Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US: Second lawsuit filed against florist which refused to serve same-sex wedding couple

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Great news. Hope they sue her out of business. She shouldn’t be offering a service if she wants to discriminate.

    Like all similar cases involving religion, this is more to do with politics than religion. Nowhere in the bible does it say who you can sell flowers to. There are thousands of christian florists who happily sell flowers to gay people.

    Likewise nowhere in the koran does it say a woman must wear a burqua. Millions of muslim women don’t.

    It is all politics, politics, politics. The religions see their political power disappearing and are under threat.

    1. Remember also, she is a Christian who was happy to sell flowers to a gay couple, just so long as it wasn’t for a wedding! The gay couple had been customers of hers for years right up until the finally had the opportunity to get married.

  2. I am glad that a second law suit is being brought against her.

    She will learn the hard way that in business, you cannot discriminate.

  3. “…a business open to the public cannot use religion as a reason to justify discriminating’ Someday, this simple fact will get through the thick skulls of some business owners.

  4. If YOU us YOUR religion to discriminate, then why should any-one not use YOUR religion to discriminate against YOU.
    Seems fair, but wait for the howls of protest.
    Truly, religious zealotry rots the brain.

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2013, 2:46pm

    This is the same nonsense Tory MPs Loughton and Burrowes were defending during the EM Committee Hearings. Discrimination can be a two-way street in the public sector. If these religious nutters insist on being able to discriminate based on beliefs, then we too, anyone for that matter should be allowed to discriminate against religionists in the public sector. After all, not believing in their belief system is a belief too.

  6. keith, moral instructor to immorals 20 Apr 2013, 4:24pm

    It is not unlawful to be opposed to homosexuality. However, the law requires that homdeviants be treated equal. If it is against ones conscience to facilitate homosexual unions by offering a service, it would be wise to make up a lawful excuse such as ” sorry we are all out of flowers today” or ” sorry, we are about to close”.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2013, 4:33pm

      And it is equally not unlawful to be opposed to mentally deranged religious bigots. If it is against one’s conscience to facilitate public services for religious nutters, then we can just say “sorry”, we are unable to accommodate you because we don’t have anything available or of interest.

      1. keith, moral instructor to filth 20 Apr 2013, 4:45pm

        Morally minded people don’t usually frequent the establishments patronized by homodeviants such as gay saunas and lady Ga Ga concerts so the issue is unlikely to arise.
        Can’t the gays have their own flower shops just as they have their own bars, saunas, cruises, pilots associations, police associations, marches, etc etc.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2013, 6:11pm

          Your comment only proves how severely retarded you are. Gay people own businesses. Some are CEO’s, some are doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, financial service business owners, restaurant and hotel owners, you name it. How would a religious halfwit know the sexual orientation of any of them to know where not to do business?

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/study-belief-in-an-angry-god-associated-with-variety-of-mental-illnesses/

          1. keith, moral instructor to filth 20 Apr 2013, 7:28pm

            I could ask you the same question regarding this you said…
            “And it is equally not unlawful to be opposed to mentally deranged religious bigots. If it is against one’s conscience to facilitate public services for religious nutters, then we can just say “sorry”, we are unable to accommodate you”
            Nevertheless, homodeviants can often be identified by the fact that they are holding hands or kissing a member of the same sex in a display of public filth.

          2. Bless you, dearest Keith: how deliciously unaware you are of finding displays of affection “filth” – what it says about your own values is beyond price.

    2. Great name! “keith, moral instructor to immorals.” It goes so well with the childish name calling and the recommendation that people lie rather than stand by their principles and face the consequences.

      1. keith, moral instructor to filth 20 Apr 2013, 7:35pm

        Not everybody deserves the truth.
        Would you think it improper for instance to tell a burglar that the Jewels are in the safe rather than in the drawer if it would buy time?
        Better to tell a lie and preserve a good conscience than to facilitate gross immoral behaviour.
        Rahab the Harlot was commende in the bible for her lie which protected the Israelites spies in that immoral city of Jericho.
        Many lie to their children (children are offspring of heterosexual intercoure) about Santa and the tooth fairy.

        1. Ah, fascinating. And who is to judge who is “deserving” of the truth and who is not? I thought only Gaad is allowed to be the judge?

          Still, I’m thrilled that you have the finally courage to admit that lying is something you have no moral reservations about – it explains much.

