I could understand if it was a situation where a bakery was being forced to write a pro gay rights slogan on the cake but flowers for a gay wedding are the same as flowers for a straight wedding. The only reason service was refused was because she didn’t want to serve a gay couple. I see this as similar to a refusal to serve an interracial couple. I don’t understand how expecting a business to perform their normal business function for this gay couple as they would a straight couple is an issue. My first thought is that maybe it has something to do with not being an accomplice in something that is immoral but it’s the same exact goods/service.
First of all, the government should not be telling businesses whom they must serve. It’s a dangerous slippery slope because many wedding businesses are not very large and if they take on too much the quality of their services go down and they often times end up in small-claims court because that supposedly special moment got ruined by bad service.
It’s really only a matter of when not if this happens in a controlling state like Washington because rulings like these exacerbate the victim mentality.
**Secondly, **people should not be forced by the state to violate their conscience. What would happen if the state thought it was appropriate for someone from the Westboro Baptist Church to serve on GLAAD’s board in the name of diversity and if they didn’t comply, they would be fined 100,000 dollars. Sure, it’d be stupid, unjust and a bad idea. But who cares? Government, especially “educated” bureaucrats and judges, are always right.
**Third, **some of these rulings are corrupt and influenced by outside forces. Probably not enough to change the fundamentals, but enough to have harsher penalties. By comparison, when file-sharing copyrighted music was an issue and the record companies had enough and took legal action, they went after a 12-year-old kid to prove the point that no one was untouchable.
Fourth, the same people who are for this ruling would be outside burning cars and running around half-naked with signs if it were against tax-payer funding for Muslim foot-baths. Then every activist would be in virtue-signal mode. :rolleyes:
**Fifth, any court that forces a state to conduct interracial marriage or any other kind of marriage violates the 10th Amendment. Marriage is not a Constitutional right, so it automatically falls to the states. The Loving v. Virginia ruling was based as much on economics as anything else, but was still a violation of the 10th Amendment. It is not sufficient to say that because a court made the decision that it’s right. Otherwise, I’m more than happy to discuss OJ Simpson. And by that logic, if one judge in West Virginia ruled that coal mining was completely safe and environmentally friendly, we would have to accept it as gospel truth then.
Sixth, the gay “marriage” supporters have been using interracial marriage as their crutch for some time. The real question here isn’t about bakeries or florists: it’s if gay “marriage” is good, strong and powerful, why do they need all this extra attention and a baseline from straight marriages to support them? It would seem to me if so-called gay “marriages” were so strong and mighty, they would be able to stand on their own merits AND getting refused service from a little old mom and pop florist would not unravel one’s psyche to the point of them needing to go to court is not a strong stance.
In fact, my wife and I had problems with the caterers at our wedding, but it didn’t affect the outcome or our happiness. Are gay (and really other invalid instances) ‘weddings’ so fragile and frail they cannot take the slightest little hiccup? If so, why invest in or support them at all?
In terms of government, Thomas Jefferson started railing against the courts as early as 1803 because he saw them as the Achilles heal of our republic.
Overall, you keep saying “I don’t see, I can’t see”. By this we really mean if we can’t understand the decision a business makes, it should not be allowed to make them because we think its wrong…even though most people commenting on this have never run a business one day in their lives.
Our voice is in the marketplace. It’s very dangerous to use the force of government, especially the courts, to solve what we think are problems while we sit around and arm-chair quarterback what feels right.
I would also add that since this is a Catholic Forum----if we cannot see the problem with being forced to accommodate invalid weddings, then people are not looking hard enough and falling for scandal.
If it really were this grave injustice, why aren’t the activists looking into this: