Florist who wouldn't sell flowers to gay couple loses big!

[formergothardite]

Yeah, he is young adult brought up in Vision Forum where he has been taught his own superiorority and a twisted view of history. He is actually coming back and engaging and trying to discuss the issues. Calling him an asshole is not helping him learn. I think he dead wrong but all the aggressiveness is doing to keeping him from opening his mind. This is not a situation like BrownieMomma, who drops her Bon mots and disappears. Tree mom and others are doing a good job of talking without insults. Let's educate a young fundie, not close him off

VF did seem to push the intellectual superiority more than most fundies. I imagine that for people raised like that it must be especially humiliating to discover that they were feds lies. I do feel sorry for him because I know this is a difficult place to be in. I think it is hard for people who weren't raised fundie to realize how much gay people are dehumanized. That is why he is having such a hard time seeing that discriminating against gay people is no different than discriminating against people because of the color of their skin. I think the best thing is for him to keep trying to defend these beliefs because the more he tries the more he will become aware of how indefensible they are. All the arguments he was taught would work to defend homophobia won't work in the real world. It takes a long time to undo a lifetime of brainwashing.

[KittenMitten]

CnD, do you have empathy? I do not mean that as a snotty question. The word empathy seems to be thrown around a lot these days, seeming to mean if you have no empathy, you have no heart. I am going with the literal definition, understanding a situation from another's point of view. So do you have the ability to see this from another's point of view. Can you see how hurtful it is to use rape as an anology? Just sit with that thought for a second. God forbid that you were raped or someone you loved was raped. Can you see how hurtful the comparison of selling flowers to a gay couple to a victim of rape is?

Can you imagine being gay? Coming out to family and friends and church folk. Can you imagine having some people who you love reject you. How much would that hurt? Living in a country that you love rejects you. Then finally the country you love creates laws that do defend your rights. You are able to marry the person you love. That is a joyous time. You get the minister, music, the hall for the reception. Then you want to order flowers for this very special day. You are told no, I will not do your flowers because you are gay. Can you actually sit and imagine how much that must have hurt?

I do hope the couple had a wonderful celebration.

Also, am I wasting my time here?

[Rainytown]

I would go to 1 Cor. 8-10 on this with the whole "meat sacrificed to idols" deal. If a sodomite couple comes to me and doesn't shove it in my face and buys a bouquet of flowers they get the flowers. If they shove it in my face and say that they want to have a "wedding" for their "marriage" - and yes, those things are being re-defined right now - then I don't really want to take part in it. Not because it really, really defiles me, but because I believe it is wrong and against nature (Romans 1) and don't believe that it's a positive thing for our society.

Barronelle, is that you?

In the meantime, "shoving it in your face" consists of a same-sex couple standing upright and breathing, according to your previous comments. You might want to check out a few other Bible verses, specifically the ones in which Christ commanded that believers obey the law. The United States does not allow "separate but equal" anymore.

Two consenting adults marrying is nobody else's business but their own. Stutzman's biggest mistake (besides her bigotry) was attempting to practice discrimination (couched in religious terminology to make it more palatable, of course) in a state that has already passed laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination. The state offered to drop the charges if she would pay a $2000 fine, $1 in court costs and agree in writing to not discriminate again. She said "no".

You bet your ass I'm gleeful about this. It has nothing to do with her (or any other bigot's) "religious freedom". It has everything to do with their belief they can continue to discriminate against others as they see fit.

[Rainytown]

In this case, the homosexual couple surely could have taken their business elsewhere and let everyone know that the floral shop was owned by bigots. Instead, they chose the legal hammer.

I'll speak slowly.

The suits in question against Barronelle Stutzman were initially brought by the State of Washington's Attorney General's Consumer Protection division. The same-sex couple is suing for (IIRC) less than $8, which was the cost in gas to go to another flower shop. They are being represented by the ACLU, whose mission is defending the Constitution.

And I still submit that your insistence any gay person is "shoving it in your face" consists of the fact they're upright and breathing.

[CloakNDagger]

I'll speak slowly.

The suits in question against Barronelle Stutzman were initially brought by the State of Washington's Attorney General's Consumer Protection division. The same-sex couple is suing for (IIRC) less than $8, which was the cost in gas to go to another flower shop. They are being represented by the ACLU, whose mission is defending the Constitution.

Don't like the state doing that, but it's better.

And I still submit that your insistence any gay person is "shoving it in your face" consists of the fact they're upright and breathing.

Nope. That's not shoving it in my face. Neither is telling me that you are one, neither is sitting next to me as a co-worker. Insisting that I celebrate it, that's where I'm bothered.

[nokidsmom]

Don't like the state doing that, but it's better.

Nope. That's not shoving it in my face. Neither is telling me that you are one, neither is sitting next to me as a co-worker. Insisting that I celebrate it, that's where I'm bothered.

Re: the bolded: Ok, one more time, how is that "insisting that you would celebrate it"? If you are in a business such as a floral shop where people get flowers for celebratory occasions, aren't you simply doing business?

[CloakNDagger]

Re: the bolded: Ok, one more time, how is that "insisting that you would celebrate it"? If you are in a business such as a floral shop where people get flowers for celebratory occasions, aren't you simply doing business?

Hey, Jim and I (Sam) are getting married this weekend and we wondered if you'd help us pick out some flowers to celebrate?! Personally, I'd probably still sell them flowers anyway figuring it'd be less trouble.

Or if you are a known activist coming to my shop on purpose knowing that I'm known around town for supporting the old laws that made sodomy illegal... mainly that. If you already know I don't support it, why give me money?

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

Hey, Jim and I (Sam) are getting married this weekend and we wondered if you'd help us pick out some flowers to celebrate?! Personally, I'd probably still sell them flowers anyway figuring it'd be less trouble.

Or if you are a known activist coming to my shop on purpose knowing that I'm known around town for supporting the old laws that made sodomy illegal... mainly that. If you already know I don't support it, why give me money?

Who said anything about known activists?

[CloakNDagger]

Who said anything about known activists?

I was explaining what "in my face" would be, in response to a question.

[ShesCrafty]

Insisting that I celebrate it, that's where I'm bothered.

I highly doubt anyone is shoving champagne down your throat and forcing you to do the chicken dance at a gay wedding. You do have a flair for hyperbole as another poster pointed out. If you don't want to learn anything from this thread (or life) and be the grumpy old uncle who won't go to his nephew's gay wedding, be my guest.

But this thread has moved way beyond the flower shop case and you are trying to ignore that because it's forcing you to answer the hard questions. FormerGothardite has asked you politely and repeatedly how you feel about the fact that the arguments you use to defend discrimination against gays are the exact same ones used 50 years ago to defend discrimination against blacks. She has shown a great deal more empathy towards you in this thread than you, a professed follower of Christ, have shown. I think you owe her an answer.

[KittenMitten]

You know what Mr. CnD? I went out of my way to get you to show yourself as having human feelings. I gave you the benefit of doubt that you may have not been exposed to The Golden Rule or to not to have been exposed to empathy. I felt kinda bad for you that you were exposed to such hatred.

Well, that makes me an as*hole and stupid. I apologize to my fellow FJ'ers that I was trying to understand CnD. You are really just a hateful person. I am sorry for you. Having such hatred in your heart and soul will just lead to a bitter and unhappy life. I also wonder what your God will think of you when you reach the gates of heaven.

Don't know what else to say.

[samurai_sarah]

I was explaining what "in my face" would be, in response to a question.

And where, in your logic, should Rosa Parks sit on the bus? She was an activist and all that...

[CloakNDagger]

I highly doubt anyone is shoving champagne down your throat and forcing you to do the chicken dance at a gay wedding. You do have a flair for hyperbole as another poster pointed out. If you don't want to learn anything from this thread (or life) and be the grumpy old uncle who won't go to his nephew's gay wedding, be my guest.

