Jump to content

Christian florist refuses deal from Wash. state att. general


cooltigger21

Recommended Posts

She would be turning down the wedding because of the people getting married. "The nature of the event" in these examples is defined by who is getting married.

We just disagree. It is the fact that what the people are doing is not marriage and in fact, in her religious beliefs, tells a lie about marriage. It is an event that misrepresents marriage and that is what she could not be compelled to participate in with her time and talents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It is not a point to disagree on.

You defined these wedding examples by the people, reasoned why she might refuse these weddings solely because of the people involved, yet claim it is not about the people but instead "the nature of the event". If it were not about the people, then it would just be two people she didn't know getting married, and would have no basis to refuse.

This is text book cognitive dissonance. I wish you luck in maintaining your belief that we shouldn't discriminate against gays, but should be able to discriminate against gay marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a point to disagree on.

Well, that's really not up to you to decide. I say we disagree. You'll just have to live with it. I trust you'll be able to carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You defined the wedding examples solely by the people getting married, then claim the people getting married have nothing to do with it.

I must say, this level of denial is fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You defined the wedding examples solely by the people getting married, then claim the people getting married have nothing to do with it.

I must say, this level of denial is fascinating.

No, that's your version of how I defined it. I have defined the wedding examples by contrasting them with what marriage is from the Christian perspective, which this florist fits within.

Now, what's really fascinating is your inability to let it go and agree to disagree. I'm sure a psychologist could get some mileage out of that. But regardless, we're done going back and forth on who's in denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's your version of how I defined it. I have defined the wedding examples by contrasting them with what marriage is from the Christian perspective, which this florist fits within.

How you defined it is in plain text.

I understand that this is a waste of time, but your denial of things you typed out yourself is fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's your version of how I defined it. I have defined the wedding examples by contrasting them with what marriage is from the Christian perspective, which this florist fits within.

How you defined it is in plain text.

I understand that this is a waste of time, but your denial of things you typed out yourself is fascinating.

I'm trying to care. The top shelf margarita is just had is telling me not to though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a point to disagree on.

You defined these wedding examples by the people, reasoned why she might refuse these weddings solely because of the people involved, yet claim it is not about the people but instead "the nature of the event". If it were not about the people, then it would just be two people she didn't know getting married, and would have no basis to refuse.

This is text book cognitive dissonance. I wish you luck in maintaining your belief that we shouldn't discriminate against gays, but should be able to discriminate against gay marriages.

What if the florist would be ok with a civil union but not a gay marriage? Is that still discrimination in your view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's your version of how I defined it. I have defined the wedding examples by contrasting them with what marriage is from the Christian perspective, which this florist fits within.

How you defined it is in plain text.

I understand that this is a waste of time, but your denial of things you typed out yourself is fascinating.

I'm trying to care. The top shelf margarita is just had is telling me not to though.

If the people are irrelevant, then why did you even describe the people in your examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a point to disagree on.

You defined these wedding examples by the people, reasoned why she might refuse these weddings solely because of the people involved, yet claim it is not about the people but instead "the nature of the event". If it were not about the people, then it would just be two people she didn't know getting married, and would have no basis to refuse.

This is text book cognitive dissonance. I wish you luck in maintaining your belief that we shouldn't discriminate against gays, but should be able to discriminate against gay marriages.

What if the florist would be ok with a civil union but not a gay marriage? Is that still discrimination in your view?

I don't see how this changes anything. She would be refusing to serve gays in the same way she would serve straights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still struggling with the idea selling someone a friggin cake is "participating" in the wedding. :-\

Does it matter? It was her decision. She didn't want to do it and she should not be forced to do it under any circumstances. Why is the left so militant? Nevermind, I dont really care either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the left Christians and conservatives are a bigger threat that ISIS. They hate Christianity. I mean they cling so bitterly to their guns and religion. Only a stupid person would believe in God anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still struggling with the idea selling someone a friggin cake is "participating" in the wedding. :-\

Does it matter? It was her decision. She didn't want to do it and she should not be forced to do it under any circumstances. Why is the left so militant? Nevermind, I dont really care either.

I remember hearing that same argument regarding serving blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still struggling with the idea selling someone a friggin cake is "participating" in the wedding. :-\/>

Does it matter? It was her decision. She didn't want to do it and she should not be forced to do it under any circumstances. Why is the left so militant? Nevermind, I dont really care either.

We've tried this approach before: only provide services to the people you want to.

It results in second class citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still struggling with the idea selling someone a friggin cake is "participating" in the wedding. :-\/>

Does it matter? It was her decision. She didn't want to do it and she should not be forced to do it under any circumstances. Why is the left so militant? Nevermind, I dont really care either.

We've tried this approach before: only provide services to the people you want to.

It results in second class citizens.

Oh bull****! I grew up in an environment wherein business owners reserved the right to refuse services. If I went to a shop keeper who didn't want my business, i'd say, "Fine, there are plenty out there who do". In fact, I did just that recently when my insurance company told me they no longer wanted to provide my homeowners if i didn't also give them my auto insurance. I laughed in their face and changed my homeowners insuror. Oh and the silver lining was..I found out I was paying too much to start with. I got a the same insurance for about $600 per yer less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still struggling with the idea selling someone a friggin cake is "participating" in the wedding. :-\/>

Does it matter? It was her decision. She didn't want to do it and she should not be forced to do it under any circumstances. Why is the left so militant? Nevermind, I dont really care either.

We've tried this approach before: only provide services to the people you want to.

It results in second class citizens.

Oh bull****! I grew up in an environment wherein business owners reserved the right to refuse services. If I went to a shop keeper who didn't want my business, i'd say, "Fine, there are plenty out there who do". In fact, I did just that recently when my insurance company told me they no longer wanted to provide my homeowners if i didn't also give them my auto insurance. I laughed in their face and changed my homeowners insuror. Oh and the silver lining was..I found out I was paying too much to start with. I got a the same insurance for about $600 per yer less.

Zing!

(That's the sound of the actual point flying over your head....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...