As for the whole ‘marriage means different things to different people’ and ‘moral relativism’ I would only say, It’s pretty clear to me that men and women are uniquely designed for one another, that together they can create new life, that the reproductive system of a man and a woman are so clearly designed for one another, hence there is no ‘equality’ with same sex marriage and marriage does not mean a bunch of different things, it’s just a lot of confused people out there who lack common sense or close their eyes to it for the sake of fulfilling their own desires.
One down
I haven’t said or implied anything about morality. I’ve mentioned cultural/societal changes and differences.
I’m sure most within this forum will agree with your views on marriage. Aspects of this case include deciding on rules for dealing with these conflicts and where someone can be denied service. This cake conflict is one of many that has come up. Others have included whether or not someone can be denied service at a restaurant for being gay, fired from a job, kicked out of the military, denied medical services, and others. New rules have formed from some of these conflicts. After the cake and flower issue is settles we will probably see more cases to establish other rules over time.
Which I think is fine, but most of the time I see/hear it, it’s in the context of moral relativism (That’s how I believe most people will take it), as Pontius Pilate, what is truth? what is marriage? and I believe people use it to throw their hands up in the air and just cave into whatever.
It’s one thing to say all this, but it’s another to put it to a case. I may not be very good with words, but when someone appeals to ‘fairness’ and the law, sorting out the legality of it all, and then we read stories of Asher’s Bakery getting sued, and some florist getting sued simply because they don’t want to participate in a same sex wedding, I have to call bulls&^t.
So they sued her. And found a sympathetic judge.
They found one of the vast majority of Washington State judges that follow Washington State law.
Where does WA State law list prohibit discrimination against events. Events are not people.
What’s the difference between a heterosexual wedding and a homosexual wedding?
The Klan member refused service has a good case. They should pursue legal remedies.
Well, one of them is a wedding and the other isn’t.
The difference is that it is not a sin to be of a different race or gender of one’s own whereas engaging in homosexuality is.
I think these lawsuits have more to do with making a political statement than they do with wedding cakes or flowers.
One is contrary to Catholic teaching and one is not.
Under what grounds?? That the printer refused service to white people.
Washington State law is not based on Catholic doctrine. The only difference between a heterosexual wedding and a homosexual wedding is the participants are straight in one case and gay in the other. Providing flowers to straight people for weddings but not to gay people for weddings is textbook discrimination.
There could be an argument that Klan materials are political and therefore not protected, or related to religious beliefs that might be protected. I’ll admit I’m not up on my Klan definitions or case law in the area enough to really argue this point one way or the other.
What if the florist refused two straight men who were “getting married” to each other for immigration reasons?
You asked what the difference was, and I provided the answer.
Klan material, by definition, is related to race, and one race in particular.
You said it was okay to discriminate against events. I asked what the difference was to make a point. You provided a Catholic doctrine-based answer which is irrelevant to WA law. The difference between a straight wedding and a gay wedding is that the participants in one are straight and the participants in the other are gay. Providing flowers to the participants in a straight wedding but not the participants in a gay wedding is discrimination.
I suppose this presupposes that the state has some kind of right (as opposed to sheer power) to interfere with the woman’s right to make an honest living.