Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination

[Zacs-Master]

In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/florist-discrimination-gay-couple-washington-court.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Peter Pedant]

Barronnelle Stutzman's view was that the freedom of religion gave her a power not to obey any law she wished

the washington supreme court ( rather obviously ) said - no it didnt

can you imagine a christian supplying flowers for a muslims wedding of his first wife ( permitted by our Good Lord - NT and all that ) but not wife no 2 or no 3

on the grounds that Adam married Eve but not Niamh or steve ?

no I cannot

[Ellipsis]

WHoever brought the throwing of gays off a rooftop into it - this extreme illustrates the issue very well. Refusing to serve a cake or flowers to gays is the exact same issue, on a much lesser scale. The issue is prejudice.

It goes like this: "I believe my religion allows me to exercise a prejudice against you based on your homosexuality, and this religious prejudice excuses my committing of a crime against you." Wrong when it comes to not selling flowers to somebody, and very wrong when it comes to throwing somebody off a building.

Gay rights do not trump religious rights. Gays in business are no more permitted to be prejudiced against the religious, as the religious in business are permitted to be prejudiced against gays.

[Peter Pedant]

Stutzman's objections are somewhat contorted

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/16/us/document-ArlenesFlowersWSCopinion.html

she isnt against gay men - but cannot condone same sex marriage as her flower selling business is as an arteests output and the issue ( same sex marriage - not gayness ) is cramping her style

supreme court not wearing any of it

[Zacs-Master]

Wow, 224 answers. I shouldn't really be surprised given the demographic of AB.

[Khandro]

Douglas; //in these enlightened days of equality before the law that 'gay marriage' is redundant, it's merely 'marriage'//

From the religious viewpoint, marriage is part of the created order of humanity and essential to it is procreation, and to bearing children as a result of the couple's sexual relationship. Many other relationships exist - for example, between couples of the same sex, elderly couples in later life, people who wish not to have children, but these are not life-giving marriages. The fundamental division from the Christian (and indeed all other religious discipline's) viewpoint, is not between heterosexual and homosexual relationships but between procreative and non-procreative relationships.

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, //Wrong when it comes to not selling flowers to somebody//

The florist didn’t refuse to sell flowers to the men – she’d been selling flowers to them for years – they were regular customers. Her ‘crime’ was in refusing to become personally involved with their wedding by making the floral arrangements for the occasion.

[Islay]

//Her ‘crime’ was in refusing to become personally involved //
But she didn't have to get personally involved no one asked her to get personally involved they asked her to supply flowers for a wedding not dance on attendance.

[naomi24]

Islay, supplying flowers for a wedding doesn't mean selling a bunch of flowers wrapped in a bit of paper. She'd been doing that for years. Providing wedding flowers necessitates specialist, creative skill - in other words personal involvement.

[Islay]

Rubbish Naomi I had two meetings with my florist for our wedding there was no personal involvement !! She is there to provide a service not marriage counselling!

[naomi24]

Islay, I’m not sure what the number of meetings have to do with it – these men were regular customers. The personal involvement comes in making floral arrangements specifically for a wedding which is what she appears to have refused to do. Personally I don’t believe that anyone should be obliged by law to provide a service they don’t wish to provide.

[Islay]

Well we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[naomi24]

It would appear so.

[Ellipsis]

Naomi, in this instance she did refuse to sell flowers.

I see what you're saying though. It wasn't so much the flowers as the service that went with them.

It's still the same issue, prejudice, whether it's a product or a service that's being provided.

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, I don’t think it is prejudice. I’ve never seen Muslim shop workers who refuse to serve customers with pork or alcohol accused of prejudice. Their religious beliefs are acknowledged and accommodated. Hers, however, were not.

[Peter Pedant]

.// Her ‘crime’ was in refusing to become personally involved with their wedding //

it si worth reading the judgement: here
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/916152.pdf

she was fined a thousand bucks so a crime was involved
she refused to provide a service - not get personally involved.
Clearly forgetting - "give to Caesar what is caesar's" but never mind

Her religion is given as protestant and forgive me but I dont recollect the bit in the NT which says -- "dont get personally involved in floral displays when two men wanna get married" - so Nigh remind me where it is .....

and the washo supremos say that religious beliefs clearly do not trump other laws automatically

[THECORBYLOON]

NAOMI, do you agree with this statement from a few years ago?

"The fact is - and it is a fact - no one should be affected in any way whatsoever by someone else's religious beliefs."

[Ellipsis]

Naomi it's not the shop worker it's the business. If Tesco refused to sell alcohol based on prejudice, it could be prosecuted.

Likewise in this case, if the business had provided some other individual to do the flowers, it would not have been prosecuted.

[sp1814]

naomi24

This is EXACTLY why I think the florist is on shaky ground.

If the Bible says it's a mortal sin to sleep with someone of the same sex, why is she having ANY business dealings with gay people?

There's nothing in the Bible condemning same sex marriages - just allusions to coupling (sex).

Therefore if the florist had been selling flowers to this couple in the past, I wonder how she dealt with Valentine's Day?

[naomi24]

THECORBYLOON, yes I do agree with that statement. I said it - and I’ve said it several times. However, we very clearly do not live in a world where people aren’t affected by the religious beliefs of others. The law makes sure of that – when it wants to. As the District Attorney said, gays, like the religious, are ‘a protected class’.

Ellipsis, perhaps there was no one else. Many florists are one-man bands. On the other hand perhaps this lady simply didn’t want her business involved in a ceremony that she, because of her religious beliefs, is unable to condone, so she stood by her principles.

SP, we don’t know that she was aware of their sexual orientation before they asked for wedding flowers. To assume she was would be speculation. I don’t think the notion of same sex marriage existed in biblical times. The bible simply states that sexual union between people of the same gender is an ‘abomination’, and that, I presume, is what she believes.