> “When I am the customer in either restaurant and that is my desire, do you think that I should be able to require that they serve me my desired meat, cooked by their chefs on their stoves or ovens and served by their waiters? [Not rhetorical — the situation is the same.]”

> Again. NO. Another ridiculous example, if you are a good enough customer you can demand any thing you like and of they would like to make you happy they will supply it,

So, a “good” customer is one who forces the business owner to violate his Religion? Just how good is that customer if he is telling you that you have to sin?

> The store owner in the context of her business (not her religion) expects respect.

And thus, you admit that you believe that a business owner loses his rights by starting the business, replacing his rights with “respect.” Strangely, the florist did not receive the respect that you think she should have expected. Not by the couple, not by the State Attorney General, and not by the judge.

My point is that she deserves more than just respect but her US Constitutional rights, too.

Your point has repeatedly been that these rights are forfeit the moment that she received her business license.

You are defending those who not only deny her her US Constitutionally protected rights but also deny her her due respect.

The basis of our argument is the rights of the shopkeeper v. the rights of the customer. As I keep pointing out to you, using your own words, you deny these basic rights to the shopkeeper, and now you argue that she only should expect respect. Respect is what she gave to her customers. Respect is one of the many things that she was denied in this case.

I am deeply disappointed that in my attempt to show you the light of freedom, you have merely slipped deeper into the hole of tyranny. For a while, it looked like you were coming back to freedom, but you have slipped farther. I am still offering this figurative rope to help you back to freedom.

At this point, I think that it is best that you ponder your position of favoring tyranny, and I will ponder how to better demonstrate to you, the next time this topic arises, that freedom –flawed as it is — is preferable to tyranny.

It is like falling for the argument that the Patriot Act would better protect us from terrorists, we just had to give up a little of our freedom. Unfortunately, we lost that freedom and there is no indication that we are any better protected. Instead of following leads that would have stopped the Boston bombing, they focused on invading everyone’s telephone privacy looking for non-existent leads of … we don’t know what.

> Tell that to the IRS when they insist that you pay your taxes after you sent them the letter saying that they do not have the authority to collect said taxes.

In the meantime, you may wish to re-read the US Constitution. There is a century-old amendment in which the government granted itself the authority to collect said taxes. Indeed, that very amendment lead to the excuse used to coerce us as to how to spend our own money. Yet another lost freedom. It may have seemed innocent and innocuous at the time, and seemed that it would only be used against the rich, but the Sixteenth Amendment amendment has been used to reduce many of our freedoms.
http://constitutionus.com/

” Thus, it is not allowed, under any context, for the government to violate our rights. ””

Not under any context? Really?

Tell that to the IRS when they insist that you pay your taxes after you sent them the letter saying that they do not have the authority to collect said taxes.

Just like the woman who sells flowers that tells her good gay customers that she will not be selling them flowers because she has religion and they are gay. Both may be true but you don’t walk up to the lion and smack him in the nose with “truth” and not expect him to at least bit you a little :)

Again you speak in absolute terms, there are no absolutes.

“But the store owner does not expect equality?”

The store owner in the context of her business (not her religion) expects respect.

“But once you add the context that their desire is to violate the shopkeeper’s religion, then they become unreasonable.”

No, the context is to buy flowers, which she supplies to everyone else. She pissed them off and treated them like second class citizens when she told them “Im sorry, but because you are gay I am not going to treat you just like I treat everyone else”.

“Of course she is mixing them. How does someone separate their religion from their being? ”

She does not separate them, she has her individual / personal beliefs and believes them and in addition has created a situation in another context, her business context.

” should *she* also not have the right for the customer to treat *her* as they treat everyone else? ”

NO, they are the customers and have not created the business context, they have the right to come and go as they please.

“When I am the customer in either restaurant and that is my desire, do you think that I should be able to require that they serve me my desired meat, cooked by their chefs on their stoves or ovens and served by their waiters? [Not rhetorical — the situation is the same.]”

Again. NO. Another ridiculous example, if you are a good enough customer you can demand any thing you like and of they would like to make you happy they will supply it, other wise, again a ridiculous example.

“So, the First Amendment is applicable only for certain contexts and may be voided for others? ”

You are free to say what ever you please, but if a Yankee fan is determined to express his free speech in a negative way at a Red Sox game in Boston his “free speech” may result in a physical confrontation and there may be blood. he has free speech to say what ever he pleases but the context again is the key.

“In the US Constitution, our rights are natural, and they may not be violated by the government. Thus, it is not allowed, under any context, for the government to violate our rights. ”

The government only is concerned with the equality of the situation in this context, nothing more IMO. And again I state that too much government is fundamentally bad for freedom of the people. But like unregulated capitalism or unbridled communism which are each just as deadly as the other there is no reasonable control, the court has a purpose in such situations to “reasonably” apply duly passed civil law. Freedom is not absolute.

