American Atheists comment on Washington Florist case

[ubicaritas]

Religion has historically been used to justify segregation, slavery, and misogyny, and was repeatedly used in the 1960s to challenge civil rights laws. These facts are not up for debate. The florist’s discriminatory practices ‘demean’ her faith far more than anything the Washington Attorney General has said or done.

I have to agree with the American Atheist, and the bolded is especially insightful. Discrimination in the name of religion is ugly and it's been done before, and courts rejected it.

American Atheists Statement on Supreme Court’s Order in Arlene’s Flowers Case

 

[Strathos]

I think if they are selling the exact same product/service but refuse to sell it to someone based on their orientation then it's discrimination. But if they're asking for some kind of special order then it becomes more complicated.

 

[TuxAme]

From what I remember, the florist happily served one of the men for a decade. So, she didn't discriminate against homosexuals. Rather, she didn't want to be a part of their "wedding", so she declined to make a custom arrangement for it. Note that she never denied them usual service.

Secularists are too desperate to force people of faith to violate our consciences and engage in practices we understand to be morally wrong. If they were truly concerned with discrimination, then they would lament as much over the discrimination committed by the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission as they do over bakers, florists, photographers and others choosing which events they want their businesses to be associated with. In fact, I say that they should be even more concerned with the former, as a group of people used their positions of power to discriminate against the affected baker.

It's unfortunate that they, in their "enlightenment", can't grasp this point.

 

[jazzflower92]

I have to agree with the American Atheist, and the bolded is especially insightful. Discrimination in the name of religion is ugly and it's been done before, and courts rejected it.

American Atheists Statement on Supreme Court’s Order in Arlene’s Flowers Case

I am going to be honest. They treat everyone in these cases as evil bigots, who need to be stamped out and act like they banned gays from their stores.

 

[Radagast]

American Atheists are trying to stamp out freedom of religion.

Surprise, surprise.

 

[SilverBear]

From what I remember, the florist happily served one of the men for a decade. So, she didn't discriminate against homosexuals. Rather, she didn't want to be a part of their "wedding", so she declined to make a custom arrangement for it. Note that she never denied them usual service.

Secularists are too desperate to force people of faith to violate our consciences and engage in practices we understand to be morally wrong. If they were truly concerned with discrimination, then they would lament as much over the discrimination committed by the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission as they do over bakers, florists, photographers and others choosing which events they want their businesses to be associated with. In fact, I say that they should be even more concerned with the former, as a group of people used their positions of power to discriminate against the affected baker.

It's unfortunate that they, in their "enlightenment", can't grasp this point.

wow that is one big steaming pile.

Did you even read the decision?

 

[SilverBear]

I am going to be honest. They treat everyone in these cases as evil bigots, who need to be stamped out and act like they banned gays from their stores.

"This case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches."

 

[DogmaHunter]

American Atheists are trying to stamp out freedom of religion.

Surprise, surprise.

It's freedom from religion.
It's a two way street.

Surprise, surprise: you're implictly calling for a privileged position. Exactly what isn't allowed by secularism. If anything, the american atheists are just calling for upholding the constitution.

 

[Radagast]

It's freedom from religion.

Oh, I get that. You want religious people to be second-class citizens, hiding in the shadows.

the american atheists are just calling for upholding the constitution.

Well, no, actually.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh, I get that. You want religious people to be second-class citizens, hiding in the shadows.

No. Instead, I want equal rights for all - regardless of religion.
I want all citizens to be first-class citizens - regardless of religion.

To me, religion should be like musical taste. Completely irrelevant in public matters. Wheter you like death metal, reagae, blues or jazz - it doesn't matter one bit to where you can do your groceries, where you want to eat dinner, what school you wish to go too, which public office you wish to run for,.......

Well, no, actually.

Why not?

 

[Hank77]

Freedom of Religion means you are free to act upon your religious, or lack of, beliefs.
Freedom of Speech means you are free to speak or not to speak.

The Constitution forbids the government from coercing someone to act or speak when it infringes on their 1st Amendment Rights.

That is why the Lord's Prayer was removed from the public school system.

 

[Hank77]

"This case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches."