        2. For someone who is not associated with a religion you appear to know some pretty exacting details about the bible.

          You truly are a lier. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

          1. keith, moral instructor to filth 21 Apr 2013, 11:02am

            You think you have to be attached to religion to understand the bible?
            Perhaps that may explain the woeful misinterpretations on here from the deviants, especially their take on the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

          2. What evidence do you have to support the contention that you have a superior insight into the tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

    1. keith, moral instructor to immorals 20 Apr 2013, 8:55pm

      I repeat for the millionth time, I am no attached to any religion. they are full of child molesting homosexual priests!
      I don’t know which would be worse, a completely religious society or a completely homosexual one.

      1. You are clearly not aware of this (among many other things), but ‘immoral’ is not a noun. (Well, it might be on Planet Keith, but not among those who speak English. I’m sure we will make allowances for you since, no doubt, Hebrew is your first language?)

      2. I’m sure you would like a totally intolerant bigoted society where you would fit in perfectly, get back under your rock troll, no one believes you or your filth on here.

        If your not religious please give us the link of the religious news chat where you comment using the same negative content about them.

        1. keith, moral instructor to deviants 21 Apr 2013, 5:10pm

          I have no need to prove my non religiosity. The burden of proof is on those that claim I am religious. Regardless, what bearing does my religious status have on anything about this article?
          I offered my opinion on the article. Why not challenge that as it is clear that your off topic comments are actually trolling whereas my on topic comments are not.

      3. Homosexuals (like myself) are drawn by the spiritual nature of strength in masculinity. Masculinity that is only found in the hearts and minds of real MEN. Deep down and whether any of us want to admit it or not, we all gays to one degree or another have the eyes and heart of a female when seeking someone to be with, someone to share our lifetimes with. From the fems to those that don’t appear gay (like myself) we all at root are like this. For lesbians this is equally true but from their opposite end. On the other hand and within the human race as a whole, there will always be the occasional person that is only attracted to children. Sadly these are trapped in a specific and very short time frame of their physical and psychological attraction. These are trapped in a perpetual cycle that will never allow them to experience real love. Real love that has the potential to last a lifetime.

        1. keith, moral instructor to deviants 21 Apr 2013, 5:17pm

          “Homosexuals (like myself)”
          As opposed to homosexuals NOT like your self?

          “Deep down and whether any of us want to admit it or not, we all gays to one degree or another”
          Far be it from me to argue with sound scientific reason and irrefutable proof ? Do you have the aforementioned?
          As for the rest of your prose. You sound like a pseudo intellectual minus the intellect!

  7. This is to Keith, self-appointed “moral instructor to immorals”. I am not aware of anyone in the gay community calling for a “completely homosexual society”. How dull that would be – no chance to seduce a straight young man (a friend of yours perhaps), or to shock one’s straight parents, not to mention the difficulty of getting born in the first place. It’s a ridiculous Aunt Sally, and typical of your contributions to Pink News. I can’t believe that even someone as semiliterate as you (homdeviants?) could expect to be taken seriously. But let me try this on you: The world would be a much better place if it was populated entirely by people like you. – Agree?

    1. keith, moral instructor to filth 21 Apr 2013, 4:28pm

      “no chance to seduce a straight young man ”

      This implies that ones sexuality can be influenced. I agree with this. People are not born gay, they change from the default (heterosexuality) after being subject to perverse influence, usually willingly.

      1. Noted that you seize upon a tangential remark in an effort to avoid answering Joe Mac’s direct question.

        1. keith, moral instructor to filth 21 Apr 2013, 5:01pm

          Says the person who consistently failed to explain why he thinks father and son consensual sex is wrong.

          1. dumb, but ok-father-son sex is wrong because the son is being victimized by an older man. It’s fantasy because it never happens, but apparently ol Keith got buggered by dear old dad…

    2. Dave North 21 Apr 2013, 4:53pm

      Just ignore it.

      It has major sexuality issues and is clearly a sociopath. Unable to enter into adult conversation.

      It thinks it is being clever but clearly as can be seen from the uneducated uninformed dribblings it vomits onto this fora it has major mental health issues.

      One could almost feel sorry for it, if it weren’t such an asshat.

      Like I said. Just ignore. Do not feed the troll.

      1. Dave North 21 Apr 2013, 5:13pm

        As an adjunct.

        PN. If you continue to allow this “trolling” as you clearly stated before that you would not. I will ensure that my colleagues in the CPS are informed.

        Manage your business or be closed down.

        1. Pink News complints dept 21 Apr 2013, 5:20pm

          Snigger!

        2. keith, moral instructor to immorals 21 Apr 2013, 5:21pm

          Don’t forget to inform the Gay Police Association also!

          http://www.gay.police.uk/contact.html

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all