“If freedom is so easily lost, what is this war all about? ” POWER. This is all about power.

But the store owner does not expect equality? Do you want to live in a world where some people are more equal than others?

> In this context they are not being unreasonable.

But once you add the context that their desire is to violate the shopkeeper’s religion, then they become unreasonable.

> she is mixing them

Of course she is mixing them. How does someone separate their religion from their being? You advocate that religion should be left at home, so does that permit the pious to run around violating their own religions as soon as they leave their front doors? Hindus get to eat beef, so long as they are not at home or if they go into an open-to-the-public (OTTP) restaurant? Don’t be ridiculous. People cannot not mix their religion with their person, no matter where or when they are.

> No, what changes is the context and in this example the right to be treated as everyone else in the public is being treated and to not be judged by the proprietors subjective religious values.

What did she do that violated this? She continually treated the couple just as she would have treated any other, and she did not judge her customers but served them for years — and still does. Indeed, in this context, should *she* also not have the right for the customer to treat *her* as they treat everyone else? Instead, they sued her, not anybody else.

> subjective religious values

And once again, you deny her her religious rights. Just when we were so close to agreement, you revert to tyranny. Indeed, you subjectively deny her her religious rights. You haven’t insisted that the OTTP Indian restaurant must serve beef, or the OTTP Ethiopian restaurant must serve pork. When I am the customer in either restaurant and that is my desire, do you think that I should be able to require that they serve me my desired meat, cooked by their chefs on their stoves or ovens and served by their waiters? [Not rhetorical — the situation is the same.]

> but in context, not weighed one freedom against the other where someone gets to say who’s interest is greater.

So, the First Amendment is applicable only for certain contexts and may be voided for others? Since when does the satisfaction of a desire trump the soul?

> Yes, be disturbed, that is how Islam is in the process of dominating Europe

Europe is set up differently. In fact, it is set up just the way you want us to treat our own rights.

In Europe, and pretty much everywhere else, they set up their rights as gifted to the people by the government. Thus, it is easy for the government to remove rights willy nilly.

In the US Constitution, our rights are natural, and they may not be violated by the government. Thus, it is not allowed, under any context, for the government to violate our rights. The government may not favor one religion over another, and it may not deny us the right to practice our religion, even the context of evil terrorists in Guantanamo Bay prison, their right to practice their religion cannot be denied. But somehow, the lawful (now second class citizen) florist has fewer rights than evil terrorists.

The US Constitution requires equal protection, thus if the Muslims are not assimilating in the US but are living by laws outside of US or local laws, they are in violation of the US Constitution. What you describe is an invasion of the kind that the US Constitution requires the government to protect the rest of us from. And once again, it is the selective enforcement of laws that a tyranny would allow that would allow such an invasion from a foreign culture that wishes to displace, not enhance, American culture.

It is the violation of one religion’s rights over the rights of a customer to have his own way that allows for a strong religious argument to run roughshod over the rights of all. That is why we need that equal protection of rights, equal enforcement of the law, and equal treatment that the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment requires. Once one religion can be subjugated by the government, then all of them can, or one religion can be favored by the government over the others.

For four centuries, religions have been allowed their freedom, but now you advocate that they be subject to the whims of mere customers. *This,* not the US Constitution, is how Islam could take over this country.

> attempting to be more moral than me. Take a note, that’s not how war is won.

Wonderful. Now we are at war, and the first thing lost is our freedom. If freedom is so easily lost, what is this war all about? Are we finally fighting a war without an intention of protecting our freedoms?

Next thing we know, you will be advocating for detention camps, just as we had in WWII. We really need to learn from the past, that people’s rights must be protected. Even if that person is a religious florist.

Jeez. First a florist loses her rights, then everybody does, finally people are rounded up into detention camps. See how a small violation of one person’s rights blossoms into abject tyranny?

> Again, wrong, but it is a hell of a good quote

Of course it is a good quote. It is my point.

“Ah. Now you are arguing against the gay couple. ” No I am not.

The gay couple expects equality in the context of the open to the public store (the public square), just like everyone else. In this context they are not being unreasonable. What is the context? Being treated equally in the public square not making the woman do something against her religion. The context of the woman’s personal, individual religious beliefs are one context and the public square is another context, she is mixing them, don’t confuse the two, that is the woman’s problem here. You fail here IMO.

” My argument has consistently been that freedoms must be weighed against each other when they collide.”

Yes, but in context, not weighed one freedom against the other where someone gets to say who’s interest is greater. No, what changes is the context and in this example the right to be treated as everyone else in the public is being treated and to not be judged by the proprietors subjective religious values. This does not remove or diminish the woman’s individual religious beliefs or the right to believe as she pleases.

” I point out that this issue of religious freedom and exactly where it exits is the exact strategy that Islam will use to usurp our Constitution,”

Yes, be disturbed, that is how Islam is in the process of dominating Europe, not by assimilating but by immigrating / invading and refusing to assimilate and using the Liberal laws that they find themselves immersed in, the ones that do not exist where they are originally from, as a weapon against their temporary hosts.

Their best friend in America? The First Amendment. Think about it.

“Play chess, sometime”

Yes, you loose here by misinterpreting the strategy that is being applied, your faking yourself out by attempting to be more moral than me. Take a note, that’s not how war is won.

First we eat, then civilization. That’s how the enemies of the Constitution think and that is how we must also drag ourselves to think again. Immersed in our freedom we begin to believe that that is reality, that is not reality but a fantasy.

“You’re welcome. It makes my case nicely.”

Again, wrong, but it is a hell of a good quote and if you can agree with what it says then there may be hope for you in the long term. Hopefully before its too late.

> Anyone’s personal individual rights and freedoms are theirs alone and when an individual chooses to drag their personal and individual rights and freedoms into the public square and call it “freedom” in the same context and that the two contexts are equal then that is just another word for chaos and creates the potential for abuse of power and is the place where discrimination hides under the cover of the word “freedom”.

Ah. Now you are arguing against the gay couple. They have dragged their rights into the florist’s shop, then they dragged it to the state and even to the ACLU. These institutions are now discriminating against the florist because of her religion.

> Yours, mine , anyone’s freedoms are not absolute in all contexts.

We have long been in agreement on this point. My argument has consistently been that freedoms must be weighed against each other when they collide. The problem with all freedoms being absolute in all contexts is that resolution becomes impossible. In such a case there would be no weighing of more important rights, such as the freedom of religion, thought, speech, or redress of grievances over the freedom from minor inconveniences, such as having to go to another shop if the current shop is unable to supply the customer’s desires (e.g. the shop is out of roses, or the desire violates the First Amendment rights of a shop worker — your link showed many examples of how shops, such as Target, and customers are able to amicably resolve minor differences without government getting involved).

I knew we were closer in agreement than we thought. However, I am a little disturbed by:

> I point out that this issue of religious freedom and exactly where it exits is the exact strategy that Islam will use to usurp our Constitution,

So, because you disagree or are afraid of one religion, all religions must suffer? Do we Americans *have* to become tyrants in order to prevent one religion from usurping our Constitution?

Indeed, once we go down the road you advocated, where freedoms can be violated on a whim, the door opens for Islam to be able to usurp our Constitution. As long as *all* religions have freedom in the United States, then *all* religions will have freedom, not just one religion. Once one religion can be violated, then any and all (but one?) will be violated.

Play chess, sometime. It forces you to look several moves ahead, and to seriously consider what your opponent is likely — or trying — to do to you.

> Thanks for the compliment, this is a direct Cotour quote

You’re welcome. It makes my case nicely.

As an example, raw capitalism without structure and limits is just as deadly and abusive as communism. The founders provided structure for the government as well as the people in the Constitution in order that they be able to have their INDIVIDUAL freedom and governance with the ability to have context.

Yours, mine , anyone’s freedoms are not absolute in all contexts. And the extension of absolute freedom and the blending of the two contexts is an abuse and misinterpretation of the kind of freedom that the founders believed they could accomplish.

Personal and individual freedom is transformed in the public square. I still await for your’s and other’s light bulb moment.

PS: Thanks for the compliment, this is a direct Cotour quote:

“The founders did not design their scheme of governance for one free individual to create a situation when exercising their freedoms another individual would be deprived of their freedoms. We are all as INDIVIDUALS born equal related to our freedoms.”

PPS: As an extension of this conversation I point out that this issue of religious freedom and exactly where it exits is the exact strategy that Islam will use to usurp our Constitution, they will use religious freedom as the weapon of the Constitution’s own destruction. That is the ultimate result if your interpretation of this issue is adhered to. Chew on that for a while.

> Do you think that you might be being a bit of a hysterical drama queen?

No. That is why I pointed out that people try to escape tyranny. They prefer freedom, even if they live behind an iron curtain.

> Yeah, everybody, bring your religion and its demands and biases to the work place and insist that by law everyone must abide by its crazy assed rules and regulations!

No. I pointed out very clearly that people may vote with their feet, and that the businesses that are less tyrannical are the ones that will survive in a free marketplace. The more tyrannical ones will survive only in the tyrannical marketplace.

> No dogs, no pork, no alcohol, no uncovered women, no Jews of course, no Muslims, no what ever the hell unreasonable thing they please at the cost of all others.

Go next door, and you are a welcome customer. Next door survives.

> Lots of no’s going on in your America, what a fun and fancy free America you dream of.

A lot more “no” goes on in tyrannies. And that fancy free America did very well, ever since about 1605, when free markets arrived. We have good records from the 20th century that the noes of tyrannies killed (order of magnitude) 100 million people, whom they discriminated against, and a lot of killings happened in tyrannies before then. How many customers have been killed by shopkeepers in the free market countries?

> I have provided you with real world outside of the cranium evidence of what the actual results of exactly what you hold on high are, and I am unreasonable?

No, you are reasonable but wrong. You see a place that is not a utopia and assume that utopia is possible, if only we could control people into being virtuous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwz_Z62e0s (8 minutes)

Instead, We the People could individually reward those we believe to be virtuous instead of giving the government the tyrannical power to choose the virtuous for us. What if the government chooses wrong? Tyrannical governments often *do* choose wrong, resulting in the murders of the previously mentioned 100 million (in the last century, alone).

When we let the government choose the good from the bad, then (as with the French), they believe that they may eliminate the bad in order to preserve only the good. Strangely, the people that the government chooses as being “the good” are those who agree with the government. Thus, correcting a tyranny becomes very difficult, as those advocating change away from the government’s form of discrimination tend to be eliminated (killed, just like that previously mentioned 100 million).

Now I ask you: “I have provided you with real world outside of the cranium evidence of what the actual results of exactly what you hold on high are, and I am unreasonable?”

American freedoms may not be perfect, but their flaws are correctable, unlike the flaws of tyrannies. Tyrannies must be destroyed in order to be changed, and they are rarely destroyed from within.

Your link demonstrates my point, thank you. The shopkeepers are hard at work finding ways to accommodate everyone’s needs and rights, although some people were mildly inconvenienced. That is the beauty of competition in the free market system; the customers want the shopkeepers to protect everyone’s rights and will stop shopping where the shopkeepers violate rights. The solutions may not have been perfect, but the government did not need to tyrannically decree that anyone’s rights be violated (such as happened to the florist).

Finally, your quote has also been my point all along. The Founding Fathers knew that rights would conflict and that they would have to be balanced, but they believed that the balance could come without a tyrannical violation of any one person’s rights. Otherwise, it would have resulted in “a situation when exercising their freedoms another individual would be deprived of their freedoms” (as happened to the florist, when the government became tyrannical and violated her rights so that her customer would not be mildly inconvenienced — their rights weren’t even being violated).

It seems that we are in much closer agreement than we believed. It is just a matter of whether the government should get involved and be allowed to tyrannically violate one person’s rights, against the intention of the Founding Fathers. I believe the answer is “no,” because such power quickly gets out of hand, freedom is lost, and government starts to violate rights with great ease. You seem to believe the answer is “yes,” because it is too inconvenient to go down the street to a shop that should be encouraged to stay in business.

Do you still choose tyranny?

“I exaggerate a bit about the tyranny.” Do you think that you might be being a bit of a hysterical drama queen? Lots of exclusive inside the cranium reality your working with.

Yeah, everybody, bring your religion and its demands and biases to the work place and insist that by law everyone must abide by its crazy assed rules and regulations! No dogs, no pork, no alcohol, no uncovered women, no Jews of course, no Muslims, no what ever the hell unreasonable thing they please at the cost of all others. Lots of no’s going on in your America, what a fun and fancy free America you dream of.

I have provided you with real world outside of the cranium evidence of what the actual results of exactly what you hold on high are, and I am unreasonable? I guess the application of the scientific method does not apply here?

Here’s a little more reality for you, American style. This and other things like it that you and everyone else apparently support under the cover of Constitutionally protected rights in the public square are in reality what threatens to in the long term to destroy America :

http://pamelageller.com/2012/03/islamization-of-the-workplace-wegmans-adheres-to-sharia-halal-checkout-line-for-muslim-cashier.html/

“The founders did not design their scheme of governance for one free individual to create a situation when exercising their freedoms another individual would be deprived of their freedoms. We are all as individuals born equal related to our freedoms.”

I forgot to mention: the above is also in answer to your comment, above, at February 28, 2015 at 8:54 pm.

And yet, you would have government make all these choices for us in a totalitarian process that eliminates freedom, instead of letting We the People choose through the free market process that works so well.

How many of those people, in those free market countries, had nowhere else to go, no alternatives? If they had been in totalitarian countries, where would they have gone for their alternatives?