But this thread has moved way beyond the flower shop case and you are trying to ignore that because it's forcing you to answer the hard questions. FormerGothardite has asked you politely and repeatedly how you feel about the fact that the arguments you use to defend discrimination against gays are the exact same ones used 50 years ago to defend discrimination against blacks. She has shown a great deal more empathy towards you in this thread than you, a professed follower of Christ, have shown. I think you owe her an answer.

Because I fundamentally still believe that the old laws, on the books for hundreds of years, and backed by some passages of Scripture, are correct, and that sodomy, unlike being black, Chinese, etc... is still an act of sin, not a born thing. That said, I only believe it should (if the laws were still on the books) be prosecutable by two or three direct witnesses to the act, so I don't think it would be enforced very often, nor should it be. In the OT sodomy was a death sentence offense, just like murder and some other crimes, so I don't think sodomy and being black are anywhere near the same thing.

And Rosa Parks should sit anywhere on the bus she wants to.

[OkToBeTakei]

You know what Mr. CnD? I went out of my way to get you to show yourself as having human feelings. I gave you the benefit of doubt that you may have not been exposed to The Golden Rule or to not to have been exposed to empathy. I felt kinda bad for you that you were exposed to such hatred.

Well, that makes me an as*hole and stupid. I apologize to my fellow FJ'ers that I was trying to understand CnD. You are really just a hateful person. I am sorry for you. Having such hatred in your heart and soul will just lead to a bitter and unhappy life. I also wonder what your God will think of you when you reach the gates of heaven.

Don't know what else to say.

Don't feel bad.

You tried. You tried to accept a different view to your own. This appears to be lost on Cloakndagger.

I gave up on that. CND is a hate filled person using religion to excuse it. Nothing else. Religion and or ignorance I find the two neatly interchangeable.

[KittenMitten]

Because I fundamentally still believe that the old laws, on the books for hundreds of years, and backed by some passages of Scripture, are correct, and that sodomy, unlike being black, Chinese, etc... is still an act of sin, not a born thing. That said, I only believe it should (if the laws were still on the books) be prosecutable by two or three direct witnesses to the act, so I don't think it would be enforced very often, nor should it be. In the OT sodomy was a death sentence offense, just like murder and some other crimes, so I don't think sodomy and being black are anywhere near the same thing.

And Rosa Parks should sit anywhere on the bus she wants to.

You really don't know when to stop. Each post you lose more credibility. I really suggest stopping. And see if you can get a heart transplant.

[CloakNDagger]

I gave up on that. CND is a hate filled person using religion to excuse it. Nothing else. Religion and or ignorance I find the two neatly interchangeable.

I actually don't hate them. I think that there are times with it's OK to refuse service. I think EVERYONE here would have a line where they do that, they just draw the line at different points such as publishing racist propaganda for Hitler, to the point where people on this thread have said that they would choose a different profession. What if you already chose your profession and hadn't thought through the possibilities? IF, and I say IF, you understand that I still think that the act itself of sodomy is a sin against God, and that He gave the same penalty for it as murder, then you understand where I'm coming from. If my brother committed murder, I might deeply love him, miss him terribly, feel bad for him, but still not stand in the way of the punishment for his crime.

And no, I don't think that some of the things that "fundies" call sodomy are really that. Gothard for example would make m@$t3rB**** to be sodomy. I view it mainly as strictly a man with a man or a woman with a woman as Romans 1 talks about.

[twin2]

Because I fundamentally still believe that the old laws, on the books for hundreds of years, and backed by some passages of Scripture, are correct, and that sodomy, unlike being black, Chinese, etc... is still an act of sin, not a born thing. That said, I only believe it should (if the laws were still on the books) be prosecutable by two or three direct witnesses to the act, so I don't think it would be enforced very often, nor should it be. In the OT sodomy was a death sentence offense, just like murder and some other crimes, so I don't think sodomy and being black are anywhere near the same thing.

