Posted on Feb 17, 2017
Washington’s Supreme Court Imposes Its Progressive Faith on a Christian Florist
706
32
7
2
2
0
Please read the entire article. The distinction between status and action is not insignificant. Your status at birth should not harm your constitutional protections under the law. But your activities should not override another citizen's constitutional protections. I hope the supreme court reverses this dangerous precedent.
Washington’s Supreme Court Imposes Its Progressive Faith on a Christian Florist
Posted from nationalreview.comPosted in these groups: 
1st Amendment
Constitution
1st Amendment Constitution
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
So what's next a pharmacist that doesn't believe in organ transplants refusing to give immunosuppressant drug because it against his religion.
How far down the road is Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and other religions she doesn't believe in. Should she be aloud to discriminate against them also?
How far down the road is Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and other religions she doesn't believe in. Should she be aloud to discriminate against them also?
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Did you read the article? I'm afraid you've missed the point. She DID make flower arrangements for gay people. She never discriminated against anyone based on religion, race or sexual preference. The point of the article is differentiating between status and action. Actions have never been protected before. This ruling would change that.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
Col Joseph Lenertz - sir I did, she did sell them to "gay" people everyday but would not sell to a "gay" wedding. What makes that OK? The analogy still stands. The pharmacist sells you aspirin everyday!
(0)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
PO2 Robert Aitchison - A hypothetical based on a made-up religion. What if your religion required a dog to be sacrificed on the altar at your wedding...could you force the local shelter to sell you dogs to kill?
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz - No, because it is illegal to kill animals and there is no religious exception to the animal cruelty laws.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It seems to me that when one enters the commerce stream, one loses the right to discriminate. f the florists designs floral arrangements for anyone for pay, she should then be obligated to design floral arrangements for everyone for pay, regardless of gender, sexual preference, religion, political view, etc. etc. etc.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Okay so I read the article and the comments and let me ask my question like this.
I do photography on the side to make a few dollars every so often. I have done photos for weddings, graduations, baptisms, engagements and other events. I enjoy doing it. I see it as my way to help others capture those special moments. Now, here is my question, would I be at any more fault than this lady if I refused to do photos for a couple? I am the business "owner" if you will and yes I've turned down several requests mainly because of scheduling but (and this hasn't happened yet) if I was asked to do photos of a wedding and said no based on my personal feelings could I be in trouble?
To me, its a difficult question to answer. On one hand, I want to welcome everyone but I do have a "contract" that people agree to saying that I refuse to do anything that would put myself or my camera rig in danger. That isn't the same as saying I wouldn't do it based on moral context of the event but makes one wonder.
I do photography on the side to make a few dollars every so often. I have done photos for weddings, graduations, baptisms, engagements and other events. I enjoy doing it. I see it as my way to help others capture those special moments. Now, here is my question, would I be at any more fault than this lady if I refused to do photos for a couple? I am the business "owner" if you will and yes I've turned down several requests mainly because of scheduling but (and this hasn't happened yet) if I was asked to do photos of a wedding and said no based on my personal feelings could I be in trouble?
To me, its a difficult question to answer. On one hand, I want to welcome everyone but I do have a "contract" that people agree to saying that I refuse to do anything that would put myself or my camera rig in danger. That isn't the same as saying I wouldn't do it based on moral context of the event but makes one wonder.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google