In the preferred free market system, We the People get to choose the winners and the losers. In the vile totalitarian system, the government chooses the winners and losers, choosing its friends as the winners and its foes as the losers.

Under the tyranny, everyone discriminates against the victim. Under free markets, the victim can find many who will help and protect them. Even many shopkeepers will help.

I exaggerate, a bit, about the tyranny. Examples of victims finding help even during a tyranny include the underground railroad (where many of the helpers paid dearly when caught helping) and the Civil Rights Movement (where the price was not so dear). Generally, however, the tyranny wins, as happened with most slaves and Jim Crow laws in the US (before the Republican helpers won the day), and various holocausts in NAZI Germany (where the US eventually won the day), the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and other places and times in history (where and when the tyrannies won the day).

Do you still choose tyranny?

1. http://forward.com/articles/203302/belgian-doctor-denies-refusing-treatment-to-jewish/

“did not now Mrs. KLIEN was Jewish.”

2.http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/israeli_woman_refused_service_at_florida_gas_station_called_killer_by_atten

The manager sent sincere apologies and assured me that this would never happen again.

3. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4612205,00.html

This person is no longer a human being?

4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10654957/Arizona-passes-law-allowing-shopkeepers-to-refuse-to-serve-gay-people.html

“state sponsored discrimination?” And what about the Muslim pharmacist that refuses to dispense medication for the Jewish infant? Or visa versa? Another solid reason why a segment of the American public despises the Republican or Conservative movement and can never support it.

5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527820/Marks-Spencer-tells-Muslim-staff-CAN-refuse-serve-customers-buying-alcohol-pork.html

Now this IS the slippery slope and the other edge of the blade, a corporate rule made especially and only to exempt Muslims from selling pork or alcohol to the customers of this major store based on THEIR religious beliefs. Ain’t that a kick in the American ass.

6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-408912/Unclean-guide-dog-banned-Muslim-cab-driver.html

And again, and over and over until our American freedom has turned into what? These are examples from the real world.

Can she refuse anyone she finds offensive to her religion?

http://punkelectrofashi.tumblr.com/post/32272600632/august-8-2012-maria-jose-cristerna-mexico

If this woman who displays satanic pentagrams for all to see on her horns entered the flower store like anyone else off the street and wanted to purchase flowers could she refuse to sell to her?

> then by doing so she demands the other person live by her standards.

In fact, it is the other way around. The customers went to another shop and continued to live by their own standard. It was the customer and the state that are now requiring her to live by standards that they set for her. Fr the same reason, their freedom of commerce was not denied to them.

> but when she brings her beliefs to her work place and that work place is open to the public and she applies her religious standards to another

This brings back the question of putting up Christmas decorations at an open-to-the-public workplace, such as a store. Are they no longer allowed? Do you have them at your place of business?

It is you who wants rights to be absolute. You assign the customers’ rights as absolute; he gets to take his rights outdoors and into an open-to-the-public workplace, but the shopkeeper loses her rights when she leaves her house.

> That does not mean that the woman is being denied her religious beliefs or is being forced to do anything other than treat her fellow Americans, her fellow human beings equally.

Actually, it *does* mean that she is being denied her practice of her religious beliefs. If she cannot practice them properly, she does not have them. Would you deny Muslims their practice of prayer if it mildly inconvenienced someone else, such as taking up a portion of a park, causing others to not play in an out of the way area for the duration of the prayer? What if the Muslim were in an open-to-the-public workplace at prayer time?

Why don’t you think that customers should get along with shopkeepers?

All the onus is placed upon the shopkeeper, who respects the customer’s lifestyle without participating in that lifestyle, yet the customer has no duty to respect the shopkeeper’s religion. They are able to actually, really, and willfully violate her.

Once again, your position is that a person’s rights must be lost when they choose to deal with the public, such as step outside their front door.

Your position continues to support tyranny, not freedom. The customers retained their freedom, but the shopkeeper’s freedom was removed.

Once the government is allowed to remove her right to her religion, then they can limit her right to speak freely.

I will take the short way this time.

The founders did not design their scheme of governance for one free individual to create a situation when exercising their freedoms another individual would be deprived of their freedoms. We are all born equal related to our freedoms.

The woman as an individual is free to believe in what ever religion she desires but when she brings her beliefs to her work place and that work place is open to the public and she applies her religious standards to another and denies them their freedom of commerce then by doing so she demands the other person live by her standards. That does not mean that the woman is being denied her religious beliefs or is being forced to do anything other than treat her fellow Americans, her fellow human beings equally.

That is my interpretation, that is how I live my life and that is how I operate my open to the public business.

