricably linked to one another. So yes, you can discriminate based on an action or event and not be doing so on the basis of the person. And the fact that she serves gays in virtually every other capacity underscores that. If she were someone that does not wish to do business with people because they are gay she wouldn't accept ANY business from them. Not a party or celebration of any sort.

So yes I do think people should have the right to discriminate based on the content, purpose, or nature of the event in question. That is not the same thing as discriminating against the people.

What if,,,,, she were refusing service to Jewish people? Would you feel the same way?

I'd put it under the same stipulations as above. If she refused to serve Jewish people simply for being Jewish, that's a problem. If she refused to serve Jewish people because they wanted to use her services to promote an event for an ultra-Zionist group that essentially operates as a "Jewish supremacy" type of outfit and says terrible things about Palestinians and Arabs, then I'd say that's a perfectly legitimate reason to turn down the business. And if it can be demonstrated that she serves Jewish customers for all sorts of other events but just not this particular one because of its content, then she should not be prosecuted or made to accept the business.

She is refusing to provide services for a gay wedding based on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what?

If she refused to provide services for a Jewish wedding on the same basis?

She's refusing based on it not being marriage or tell something false about what marriage is. I mentioned other instances that would be a mockery or false impression of marriage such as polyamory, a straight marriage where one of the partners has been divorced multiple times and so on. Being Jewish (or any particular religion or non-religion) isn't a stipulation or criteria in what a marriage is. They wouldn't be able to make any valid claim that Jewishness is something the cuts to the very definition of marriage, so it wouldn't stand. But there is a long, established, objective record that shows the other aspects of marriage to have a historical definition dating back 1000s of years.

So, she can not refuse to acknowledge a Jewish marriage? She can not exclusively and only recognize marriages that are "Christian"?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I bring up the same issues and drill down deeper into them because I reject your dismissal of them.

She is not discriminating against gays for "being gay" anymore than she is discriminating against a straight person for being straight if she turns down a wedding that violates her religious convictions.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. If it is discriminating against gays, it is no more so than rejecting the other types of business (including from some straights) on the basis of them being black or female or straight. Getting married is not anymore intrinsic to being gay than any of these other things. The two concepts are not inextricably linked to one another. So yes, you can discriminate based on an action or event and not be doing so on the basis of the person. And the fact that she serves gays in virtually every other capacity underscores that. If she were someone that does not wish to do business with people because they are gay she wouldn't accept ANY business from them. Not a party or celebration of any sort.

So yes I do think people should have the right to discriminate based on the content, purpose, or nature of the event in question. That is not the same thing as discriminating against the people.

What if,,,,, she were refusing service to Jewish people? Would you feel the same way?

I'd put it under the same stipulations as above. If she refused to serve Jewish people simply for being Jewish, that's a problem. If she refused to serve Jewish people because they wanted to use her services to promote an event for an ultra-Zionist group that essentially operates as a "Jewish supremacy" type of outfit and says terrible things about Palestinians and Arabs, then I'd say that's a perfectly legitimate reason to turn down the business. And if it can be demonstrated that she serves Jewish customers for all sorts of other events but just not this particular one because of its content, then she should not be prosecuted or made to accept the business.

She is refusing to provide services for a gay wedding based on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what?

If she refused to provide services for a Jewish wedding on the same basis?

She's refusing based on it not being marriage or tell something false about what marriage is. I mentioned other instances that would be a mockery or false impression of marriage such as polyamory, a straight marriage where one of the partners has been divorced multiple times and so on. Being Jewish (or any particular religion or non-religion) isn't a stipulation or criteria in what a marriage is. They wouldn't be able to make any valid claim that Jewishness is something the cuts to the very definition of marriage, so it wouldn't stand. But there is a long, established, objective record that shows the other aspects of marriage to have a historical definition dating back 1000s of years.

So, she can not refuse to acknowledge a Jewish marriage? She can not exclusively and only recognize marriages that are "Christian"?

No. There isn't anything in the Bible or historic Christian doctrine she could point to that suggests that the religion of the participants has anything to do with it. "Religion" is not intrinsic to the definition of marriage. I suppose she could try and lie about it, but she'd have nothing in Christian doctrine and teaching to back her up.