Interesting Articles...

[JTZ]

Not sure what you mean by intrinsically wrong

Natural way?

[elit]

Natural way?

Still not understanding?

[JTZ]

Still not understanding?

I guess we look at this differently. I understand your point but disagree with it.

[elit]

I guess we look at this differently. I understand your point but disagree with it.

I meant I am not understanding what you are asking

[JTZ]

I meant I am not understanding what you are asking

I don't know how else to explain it. You make a distinction between selling flowers to a gay person and providing flowers for a gay wedding if I understand you correctly. I don't.

[skyguy918]

The point is that a gay man buying flowers is not a proclamation of the legitimacy of being gay. A gay man getting married is.

[JTZ]

The point is that a gay man buying flowers is not a proclamation of the legitimacy of being gay. A gay man getting married is.

Someone tells me they are gay is good enough for me.

[elit]

Someone tells me they are gay is good enough for me.

Makes no sense and I don't believe that you don't see a distinction

[JTZ]

Makes no sense and I don't believe that you don't see a distinction

Since when do you have to be married to prove your are gay?
As far as the distinction we just see it differently.

[henche]

Yah, this is pretty much an outrage.  People settled North America to escape religious oppression, so now instead of the majority religion oppressing the minority religions, we have the majority secular oppressing all the religions. 

I don't know how else to explain it. You make a distinction between selling flowers to a gay person and providing flowers for a gay wedding if I understand you correctly. I don't.

I should explain to you these people's religion?  You explain first to me why I'm allowed to eat on pesach fermented grapes, fermented rice, but not fermented wheat.   And then please explain why if I get sprinkled by ashes of a red cow, that makes me pure if I was impure but impure if I was pure?  You don't always get to understand other people's religion (or your own).

But the alternative to religious freedom is a bad road that the world has been down many many times.  You want to start locking people up for following their religion?  Good luck.   

[JTZ]

But the alternative to religious freedom is a bad road that the world has been down many many times.  You want to start locking people up for following their religion?  Good luck.

How did we get to locking people up? Follow your religion all you want as long it doesn't affect me.

[henche]

How did we get to locking people up? Follow your religion all you want as long it doesn't affect me.

right, so as long as I don't own any business, you're ok.

Until we decide that I also can't run a school, because my school follows my religion.  So as long as I don't own a business or send my kids to school.

In the Soviet Union, they also had religious freedom. Just you weren't allowed to coerce minors into a religion, so as long as you didn't teach anything to your kids, you were perfectly free.

I'll grant there's a tension here between the gay/lesbian desire for equality and people's desire for religious freedom.  You want to know why we should win? Because you're the side that is using government coercion.  When there's a tension like that, the government shouldn't coerce either side.  So the government shouldn't tell people not to be gay, and shouldn't tell religious people that they can't follow their religion if it means that gay people need to walk next door to order their wedding flowers. 

[JTZ]

right, so as long as I don't own any business, you're ok.

Until we decide that I also can't run a school, because my school follows my religion.  So as long as I don't own a business or send my kids to school.

In the Soviet Union, they also had religious freedom. Just you weren't allowed to coerce minors into a religion, so as long as you didn't teach anything to your kids, you were perfectly free.

I'll grant there's a tension here between the gay/lesbian desire for equality and people's desire for religious freedom.  You want to know why we should win? Because you're the side that is using government coercion.  When there's a tension like that, the government shouldn't coerce either side.  So the government shouldn't tell people not to be gay, and shouldn't tell religious people that they can't follow their religion if it means that gay people need to walk next door to order their wedding flowers.

This all started because I said it was a weak case. Not once did I say I agree or not.

Here is what I mean as long as your religion doesn't affect me. Classic example is a Jewish man that refuses to sit next to a woman on a plane and makes a disturbance. That is not religious freedom.

[elit]

Since when do you have to be married to prove your are gay?
As far as the distinction we just see it differently.

I'm not trying to be critical I just don't have any comprehension of what your trying to say it sounds like gibberish

How did we get to locking people up? Follow your religion all you want as long it doesn't affect me.

And don't follow religion all you want as long as it doesn't affect me.
Also quite a weak claim that they were unduly harmed because one flowers hop on the entire city of Seattle didn't want to do their wedding

[elit]

right, so as long as I don't own any business, you're ok.

Until we decide that I also can't run a school, because my school follows my religion.  So as long as I don't own a business or send my kids to school.

In the Soviet Union, they also had religious freedom. Just you weren't allowed to coerce minors into a religion, so as long as you didn't teach anything to your kids, you were perfectly free.

I'll grant there's a tension here between the gay/lesbian desire for equality and people's desire for religious freedom.  You want to know why we should win? Because you're the side that is using government coercion.  When there's a tension like that, the government shouldn't coerce either side.  So the government shouldn't tell people not to be gay, and shouldn't tell religious people that they can't follow their religion if it means that gay people need to walk next door to order their wedding flowers.

+1

[JTZ]

I'm not trying to be critical I just don't have any comprehension of what your trying to say it sounds like gibberish

You see a distinction between selling flowers to a gay person say for Valentines Day and selling them flowers for his wedding. I don't. Agree or disagree it is pretty simple and straightforward what I am saying.

[elit]

You see a distinction between selling flowers to a gay person say for Valentines Day and selling them flowers for his wedding. I don't. Agree or disagree it is pretty simple and straightforward what I am saying.

You can't hear it to tell point that you think it makes sense that the court should be able to force him to?

[JTZ]

You can't hear it to tell point that you think it makes sense that the court should be able to force him to?

Sorry not following this.

Here is the courts conclusion:
"The State of Washington bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the [Washington Law Against Discrimination]," the court wrote in its conclusion

[ExGingi]

Since when do you have to be married to prove your are gay?
As far as the distinction we just see it differently.

I really can't understand how civil marriages aren't counter to the Establishment Clause of the constitution.

I await the day that the SCOTUS will rule that there's no such thing as civil marriage. Marriage is a religious act.

Let states allow a legal relationship called a domestic partnership, and let that govern how people are treated from a legal perspective.

[Menachem613]

I agree. Govt should get out of the marriage business.