If it would make you feel better and me say the state government is tyrannical for their actions, then so be it. I will concede and I have no problem saying that as a rule the more government their is in general the worse it is for individual freedoms. I think our major problem stems from me including and attempting to explain how the government gets involved in the first place.

Good weekend.

Cotour,

I think I finally understand your position. As a business owner, you see the importance of keeping the customer happy, and you are willing to invoke the government to make sure that all businesses operate in a successful and fair manner.

As you wrote before, “the light bulb goes off in your head and you will be contacting me and tell me that you finally understand my well thought out and defended point here.” This is me telling you that I finally understand your point, but I disagree.

We cannot let our government become a tyrannical ruler over us, even to prevent minor and temporary injustices, so I disagree with this position for the following reasons:

1) What is fair?

This is an important yet unanswerable question and goes right to the heart of what is an injustice. There are as many definitions of fairness as there are people.

Is it fair that the shopkeeper must choose between her religion and her business? Is it fair that your hard earned money is taken from you so that others can choose to be unproductive all their lives? Is it fair for those people to remain in poverty all their lives despite all the money confiscated from you? Is it fair that America borrows money only to saddle the repayment onto children who are too young to complain? Is it fair for government to make your choices for you?

When the government gets involved, the government is only fair to the people that the government prefers. We already know that the government discriminates. The IRS discriminates against conservatives in favor of liberals.

With fairness being in the eye of the beholder, it is impossible for any business to be all fairness to all people all the time.

2) Government is not the best determinant of what is best for the public

You, Cotour, have complained that, without government intervention, a business may choose to discriminate against one group of people. So what? If that discrimination is such a bad idea, then everyone should stop shopping at that business until it either changes policies or goes out of business, just as they do with every other company that does not provide the goods and services at the prices and with the service that they prefer. Allowing this discrimination sounds cruel, but it is not nearly as cruel or tyrannical as the alternative: letting the government do the discriminating.

When government, not the shopping public, chooses the winners and the losers, then instead of getting the best run businesses, we get the businesses that conform to the discrimination that the government prefers. Such as the discrimination that the flower shopkeeper is experiencing from the State of Washington and the judge.

Institutional discrimination is the kind of discrimination that should not be allowed, but We the People should be allowed our freedom of association, including the businesses that we frequent. Should we be coerced into buying a product that we don’t want?

Were you in favor of Jim Crow laws, or apartheid? We are beginning to get these same types of policies in the US. Affirmative action is institutionalized reverse-discrimination that looks like apartheid, and the ruling that the shopkeeper may not follow her religion looks like Jim Crow laws in reverse. Two wrongs still do not make a right, so reverse discrimination is a bad idea; it legitimizes institutionalized discrimination.

3) Government should not tell businesses how to operate.

Look what happened when government took over GM and Chrysler in order to keep them from going bankrupt; they went bankrupt. Government does not know how to successfully run a business, so to allow them to tell us how to run our businesses is a bad idea.

Government has taken over the banking industry, and we can’t get our economy moving again.

Government has taken over medicine, and the emergency rooms are more crowded than ever; costs have increased, not decreased; and every aspect of American life has been adversely affected.

Government has taken over the internet so that it can be as free and as fast as possible — which it already is!

4) Freedom is where the innovation is.

This is why we are exceptional. It is not the people who are exceptional. We are not better than everyone else, because we come from everywhere else; we ARE everyone else. It is the freedom to innovate that makes America exceptional, and if we lose our freedoms, then we become as unexceptional as everywhere else.

We must have the freedom to fail. Otherwise, we will be prevented from trying new and innovative things.

If all businesses must operate the same way, then there is no innovation for better methods of operation, better products, or better prices.

5) Tyrannies perpetuate injustices.

Tyrannies are only interested in remaining in power. To do so, they must prevent their citizens from gaining power, and that requires that they keep down the people in any way necessary. Often through intimidation and well publicized punishments, such as the IRS does regularly in order to ensure that We the People comply with their demands on us.

Slavery ran rampant for centuries in monarchies and other tyrannical nations. It was when the citizens gained more power that they were able to eliminate that unjust institution in other nations. The US suffered from a dependency on slavery that required more that political power to free the slaves, it required that millions of people risk life and limb to free them, but we were free to let the government know that this is what we wanted to do. Jim Crow laws were instituted in order to prevent former slaves from gaining power, and it took great effort through the freedoms of We the People to eliminate those injustices, too. If We the People did not have power, Jim Crow laws would still be in effect.

In a post, yesterday evening (way far up above), Pzatchok points out that the majority tends to rule, and his example was the majority ruling that polygamy is illegal. His point seems to be that this could be seen as an example of a tyranny of the majority. My point is that a tyranny of the majority can only be overturned if a minority of We the People are free to speak out and explain why such a law is unjust. This is why our First Amendment freedoms are so important.

6) The judge’s summary judgment voids all aspects of the First Amendment.

It violates the shopkeeper’s freedom of religion, her freedom to associate, her freedom to express herself through her art, and her right for her side to be heard by the government that is supposed to protect all these rights.

Does our brand of freedom give complete freedom to all people all the time? No. But it gives more freedom and allows for better resolution of conflicting rights than any other form ever tried. We need to regain the freedoms and the government that we had, not so long ago, so that we can have the most freedom possible and to be able to correct injustices.

A person could refuse service/sale on religious grounds if they could prove they were an active member in good standing of such a religion.

If you think about it from this angle we have been forcing the beliefs of the majority on the minority for along time.

Think of it from the angle of the Polygamists.
Its their religious belief that a person can marry as many others as they want. The majority stopped this by outlawing that practice. Even though in my opinion it was wrong to do so. No one was harmed unless they were forced into the lifestyle.

I can see this law being overturned in the future because it is restrictive of a religion and causes no harm outside the participants.

But that does not mean I should be forced to cater their weddings if its against my religion.
Otherwise we would be able to force Doctors to perform abortions against their will.

Its tantamount to forced servitude.

And suing them over 7 some odd dollars, the cost of going to the other store, is stupid.
If we could do that then I could sue every store for not providing the same prices as Wallmart and or not providing the same products thus forcing me to go someplace else.
I would be able to put hundreds if not thousands of mom and pop stores out of business just out of spite.

Rights are a misunderstood concept, in today’s America.

We have the right to do virtually everything that we do. However, some people believe that when we have the right to do or have something, it means that someone *must* provide for that activity or must provide that thing.

In reality, rights are not provided to us. Rights mean that we are at liberty to do or obtain things, and having rights definitely does not mean that a specific person or business must provide anything. We may have the *right* to have everything that we want, but we can’t, in reality, *have* everything that we want. We have the right to live in a mansion, but if we cannot afford it, then we don’t get to live there.

Because governments tend, over time, to usurp the rights of their citizens, the Founding Fathers, at the urging of several of the states, agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution stating that the government may not take away a specific list of some of the rights that tyrannical governments most commonly usurp (tyranny being the natural direction that governments take, because “A government is a body of people, usually, notably, ungoverned.” – Shepard Book, “Firefly”).

One of the important functions of government is to peacefully resolve disputes. This is a case of two rights conflicting with each other, as in “My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose, ” meaning that people have freedom to do what they want until it impacts on someone else’s rights to do what they want. The State of Washington got involved to resolve the conflicting rights between the flower shopkeeper and two of her customers.

The question before the court boils down to: is the shopkeeper’s right to practice her religion more important than her customer’s right to a service that violates that practice. The court ruled that the right to practice her religion is of lower importance, and the customers may insist that her religion be violated.

In this case, the government has ruled that the shopkeepers right to freely practice her religion had to be abridged in favor of the convenience of her customer.

Many of us reading and responding to comments on this site believe that the constitutionally protected right to practice religion is of greater importance than the right of a customer to receive a service that violates that religious practice.

Further, because the customers are able to receive that very same service from another vendor, it is especially egregious that the government sued, much less ruled that the shopkeeper must violate her religion for her customer’s minor convenience. Although the customer has a right to the service and a right to the convenience, the right of the shopkeeper to keep her religious beliefs intact, without violation, is more important than the right of the customer to be slightly inconvenienced in order to obtain the desired service.

Many of us believe that both the State of Washington and the judge who ruled without hearing the shopkeepers side of the story (another constitutionally protected right of hers that was violated) were wrong and tyrannical in their actions. There is even the suggestion that their actions were vindictive – which would make these people monstrous in their dereliction in their duty to protect the rights of their citizens (another important function of government).

In addition, I am appalled that the ACLU prioritized the convenience of the customer over the constitutionally protected rights of the shopkeeper.

Finally, the way that free markets work – a part of the American way – is for businesses to freely choose the goods and services they provide, the prices they charge, and the methods of doing business. Customers freely choose which goods and services they buy and from which businesses. This generates competition among the businesses which results in businesses surviving and thriving based upon the quality of their products and the desirability of their services, operating methods, and prices.

This has been part of the American way for centuries, and it has worked well. The practice of the American way has resulted in a great increase in the quality of our lifestyles, and has even resulted in injustices being rectified. Once we stop prioritizing important rights, then those rights can be easily lost – even the right to freedom.

