Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination
316 Answers
In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:
https:/
https:/
Answers
A, I am not ranting. B, I have the balls to call out homophobic bigots what ever their religion ... try it for once.
09:18 Fri 17th Feb 2017
-- answer removed --
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
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
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.
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.
Stutzman's objections are somewhat contorted
https:/
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
https:/
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
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
.// Her ‘crime’ was in refusing to become personally involved with their wedding //
it si worth reading the judgement: here
https:/
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
it si worth reading the judgement: here
https:/
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.