They are either ignorant or simply being divisive when making this statement.

 

[dgiharris]

Oh, I get that. You want religious people to be second-class citizens, hiding in the shadows..

No. Instead, I want equal rights for all - regardless of religion.
I want all citizens to be first-class citizens - regardless of religion.

To me, religion should be like musical taste. Completely irrelevant in public matters. Wheter you like death metal, reagae, blues or jazz - it doesn't matter one bit to where you can do your groceries, where you want to eat dinner, what school you wish to go too, which public office you wish to run for,.......
?

probably the best post ever written on this subject.

But I'm sure there are those that will find some way to misconstrue or misunderstand your point...

You can't make exceptions to our socio-economic structure based on religion.

From a mathematical basis, it would be disastrous .
In America there is "freedom of religion"
In America there are dozens of different types of religions
Each religion has its own quirks and rules and principles etc.

If I am allowed to refuse you business because of my religious belief then that means that others would be free to do the same.

You can very easily run into problems that impact the entire economy. Think of combining a Slippery Slope with a Zombie Virus.

You don't serve me because I'm gay, well then my religion says people who wear glasses are evil so I won't serve them. Then that person's religion states that women are property and can't use money so then they don't get served. Then another person's religion says that Asians are evil and thus they can't get served...

on and on and so forth...

 

[AirPo]

Oh, I get that. You want religious people to be second-class citizens, hiding in the shadows.

The projection in this post is strong.

 

[Hank77]

You don't serve me because I'm gay, well then my religion says people who wear glasses are evil so I won't serve them.

Disabilities are a protected class, the owner is not being asked to participate in their disability, therefore they are discriminating.

Then that person's religion states that women are property and can't use money so then they don't get served.

In this case gender is protected the owner is discriminating because they are not being asked to provide her with money so that she can buy something. If an owner pulled this one, let him go out of business because he surely would all on his own.

Then another person's religion says that Asians are evil and thus they can't get served...

Race is a protected class, the owner is discriminating because that is their only reason for not serving them. The owner isn't being asked to participate in anything that person is doing that the owner considers evil.

 

[jazzflower92]

"This case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches."

The problem with these analogies ifs the law forced everyone to decline all services. However, in this case, she declined a gay marriage.

 

[Mayzoo]

From what I remember, the florist happily served one of the men for a decade. So, she didn't discriminate against homosexuals. Rather, she didn't want to be a part of their "wedding", so she declined to make a custom arrangement for it. Note that she never denied them usual service.

Secularists are too desperate to force people of faith to violate our consciences and engage in practices we understand to be morally wrong. If they were truly concerned with discrimination, then they would lament as much over the discrimination committed by the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission as they do over bakers, florists, photographers and others choosing which events they want their businesses to be associated with. In fact, I say that they should be even more concerned with the former, as a group of people used their positions of power to discriminate against the affected baker.

It's unfortunate that they, in their "enlightenment", can't grasp this point.

Was she actually invited to be a part of the wedding? What part? Maid of honor? Best man? Witness? Usher? Officiant? I guess I missed where she was invited to be part of the wedding.

 

[SimplyMe]

The problem with these analogies ifs the law forced everyone to decline all services. However, in this case, she declined a gay marriage.

If I sell beanies out of my shop but refuse to sell the beanies to Jews, since I fear they might use them as yarmulkes (since I consider their religion to be evil), am I discriminating against Jews -- even though I'll sell them anything else in my shop?

 

[jazzflower92]

If I sell beanies out of my shop but refuse to sell the beanies to Jews, since I fear they might use them as yarmulkes (since I consider their religion to be evil), am I discriminating against Jews -- even though I'll sell them anything else in my shop?

Again someone who doesn't understand the scenario really misses the point.

 

[SimplyMe]

Again someone who doesn't understand the scenario really misses the point.

So how is denying service to a gay wedding (a religious event, which is why it is objected to) any different to denying service to a different religious event? Please explain to me what I'm not understanding and how the scenario misses the point; I suspect you didn't try to address that because the only difference is it is gays being discriminated against in one instance and a religion in the other (both of which are protected classes in Washington).