For instance, who is to say that the government will not eventually rule that the homeless must be enslaved in order to protect them from starvation, disease, and exposure to the elements? The concept of slavery for their own good is not new, and was used to ill effect for centuries. But if We the People are not able to dispute our government, then such a ruling would go undisputed. This is why we must protect our most important rights and not let them slowly erode away. And we must not let one group of people hijack the functions of government in order to lord over the rest of us.

Ooh ooh… here come the free speech issues…

I never claimed you were. you replied to my comment, not the other way around. ;)

I suspect that the sum of $7.91 is a way to cover the “standing” issue

And I am “pissant” ?

Do you have a mirror?

I have from the age of 22 built and run 3 businesses from scratch, the one I own and run right now, which I deal with the public every day in pretty much the same context as the flower lady does which is why I understand this issue to the degree that I understand it. I have been successfully operating my current business for 23 years going on 24 and I am in the process of establishing my next next venture as we speak. I am well vetted on the subject of business operation and dealing with the public.

You seem to see the issue from the get go in absolute terms without any room for someones “freedom” position to change due to their actions and context, that is a conclusion that is incorrect.

Your need for me to be “wrong” is very strong on this subject, trust me I am not. Also your need to disparage and demean me does not positively move the conversation forward in any way shape or form and I am surprised that Mr. Zimmerman allows you to conduct yourself as such on his web site.

See what I mean? ;)

You are obviously not a business owner either. Had you ever built a business from scratch yourself your attitude would be very different. Try getting out of your mother’s basement for a breath of fresh air.

> I am not the fascist here

Well:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism?s=t

You are advocating a system in which the government dictates how the shopkeeper must run her business; you have suggested that the state should be allowed “to make an example of the flower lady,” which can easily be seen as “forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism” of the couple’s lifestyle; and since you believe that the customer may, at a whim, require that the shopkeeper violate her religion, the customer has complete power over her.

Ed’s conclusion is a reasonable one, considering your arguments on this topic. I, too, believe that you are advocating tyrannical and unreasonable behavior over the victimized shopkeeper. It is why I have been asking you to climb out of the hole of tyranny that you have fallen into. It may be comfortable for you, down there, but that comfort is the trap.

> IMO none of you have made any real headway against my premise.

I fail to understand why the First Amendment should be trumped by your premise. You have yet to explain how your position is consistent with the US Constitution.

Perhaps your premise is scattered over too many comments, and we have missed the “actual well thought out and supported communication” nature of it. Clearly, you have not been convincing. Could you please restate your position, in its entirety, in one comment and supply the support, including references or links to the US Constitution and any other documents or references that support your position?

I think it would help if you were to specify what you think were the violated rights of the couple, so that we will better understand the seriousness of the shopkeeper’s behavior and compare that to the shopkeeper’s First Amendment rights.

This should give you the opportunity to clarify the parts that confuse us, so that we no longer think that you advocate tyranny over liberty.

> Where does her religious right to deny other free to choose individuals end?

Excellent question. You would have it end with the couple having to be mildly inconvenienced, yet it *should* end at a point that is an equal or greater violation of rights that are also guaranteed by the US Constitution. Does that make sense to you, Cotour? That greater rights take precedence over lesser rights or even minor inconveniences? It seems quite reasonable to me.

Otherwise, we would have a problem resolving free speech issues with the problem of people being offended by the speech. You, Cotour, seem to agree that speech is of high enough importance that a George Mason University official should not punish a student for exercising his right to free speech. This case is very similar in the different levels of offenses.

The free speech issue is a classic example of where you and I, Cotour, agree. Since the magnitude of the offenses is similar, we should also agree on the florist case. I do not see how your position is so different between the two cases, given the similarity of them.

This is why everyone here is having such problem with your position. The dichotomy of your positions is confusing. Now that’s something for you to think about. Free speech equates to free religion, in this dichotomy. Having to listen to offensive language equates to having to go to a different shop. Free speech and freedom of religion are protected rights, but freedom from offence and freedom to shop *only* at a particular shop are not.

In this case, the apparent harm to the couple was merely to exit one shop and to support a business whose values were closer to their own. One has to wonder why the couple did not choose to frequent the second shop rather than the first, why the second shop was not preferred. Instead, they, the state and the ACLU have chosen to reject her religion, which undoubtedly makes her feel bad.

I am neither small, nor a pissant, nor a religious zealot , nor gay, nor a Liberal, nor a Democrat and I am repetitive because you all come at this situation with a knee jerk reaction and without IMO properly understanding your position and its implications, and restating the actual facts may serve to get you to think.

In addition for the most part most of the people who are having a problem with my position seem to agree with me on many other positions that I post here on this site. Now that’s something to think about. Ask Edward, were really buddies but don’t seem to agree here, yet.