Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 194

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

  1. #21
    tWebber phank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,080
    Amen (Given)
    6
    Amen (Received)
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Hmmmm... our "relationship" is one of supplier/buyer, and isn't, and hasn't been, "social". I would politely decline "raising a glass" to your same sex wedding, yes.
    So I take it I could be married for years, and you'd be happy to share some time with me, so long as my marital condition was not the point of the get-together? Let's say the occasion was my same-sex spouse doing something noteworthy - graduating from college, or getting published, or cutting an album, etc. Would that disqualify us?

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Xtian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,165
    Amen (Given)
    114
    Amen (Received)
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    From all I have been able to tell, when they asked her to do the wedding, she explained she couldn't. They, at the time, told her they understood, and respected her position. It was subsequent to that that the State Attorney General got involved, then the ACLU, and they were off to the races.
    Before the State AG got involved, both men posted about it on facebook, which triggered all the public attention. Otherwise it would have been unlikely to have become sensational.

  3. #23
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,480
    Amen (Given)
    11870
    Amen (Received)
    25274
    Quote Originally Posted by Paprika View Post
    Before the State AG got involved, both men posted about it on facebook, which triggered all the public attention. Otherwise it would have been unlikely to have become sensational.
    Didn't know that.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  4. #24
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,480
    Amen (Given)
    11870
    Amen (Received)
    25274
    Quote Originally Posted by phank View Post
    So I take it I could be married for years, and you'd be happy to share some time with me, so long as my marital condition was not the point of the get-together? Let's say the occasion was my same-sex spouse doing something noteworthy - graduating from college, or getting published, or cutting an album, etc. Would that disqualify us?
    Phank, as I've stated numerous times, my "right hand man" at my previous job was an atheist lesbian Jew. I knew her significant other quite well, and she would come to company outings and Christmas parties. I got along with them quite well, and my executive admin was jokingly referred to as my "work wife".

    If there had been parties or events celebrating or recognizing their lesbianism, I would have declined, and they would have understood.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  5. #25
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,548
    Amen (Given)
    8409
    Amen (Received)
    5367
    Quote Originally Posted by phank View Post
    So do you think it would have been acceptable for her to do the standard florist stuff, but agree not to have her name mentioned?

    Not having internalized any of the religious faith stuff, I really don't know if Jesus would frown on her providing flower to celebrate the wedding. But I would guess that even if she kept her role secret, she'd know in her heart that Jesus would know what she did and, I don't know -- what DOES Jesus do to you if you screw up?
    1) How, exactly, do you ensure such a condition? The florist would have to buy packaging without their name on it - an added expense and find a delivery vehicle without their name on it. And ensure no one at the venue would recognize them - it's an absurd proposition.

    2) You don't remember Daniel and the Lion's Den? We are to worship God and God only. We are to honor Him in all we do - and aiding in the mockery of Holy Matrimony, even in cognito, dishonors Him. And yes, He knows it. When we sin, He is quick to forgive - but we must repent. That means we decide consciously not to do that thing again - so this is no loophole. You can't pretend to repent and a florist trying to please both God and the sinners determined to continue their sin will only manage to hurt themselves. The particular sin isn't at issue - same would be true if the florist did a mock wedding for an adulterous couple. God is not mocked and NEVER 'winks' at sin.

    The CRA has now been taken to ridiculous extremes and endangers the protections of the Constitution itself. It should be repealed, but will likely be overturned instead.

  6. #26
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    14,548
    Amen (Given)
    8409
    Amen (Received)
    5367
    Quote Originally Posted by Paprika View Post
    Before the State AG got involved, both men posted about it on facebook, which triggered all the public attention. Otherwise it would have been unlikely to have become sensational.
    However, it couldn't get very far in the courts without the couple's cooperation. May not have been intended as a test case but it's turning into one - and they do have some control of that.

  7. #27
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,480
    Amen (Given)
    11870
    Amen (Received)
    25274
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    However, it couldn't get very far in the courts without the couple's cooperation. May not have been intended as a test case but it's turning into one - and they do have some control of that.
    There was definitely an indication in the reading I've done that they were "pushed" into moving forward with the law suit. Not sure of the chronology on this -- that's what's missing.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  8. #28
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    And the latest news, the state Supreme Court ruled against the florist, pushing the case (assuming they appeal) to SCOTUS. The wedding cake ruling was very narrow - so perhaps this time they will rule on the more general issue.

    However, with a 5-4 conservative majority, the odds aren't in favor of the plaintive.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  9. #29
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And the latest news, the state Supreme Court ruled against the florist, pushing the case (assuming they appeal) to SCOTUS. The wedding cake ruling was very narrow - so perhaps this time they will rule on the more general issue.

    However, with a 5-4 conservative majority, the odds aren't in favor of the plaintive.
    looks like it went to SCOTUS, they kicked it back down to the state supreme court and the state SC just ruled that they did nothing wrong in their first ruling and according to the article "did not take SCOTUS seriously" - so it will probably go back to SCOTUS.

    A state law regarding discrimination against sexual orientation can't override the constitution. The first amendment overrides any laws made against it.

  10. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  11. #30
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    looks like it went to SCOTUS, they kicked it back down to the state supreme court and the state SC just ruled that they did nothing wrong in their first ruling and according to the article "did not take SCOTUS seriously" - so it will probably go back to SCOTUS.

    A state law regarding discrimination against sexual orientation can't override the constitution. The first amendment overrides any laws made against it.
    I'm not seeing a first amendment issue here, any more than the diner owner denying service to the black man in the Jim Crow era was a first amendment issue. Discrimination is discrimination, whatever it's justification.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •