Posted on 09/14/2017 3:45:32 PM PDT by Mafe
This is basic fascism. You own it, but they control it (making them the real owners, even as they maintain the fiction of property rights.)
Any form of government control of property is socialism. Fascism differs from other forms of socialism only in maintaining the fiction of property rights.
But then, this is exactly what I expect from progressives.
This is basic fascism. You own it, but they control it (making them the real owners, even as they maintain the fiction of property rights.)
Any form of government control of property is socialism. Fascism differs from other forms of socialism only in maintaining the fiction of property rights.
But then, this is exactly what I expect from progressives.
“The Right to Discriminate Is a Basic Property Right”
ABSOLUTELY.
“Stupid” protected classes enumerated wrt the 14th Amendment.
Protection doesn't extend to "service." The 14th Amendment doesn't even apply to public accommodation cases. Or shouldn't ...
And yet the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ debacle drags on. Hopefully they can take this one to the Supreme court as well.
I, as an owner and against gayness, would agree. Need it this Friday? No problem. Friday have assistant run the business while I am off sick. LATER tell his gayness, “I was thinking of making that arrangement, but suddenly became very ill; throwing up, high fever, etc. Maybe it was a sign from God. How did your wedding work out?”
The purpose of this is to force Christians to choose between their faith and their job. Obviously none of this will be done to muzzies.
This is the unfairness of modern civil rights legislation. If someone in a protected class requests a service, no matter what, you aren’t allowed to refuse.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the same week said Masterpiece Bakery had to make the homosexual wedding cake, because homosexuals are protected per civil rights legislation, but homosexual businesses could refuse jobs for Christian traditional marriage groups because that was their First Amendment right.
The double standard is worse than if it was equally applied.
I see stores allowing Muslim cashiers to refuse to ring up alcohol, but the Christian cannot refuse to serve anyone else?
I would agree there should be NO different class structures or protected classes. However since this lady was doing business with him the entire 9 years she knew he was buying flowers for his butt boy, I find it a bit hypocritical she suddenly gets religion about it... if she didnt know him and he just walked in off the street, thats completely different...
Let’s say she was a t-shirt vendor/screen printer. If someone is buying pre made t-shirts off the shelf that’s one thing. Asking for a custom made shirt is another. Anyone can buy pre-mades. But you should be allowed to refuse to custom make a shirt you find offensive or against your beliefs.
Maybe, but I find it highly unlikely she made no special arrangement in the entire 9 years for this guy...esp since he was a regular customer...
Point out where I was lying or slink away if your ass can’t back up your mouth.
I never claimed she didn’t know he was a flamer. I actually pointed out the opposite. I said that she was ok with selling him flowers for purposes other than a gay wedding. The article makes that abundantly clear.
The author of the article is making the claim that a business owner should have the right to refuse to sell any product to any person based on property rights. However, that is not what the florist is doing. The florist had no problem selling flowers to her gay friend. She simply didn’t want her arrangement to be used as part of a gay wedding.
I said:
It is possible that the fag was buying flowers for his mother’s birthday, or a sick friend, or something similar. She didn’t refuse to sell flowers to him because he was gay. She refused to have one of her arrangements be a part of a gay wedding. She doesn’t hate the person, but she refuses to endorse the perverted ceremony.
From the article:
Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, refused to provide flowers for a gay friend’s same-sex wedding.
The gay guy was a friend of hers, but she refused to sell flowers for his wedding. So she doesn't hate the person, but refused to have any role in the ceremony.
From the article:
At the time of his engagement, Ingersoll had been a customer of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts for at least nine years. Stutzman, an active member of a Southern Baptist church who believed that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, knew that Ingersoll was gay and in a relationship with Freed.
She clearly has sold products to this person before. However, she does not accept gay marriage as a legitimate practice. She sold him flowers in the past - I don't know what the purpose of each of his purchases was for, but I think it is a fair assumption that it was for the usual things people buy flowers for.
From the article:
Stutzman said she “draws a distinction between creating floral arrangements — even those designed by someone else — and selling bulk flowers and ‘raw materials,’ which she would be happy to do for Ingersoll and Freed.” But she said she believes that “to create floral arrangements is to use her ‘imagination and artistic skill to intimately participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.’”
Once again, she doesn't refuse to do business with the person in general - just refuses to create artistic works for use in a gay wedding ceremony.
From the article:
Stutzman contended that her floral arrangements were “artistic expressions protected by the state and federal constitutions and that the WLAD impermissibly compels her to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.”
She clearly feels that being forced to create arrangements specifically for use in gay weddings is forcing her to condone and support gay weddings, and as such she refuses to do so.
The broader issue is the tiered morality built into modern liberalism, that others cannot set boundaries but liberals don’t see it as wrong or hypocritical if they set boundaries. So if you refuse per your religious or conservative political beliefs, that’s evil discrimination. If they refuse per their beliefs, it is moral and good and reasonable and no imposition at all.
And if they demand others obey the same rules per religious levels of investment in politics - they don’t like it and no one else should do it either - classic liberals rarely stand up to the liberal bullies, social justice warriors, because the demands for submission are wrapped in the same language of empathy and harm.
In her case, the liberal judges relied on emotional reasoning: Oh, the poor victim, you aren’t allowed to hurt their feelings. Her feelings don’t matter. In that case, it was making a wedding cake. For Christians, that’s blasphemy, while a birthday cake baring Jehovah’s Witnesses isn’t.
They even stripped her of personal immunity, not only shutting down the business but the prosecutor saying the suing party could go after her home. That was done because the prosecutor decided to punish her extra in ways no standard case is, because how dare she refuse those sacred homosexuals on their holiest day - thou shalt not dissent ever. Unfair extra penalties when you say fairness is universal standards but not when liberals say “these groups have more rights and moral weight than everyone else”.
That’s why something needs to happen to Ruthie the Communist.
Oh I fully agree there is a HUGE double standard with Libs...
I just dont see that much different if butt boy buys roses for his sweetie = good but wedding = bad... either way your celebrating “love” as the flower people like to say...
Damn straight. I've been suffering through Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States. The concept of property rights has been attcked by the left since forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.