Performing floral service for a SS-wedding is pretty clearly being forced to recognize a SSM.
If SSM was not legalized their would have been no wedding and the old woman would never have been sued.
Liberals want to pretend they are tolerant of of other people's beliefs while their actions reveal exactly the opposite.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020803087_weddingflowersxml.html
Cliffs:
Gay couple go to a florist for their wedding
Florist refuses to provide service for religious reasons
State attorney general sues florist for violating the state's anti-discrimination law
Raises serious questions about how far-reaching the exemptions are or should be. Churches don't have to agree to marry gay couples, but businesses who provide service are technically required by law to provide those products and services to gay couples who are or may be getting married.
WHY WON'T PEOPLE BE TOLERANT OF MY INTOLERANCE!?
A florist is different from a church. If that's your only example I don't agree with your assessment.
You reveling in destroying the livelihood of an old woman who disagrees with your definition of marriage is the spitting image of intolerance.
So you are in favor of forcing your definition of marriage onto private citizens (as long as they are not a minister/church) at gunpoint?
Really, where did he revel in anything?
Please provide pic of AG holding florist at gunpoint. I'll be waiting.
Maybe if you calm down your rhetoric a bit we could have an intelligent discussion.
Having a different definition of marriage is not intolerance.
The woman is not advocating for hanging people in homosexual relationships.
You reveling in destroying the livelihood of an old woman who disagrees with your definition of marriage is the spitting image of intolerance.
Please provide pic of AG holding florist at gunpoint. I'll be waiting.
Maybe if you calm down your rhetoric a bit we could have an intelligent discussion.
So you don't think that ultimately government agents with guns will not be dispatched to bring the woman into compliance with supporting SSM?
Of course the AG does not do it himself. He is important man, he has guys for that.
We allow businesses to discriminate, but not for the wrong reasons. Deciding that you do not approve of some people engaging in an activity which you find perfectly acceptable for other people, when the law treats them as equal, is the wrong reason for businesses that provide public accommodation. I certainly have sympathy for those people for whom this violates their religious beliefs, but at the end of the day this is no different from Muslim taxi drivers who refuse Jews or those with service dogs. If one is to service the public, one must service the public without discrimination except where the law allows discrimination. Given the apparent prevalence of gay male florists, this could just as easily be against fundamentalist Christians, so none of us should have any difficulty in empathizing with the gay couple or for that matter, the florist. We all have to accommodate people and behaviors we'd rather avoid.http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020803087_weddingflowersxml.html
Cliffs:
Gay couple go to a florist for their wedding
Florist refuses to provide service for religious reasons
State attorney general sues florist for violating the state's anti-discrimination law
Raises serious questions about how far-reaching the exemptions are or should be. Churches don't have to agree to marry gay couples, but businesses who provide service are technically required by law to provide those products and services to gay couples who are or may be getting married.
I do not agree with Nehalem's stance on this issue in the slightest, but everything government requires or prohibits is ultimately backed up by armed force. We all know this. In fact, it is the fundamental different between government and the private sector, which cannot force you to do anything without the approval (and use of armed force if necessary) of government.Please provide pic of AG holding florist at gunpoint. I'll be waiting.
Maybe if you calm down your rhetoric a bit we could have an intelligent discussion.
We allow businesses to discriminate, but not for the wrong reasons. Deciding that you do not approve of some people engaging in an activity which you find perfectly acceptable for other people, when the law treats them as equal, is the wrong reason for businesses that provide public accommodation. I certainly have sympathy for those people for whom this violates their religious beliefs, but at the end of the day this is no different from Muslim taxi drivers who refuse Jews or those with service dogs. If one is to service the public, one must service the public without discrimination except where the law allows discrimination. Given the apparent prevalence of gay male florists, this could just as easily be against fundamentalist Christians, so none of us should have any difficulty in empathizing with the gay couple or for that matter, the florist. We all have to accommodate people and behaviors we'd rather avoid.
G-d is a big boy and can look out for himself, and damned few of us are such saints that we should be worrying about others offending Him rather than about our own relationship with Him.
No, I'm just acknowledging the law must be applied equally for everyone. Equality for all.
If you pass a law outlawing disagreements with your view you are being intolerant. No amount of "equality for all" whining changes that fact.
Don't play dumb.
You know very well that the Washington AG is trying to bully individuals into recognize SSM.
hahaha, once again. "WHY WON'T YOU BE TOLERANT OF MY INTOLERANCE".
Having a different view of what constitutes marriage is not intolerance.
The woman is not putting on a ski mask and shooting up same-sex marriages. She simply wants to not be involved an event she finds is wrong.
It is liberals that are being intolerant by attempting to outlaw dissent on SSM.
No, people are outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation. I guess we can chalk this up to another basic fact that you don't appear to know.
This does explain a lot as to why your opinions are so comically stupid, you just don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Except that the woman had no problem servicing homosexuals. She only had problems with SSM. This was made clear in the story.
But it's not just "that discriminating should only be legal when essentially liberals says it should be legal" other than this is primarily a liberal-pushed issue. It's what the law recognizes. A florist would not be sanctioned for refusing to work a wedding of two siblings or a man and a seven year old, but just as a florist cannot refuse to serve an interracial marriage, neither can she refuse to serve a gay marriage.No it is vastly different. It is more like say a catering company that would have no problem providing catering to a Democratic Party rally, but would not service a Neo-Nazi rally.
Saying that discriminating should only be legal when essentially liberals says it should be legal is a cop out. And shows the intolerance of liberals.
Liberals have spent years saying it is wrong to force your idea of marriage on others, and now they are turning around saying hahaha just kidding. And are throwing a giant fit when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them.
EDIT: As for the gay male florist argument. In order for that to be equivalent your would have to show that they believed that Christians should not be allowed to get married...
If you pass a law outlawing disagreements with your view you are being intolerant. No amount of "equality for all" whining changes that fact.
But it's not just "that discriminating should only be legal when essentially liberals says it should be legal" other than this is primarily a liberal-pushed issue. It's what the law recognizes. A florist would not be sanctioned for refusing to work a wedding of two siblings or a man and a seven year old, but just as a florist cannot refuse to serve an interracial marriage, neither can she refuse to serve a gay marriage.