The Flowers and the Wedding -- Just the FACTS, please

[Cow Poke]

You do realize that doing wedding flowers is a HUGE portion of a florist's business, don't you? Are you really suggesting that a business owner refuse to sell flowers for ALL weddings in order to satisfy the selfishness of one or two people who can't possibly find a hundred other florists who would be happy to fill their needs?

That is absolute stupidity on your part to simply say "just stop doing wedding flowers".

It would seem that there would be a great market for people who wanted to provide service to same-sex weddings and events. That's getting more and more in demand, but rather than somebody stepping up and meeting that need, the CHRISTIAN florist or baker must compromise their own convictions.

[oxmixmudd]

No.



Sure you do. First, making a flower arrangement is not "participating in your wedding." But even if you think it is, all the person needs to do is stop making flower arrangements for weddings, and no one will object or have a problem. The person gets to adhere to their religious beliefs, and no discrimination is involved. Simple.

Not really. Redefining wedding to include that which many people believe immoral, and then forcing people to do business with those new types of wedding or go out of business is tyranny. Weddings are big money makers for florists, so you are requiring them to compromise what are very core and basic moral convictions or likely go out of business.

How would you like it if it were reversed? Pick any sort of purpose for an event you would refuse to participate in on principle - because that purpose violates your basic morality. then suppose supporting that sort of event targeting purposes within your moral convictions is a majority part of your business income. Then have the government say this sort of event with purpose X is legit and anyone that might happen to provide services to these events now forced to either participate when they have this purpose or no longer provide those services to any event with any purpose. Is that ok with you? Now you have to find something else to do to make a living. What if that is all you know how to do to make a living?


Jim

[mossrose]

It would seem that there would be a great market for people who wanted to provide service to same-sex weddings and events. That's getting more and more in demand, but rather than somebody stepping up and meeting that need, the CHRISTIAN florist or baker must compromise their own convictions.

Christians, in their role of being salt and light, by taking a stand against sinful behaviour expose it for what it is, and so the world hates us and tries to force us to accept that behaviour.

It's going to get worse as time goes by.

[Cow Poke]

Not really. Redefining wedding to include that which many people believe immoral, and then forcing people to do business with those new types of wedding or go out of business is tyranny. Weddings are big money makers for florists, so you are requiring them to compromise what are very core and basic moral convictions or likely go out of business.

How would you like it if it were reversed? Pick any sort of purpose for an event you would refuse to participate in on principle - because that purpose violates your basic morality. then suppose supporting that sort of event targeting purposes within your moral convictions is a majority part of your business income. Then have the government say this sort of event with purpose X is legit and anyone that might happen to provide services to these events now forced to either participate when they have this purpose or no longer provide those services to any event with any purpose. Is that ok with you? Now you have to find something else to do to make a living. What if that is all you know how to do to make a living?


Jim

EGGzackly.... as I said earlier...

If you were a baker, and somebody asked you to bake a cake with "[f bomb][N-word]", should you be obligated to comply? If somebody wanted you to create a cake depicting a naked heterosexual couple copulating, should you be forced to comply? Or would you simply give up your baking business?

[tabibito]

Stop supplying for weddings, start supplying for "Biblical Marriages"? I wonder how that would sit with the press-gangers?

[carpedm9587]

They already ARE. You just happen to agree with them at the moment.

Bigotry is bigotry, Sparko. It's pretty easily identified. Religion is not a justifiable excuse. It wasn't for black people in the 1800s, the Jim Crow era, or the Civil Rights era. It wasn't for women in the suffragette era (and today), and it's not for the gay person or other members of the LGBTQ community today.

[Sparko]

Bigotry is bigotry, Sparko. It's pretty easily identified. Religion is not a justifiable excuse. It wasn't for black people in the 1800s, the Jim Crow era, or the Civil Rights era. It wasn't for women in the suffragette era (and today), and it's not for the gay person or other members of the LGBTQ community today.

It's not bigotry to be against a sexual act and not want to legitimize it by participating in a wedding based on it.

What if they decided to legalize incestual marriages? Would it be bigotry to be against making a cake for them? It isn't right now. Or how about marrying your car? or your dog? or pedophile marriages. If they legalized that would you be a bigot if you were against it and refused to make a cake or do flowers for that wedding?

You are only calling it bigotry because you don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Well, we do.

[carpedm9587]

Yes.

Your ignorance of the wedding business is duly noted.

I actually oversee weddings as part of my livelihood, and I actually interact with florists. They don't just "make flower arrangements" - they spend quite a bit of time interacting with the couple, delivering the arrangements to the venue and setting them up, usually with candles and draperies and other accents.

And then they go on and the wedding happens without them. You can say the same things (in different combinations) about the hotel that hosts the reception, the store that rents the tuxedos, etc. It doesn't matter. If you are going to offer a service, it needs to be offered without discrimination to clients willing to pay. If you don't offer the service, then no problem.

I don't just "think" it is.

Or the couple could engage a DIFFERENT florist!

Yes, the couple can choose a DIFFERENT florist, and everybody can be happy!

The same argument could have been made (and was made) to black people about "white only" diners and bathrooms. SCOTUS has long since ruled "separate is not equal." Engaging a different florist ignores the discrimination - and permits it to perpetuate in the marketplace - creating a "separate" situation. Just as the civil rights era put an end to "white only" diners and all of the other ways black people were explicitly discriminated against, the modern civil rights battle is working to put an end to that for members of the LGBTQ community.

