WA florist who is being sued by the state for her religion files countersuit

I see education is needed once again:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a forceful statement Wednesday condemning racism, "including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church."

The statement came in response to a Washington Post political story about Mitt Romney's run for the presidency and his faith's former ban on giving black men the priesthood. The story included reported comments from a popular BYU religion professor that included personal speculation about the former ban. Many Mormons were upset by Professor Randy Bott's reported comments and some considered them racist.

"The church's position is clear," LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said. "We believe all people are God's children and are equal in His eyes and in the church. We do not tolerate racism in any form."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ism-inside-and-outside-the-church.html?pg=all

 

Absolutely right.If a restaurant owner wants to refuse to serve blacks or whites or asians or whatever,, that should be his right.

Just ridiculous that we ever let the government get involved with it anyway.

Now for public entities, different matter altogether.

 

The issue is framed differently in law. If you hold yourself out as a purveyor to the public, you are supposed to serve the public.

There are two possible harms here. A person seeking the offered goods/services is harmed if they are refused for discriminatory reasons. On the other hand, a person who wants to discriminate is harmed if they are forced not to.

Our laws regard the first harm as the worse, and seek to prevent such typically undeserved and malicious harm, even at the cost of the second.

 

what you do with you do with your willy should be a private thing, and has nothing to do with it

 

Can you sue a Muslim restaurant for not providing halal free meals?

- - - Updated - - -

Can you buy pork in a Muslim restaurant?

 

What about the Constitution is a 'backwards belief'?

 

So, if she renames the business to include the word Christianity or Catholicism, she should be ok to deny serving homosexuals. You can't walk into a Muslim restaurant and order pork or other non halal foods and expect to sue them when they deny you.

 

YEs, we are WELL educated that the LDS church has a huge, powerful well funded PR department to spread the current "party line" about the LDS church, unhampered by any truths or reality.

Hey, why don't we ask some of the numerous blacks in the LDS "Missionary Class" pictured in the article you posted?

Let's see, now, there must be at least one somewhere in there in such an "inclusive, unprejudiced" church, hmmmm.....

 

Not really. The law says that an offer can be revoked for any reason. A contract is not valid until it is accepted by both parties. In this case, the florist is not preventing a gay marriage by her refusal to provide flowers for it. The couple has alternate resources. Even then, that would only be valid if one believes that flowers at a wedding is a right. The florist is not preventing them from having flowers at their wedding much less preventing them from getting married.

From the florist's point of view, however, the first amendment states that the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If the govt can force the florist to provide flowers for a gay wedding, I don't see why they would not be able to force a rabbi, priest or minister to perform the ceremony itself.

 

What a ridiculous assertion. A florist shop is not required to provide ALL possible flowers or arrangements to be non-discriminatory.

The law does not specify what you HAVE to sell to the public you advertised to when you publically claimed your business provided "wedding flowers".

A business need merely sell what they sell to everyone else to be perfectly within the law.

 

A private business can turn anyone away as they wish.

 

Oh BS, No one is harmed if some racist doesn't want to serve them a hamburger, they are merely INCONVENIENCED .

 

The issue is not one of "violating a contract".


The issue is one of "false advertising". They advertise "wedding arrangements", and I bet they say "flowers for all occasions" too. People come to the business expecting to be able to buy flowers, and when the shop refuses their business based on irrelevant BS, the customers undergo public humiliation and a waste of their time, and the public square is suject to the public spectacle of racism, at least as obscene an act as a guy whipping out his wiener on the sidewalk.

No one is "forced" to provide service. She can close her shop and turn it into a private business, and advertise it in private venues like Stormfront, Tea Party conventions and the like, which is more appropriate anyway if it is going to be a "religious" exercise, which means it is not a business anyway.

 

So if, say, a hotel was owned by a black person and the local KKK chapter decided to hold a conference there, and they paid in full, you think he should be forced to host them?

 

This is such a stupid issue. Nobody is asking the flower shop to attend the wedding much less drop their religion and marry somebody they don't want to marry. They provide a product, and it is none of their business what the customer does with the flowers once they buy them.

What idiocy is this that selling flowers to somebody condones any and everything they do with them?

We have a nation crumbling at our feet and this is what the courts need to be wasting their time with? Honestly grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up. You sell flowers, sell them, and sell them without discriminating or playing supreme being of the flower in your domain. If you don't want to do business with law abiding citizens, turn in your business license. You do not deserve to have one in a free nation.

 

So you can't dispute anything they said nor can you provide a single document or case where they have used racism as a church.

Why am I not surprised Dave?

BTW, if I went to a Hindu conference how many white people would I see? Does that mean that they are racist against white people? The stupidity of the logic you are using is just sad.

 

And I have provided direct quotes from the leadership that states they are not racist and condemn racism. Do you have to have a conference from the Pope before you realize we don't sacrifice goats anymore as well?

Last time I checked a black person can't have a news conference and announce they are white. You insult the struggle of all races who strive for equal rights by comparing them to a behavior you can't even prove is natural or genetric in any way shape or form.

You have to be kidding. I have science. You remember science do you not? There is a biological sexual reaction in all humans when reacting to sexual stimuli. The body prepares for reproduction a strictly heterosexual response. Until you can prove that gay men stop producing sperm and gay women stop ovulating spare us all the pathetic claim that homosexuality is in any way genetic. Its an insult to common sense and science.

 

actually, thats the only thing the government can do.

Its part of the 1968 civil rights laws.

 

^ What is wrong with folks like this guy? Why can't people see the big picture rather than focusing on " they are interfering with people who are doing something I agree with?"

And please don't think I'm saying this is either a liberal or a conservative problem, because it is not. I can think of issues on both sides where many people are either pro or con a topic based simply on that topic rather than the question of "should the government have a say in _____________"

The fact of the matter is the government shouldn't be involved in 50% (a conservative estimate) of the things discussed on this board , and it is astounding to me that we see the very same people in one thread screaming that something isn't the government's business then they are in the very next thread screaming that something else IS the government's buisness, when in fact NEITHER of them are .

 

Exactly. It's absolutely terrifying that some people think it's perfectly fine for the govt to force people to do something with their own talent and abilities that goes directly against their chosen religion. I don't understand someone who stomps his foot and insists that the govt recognize his personal relationship, but to insist that other people support it is insane.

 

I should be able to buy what anyone else can buy in a 'Muslim' restaurant that does business as a public accommodation.

 

Its so laughable when you can tell that someone is of a race and station in life that they never have experienced or considered the experience of being publicly thrown out of a business because of their particular race or sex.

Many of these men who consider that the situation to be a "inconvenience" would probably come back with their guns to blow away a business that had thrown them and their wife and kids out on the street and seen the shock and tears on their children's faces as the kids learn that they don't measure up to be "acceptable" in a public business.

 

oh , so you wish to force people to do business with blacks and gays even if they don't want to because you fear that blacks and gays might commit violence against people who don't want to do business with them?

See, I have more faith in blacks and gays ability to respond like mature adults than you do

 

Is there some special reason that when you're being so snide, anyone should care even slightly what you declare to be an 'insult?'

You're logic seems lacking, btw. What does the production of gametes have to do with what stimuli provoke a sexual response? When sexually aroused you say the body prepares for reproduction. That is you assigning purpose to physical reactions. The reactions are just physical, and intend nothing. They may or may not precede sex acts, which may be of a wide variety of sorts, which may or may not result in reproduction.

I assume you never shave? After all, if you are male, you were intended to have hair on your face.