And Rosa Parks should sit anywhere on the bus she wants to.

Just our of curiosity, how many of all those old laws on the books for hundreds of years do you hold near and dear. If your brother's wife dies without child, would you sleep with her to impregnate her? do you eat cloven animals who do not chew their cud? to you mix fabrics?

Again, just curious?

[CloakNDagger]

Just our of curiosity, how many of all those old laws on the books for hundreds of years do you hold near and dear. If your brother's wife dies without child, would you sleep with her to impregnate her? do you eat cloven animals who do not chew their cud? to you mix fabrics?

Again, just curious?

I'm not sure anymore, but I think that the ones with more serious penalties are higher in priority. Lawrence Vs. Texas was about this... and it was still Texas law until judicial activism changed it.That was a clear case of rubbing it in the police's face with intent.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip) Because I fundamentally still believe that the old laws, on the books for hundreds of years, and backed by some passages of Scripture, are correct, and that sodomy, unlike being black, Chinese, etc... is still an act of sin, not a born thing. That said, I only believe it should (if the laws were still on the books) be prosecutable by two or three direct witnesses to the act, so I don't think it would be enforced very often, nor should it be. In the OT sodomy was a death sentence offense, just like murder and some other crimes, so I don't think sodomy and being black are anywhere near the same thing.

And Rosa Parks should sit anywhere on the bus she wants to.

Rosa Parks couldn't sit anywhere on the bus she wanted to, because people like you made it a crime.

[KittenMitten]

[anchor= goto=][/anchor]

Don't feel bad.

You tried. You tried to accept a different view to your own. This appears to be lost on Cloakndagger.

I gave up on that. CND is a hate filled person using religion to excuse it. Nothing else. Religion and or ignorance I find the two neatly interchangeable.

Thank you. I still do have hope. I have to think how far things have come since I was a child. But religion does screw up things.

[twin2]

I'm not sure anymore, but I think that the ones with more serious penalties are higher in priority. Lawrence Vs. Texas was about this... and it was still Texas law until judicial activism changed it.That was a clear case of rubbing it in the police's face with intent.

So in other words, you just picks and choose as it fits your world view. Gotcha. Really has nothing to do with following the word of God as outlined in the old scriptures.

[CloakNDagger]

If your brother's wife dies without child, would you sleep with her to impregnate her? do you eat cloven animals who do not chew their cud? to you mix fabrics?

Again, just curious?

LOL. I know someone who would say yes to the former. I guess if she was consenting it would be less troublesome than sodomy... :lol: but I guess our society would find it more weird. Chewing cud, in a pinch, yeah, but a lot of people think that was ceremonial law vs moral. Same for the later.

[CloakNDagger]

Most of those I know that are reformed believe that the ceremonial laws (not eating cloven animals that don't chew, mixing fabrics, etc...) were specifically for the Jews, where other things, like the Ten Commandments, things moral like sodomy, incest, rape laws were intended for everyone. The mention of sodomy in Romans 1 leads me to believe it indeed wasn't just for the Jews.

[twin2]

LOL. I know someone who would say yes to the former. I guess if she was consenting it would be less troublesome than sodomy... :lol: but I guess our society would find it more weird. Chewing cud, in a pinch, yeah, but a lot of people think that was ceremonial law vs moral. Same for the later.

No it has nothing to do with that. It is picking and choosing to follow the parts of the Bible that you want to as they justify your thoughts and actions. Those one doesn't want to, are simply ignored. The whole ceremonial vs moral law thing is just excuse to try and justify that.

[CloakNDagger]

Rosa Parks couldn't sit anywhere on the bus she wanted to, because people like you made it a crime.

No. I reject that. There were Christians who did see a difference in treatment of race and I hope/think I would have been one of them.