[carpedm9587]

You do realize that doing wedding flowers is a HUGE portion of a florist's business, don't you?

Yes.

Are you really suggesting that a business owner refuse to sell flowers for ALL weddings in order to satisfy the selfishness of one or two people who can't possibly find a hundred other florists who would be happy to fill their needs?

Yes.

That is absolute stupidity on your part to simply say "just stop doing wedding flowers".

No.

[carpedm9587]

Not really. Redefining wedding to include that which many people believe immoral, and then forcing people to do business with those new types of wedding or go out of business is tyranny.

I disagree. "It's always been that way" is not an argument based in reason.

Weddings are big money makers for florists, so you are requiring them to compromise what are very core and basic moral convictions or likely go out of business.

No one guarantees that "following your conscience" has to be easy...

How would you like it if it were reversed?

Hard to answer - and speculative.

Pick any sort of purpose for an event you would refuse to participate in on principle - because that purpose violates your basic morality. then suppose supporting that sort of event targeting purposes within your moral convictions is a majority part of your business income. Then have the government say this sort of event with purpose X is legit and anyone that might happen to provide services to these events now forced to either participate when they have this purpose or no longer provide those services to any event with any purpose. Is that ok with you?

Sometimes - following one's conscience is hard. That's life.

Now you have to find something else to do to make a living. What if that is all you know how to do to make a living?

This is not really an argument, Jim. I don't know anyone who is only capable of doing one thing. And nobody said "stop making flower arrangements."

[carpedm9587]

Stop supplying for weddings, start supplying for "Biblical Marriages"? I wonder how that would sit with the press-gangers?

Now there's an interesting thought. I actually have no problem with someone who starts a business to serve their particular religion - and only does business within the context of that religion. It would be the equivalent of someone who opens a bookstore that only stocks Christian books. There is no bigotry there - the business is focused on the religion. I can complain if you won't sell me a book because I am black or gay, but I cannot complain if you do not stock books about homosexuality or the black experience.

[carpedm9587]

It's not bigotry to be against a sexual act and not want to legitimize it by participating in a wedding based on it.

What if they decided to legalize incestual marriages? Would it be bigotry to be against making a cake for them? It isn't right now. Or how about marrying your car? or your dog? or pedophile marriages. If they legalized that would you be a bigot if you were against it and refused to make a cake or do flowers for that wedding?

You are only calling it bigotry because you don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Well, we do.

We've had this discussion before, and I disagree with you. You are discriminating against people because your bible says "if their genitals match, they can't make love." Making love - being intimate, is the act. You are holding it to be moral when done by two people with differing genitals, and immoral when done by people with matching genitals. It's not about the act - it's about who is doing it.

That is the definition of bigotry. It is identical to telling two people they cannot be married because they aren't from a matching race.

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=Sparko;639823]It's not bigotry to be against a sexual act and not want to legitimize it by participating in a wedding based on it.

We've had this discussion before, and I disagree with you. You are discriminating against people because your bible says "if their genitals match, they can't make love." Making love - being intimate, is the act. You are holding it to be moral when done by two people with differing genitals, and immoral when done by people with matching genitals. It's not about the act - it's about who is doing it.

That is the definition of bigotry. It is identical to telling two people they cannot be married because they aren't from a matching race. You are linking morality to the genetic identify of the two people engaged in the act.

What if they decided to legalize incestual marriages? Would it be bigotry to be against making a cake for them? It isn't right now.

The prohibition against incestual marriages is a matter of social/cultural habit, not a moral one. Some cultures permit marriage between first cousins, others consider it "incestuouos." The specific definition of incestuous is all over the map. Unless someone can point me to a harm done by incestuous marriages, I have no moral prohibitions against it.

Or how about marrying your car?

Funny - but not a moral issue, AFAICT. I suggest holding off on the sex unto the engine cools

or your dog?

Again, until someone can show some form of harm, I find bestiality distasteful - but not a moral issue.

or pedophile marriages.

Pedophilia is considered a disease - homosexuality is not.

If they legalized that would you be a bigot if you were against it and refused to make a cake or do flowers for that wedding?

If they legalize pedophilia, I will not be making cakes for those weddings.

You are only calling it bigotry because you don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Well, we do.

And some people want to limit what people can do because they are black. Some want to limit what people can do because they were women. Bigotry is bigotry. Religion is not an excuse.

[mossrose]

Now there's an interesting thought. I actually have no problem with someone who starts a business to serve their particular religion - and only does business within the context of that religion. It would be the equivalent of someone who opens a bookstore that only stocks Christian books. There is no bigotry there - the business is focused on the religion. I can complain if you won't sell me a book because I am black or gay, but I cannot complain if you do not stock books about homosexuality or the black experience.

So if a florist advertised that they only provide flowers for Christian heterosexual weddings because of their faith, you'd be ok if a homosexual walked in and wanted flowers for a same-gender wedding and was turned away. Got it.

What if the homosexual made a stink about it?

[carpedm9587]

So if a florist advertised that they only provide flowers for Christian heterosexual weddings because of their faith, you'd be ok if a homosexual walked in and wanted flowers for a same-gender wedding and was turned away. Got it.

What if the homosexual made a stink about it?

What I said was, if a business is created to operate within the context of a religion, I would have no problem with it. So if a florist starts a business to provide flowers for Christian religious ceremonies and rituals - I have no problem with it whatsoever.

Of course, things will get interesting when a gay couple that is a member of one of these Christian sects approaches them.