Seattle Coffee Shop Interviews; Hear what the actual players have to say.... (RBR)
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, Seattle radio personality and talk show host Dori Monson interviewed the major players in the Bedlam Coffee Shop incident and controversy.
Lets hear what they had to say.....
Jonathan Sutherland, a Christian abolitionist ...... (Monday) ( actual on air interview )
Charlene Strong, chair of the Washington State Human Rights Commission ...... (Tuesday) ( actual on air interview )
Ben Borgman, the owner of Seattle's Bedlam Coffee ...... (Wednesday) ( actual on air interview )
According to Mr Sutherland they only went in for a cup of coffee and to take a break.....
According to Ms Strong, the owner of the cafe is going to get a letter that they are in violation of state law by kicking Mr Sutherlands group out of his shop.
According to Mr Borgman, they were not distributing anything in the shop, he was asking them to leave in defense against the groups hateful and disgusting actions in and around the city. He also says that the state was wrong in their handling of the Kennewick florists case. His opinion was that the florists were well within their rights and those rights should have been respected. That gay people should not take legal action against people with opposing views, they have a right to their views and gay people should be accepting of that and move on to where they can get the services they need.
I would say Mr Borgman's position is in fact the enlightened one...
People would do well on both sides to honor and respect it.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
Trashing people, the people above or people commenting will not be tolerated, have a cogent point or don't even bother posting..... be gone if you cannot abide by this one RBR........
I listened to all 3 segments. Note that while the civil rights commissioner said that she'll be sending a reminder letter to the business owner that he can't discriminate against a customer based on their beliefs, he wasn't actually doing that. He was discriminating against them because they were spreading hate literature and offensive graphics around the city, including putting stickers and brochures on the newspaper box in front of his shop. In that regard the interview missed getting to the heart of the matter: whether discrimination against actions is the same as discrimination against religious affiliation for purposes of state law.
Also note that the "Christian" radio host was arguing with the commissioner throughout because he doesn't understand how these laws work and she does.
And while the gay coffee shop owner is free to hold the opinion that the bigoted florist shouldn't have been prosecuted in a different case (even after being repeatedly warned by the state not to discriminate against same-sex couples), as a legal matter the coffee shop owner's views are irrelevant.
If he wasn't doing that, there would be no reason to start the process with him now would there be?
The florist shop refused to perform a requested action based upon the customers belief.
The coffee shop owner was doing the exact same thing refusing to serve them based upon acts by the customer based upon his beliefs.
It would seem to me that the CRC would know the legal requirements. It is her job...
Evidently your opinion does not match the opinion of the head person assigned in the State of Washington to assert such actions under state law.
Pardon me if I go with the States Civil Rights Comissioner's opinion over yours I'm assuming that she knows more about the law than you do.....
I think it got right to the heart of the matter given the CRC started the action and announced it in public.
According to WA state law, there is no difference as long as the action is based upon a persons personal beliefs.
That could be sexual practices or beliefs, or religious practices or beliefs.
The act belies the beliefs. The two cases are identical as far as statute is concerned.
Only a lack of legal understanding can make them different.
LOL.
Actually, ALL of the court documents clearly stat that the florist refused to sell them flowers for their wedding because of the FLORISTS beliefs.
Actually, if in fact he kicked them out because of their ACTIONS, he didn't violate the law.
It's pretty ironic that EVERY other time I've seen one of these articles, the claim is that 'the gays' are targeting Christian businesses and OH how abhorrent that is. Now we are asked to believe that these 'Christians' didn't target the gay business.
Secondly, it is claimed ad nauseam that 'the gays' are the ones trying to use the government to bludgeon Christian business owners into submission. Now suddenly there is an epiphany that it is the STATE who is actually the party instigating action against the business.
It's about freaking time y'all admitted the obvious.
Well maybe for some, but not me. It has always been the government stepping in when they need to stay the fuck out of it.... Like the coffee shop owners was saying, just go somewhere else and get what you want....
Since they didn't do any prostelyzing or material spreading in his shop and that was admitted, he kicked them out for their beliefs...
And that is against the law.....
No worries, the letter is a warning and notice that they need to comply. And according to the owner they have already complied... (he's claimed he served them even after his rant) If he can prove he has then more power to them....
You claim that it isn't a violation of the law, and that he was within his rights under the law. But, the state says it is and he wasn't within his rights....
If your argument is true, then the florist was within her rights to deny service also. The Coffee shop owner, Mr Borgman gets it, why don't you?
It is about equal rights, which you cannot have in reality until they actually receive equal treatment....
THAT is the fact you wish to ignore and given your admitted bias against anything that doesn't agree with your view, it is expected... Some people rights being more important than others rights is not equality, nor is it a pathway to attain such.
The "Christian guys" didn't even say what they were or were doing, it was a store employee that brought it to Mr Borgman's attention, which sparked the rant.
The rant had nothing to do with them being in the store buying coffee.
All sides admit such.
Why do you want to change facts to suit your narrative?
Please pick one.
You keep conflating the facts.
TWO scenarios.
1. refused because of ACTIONS - OK
2. refused because of beliefs. - NOT OK
Nope, the florist's refusal wasn't about ACTIONS.
The Coffee shop owner is entitled to his opinion. I do not want his opinion to effect the protections I enjoy.
Believe me when I tell you that there is little to NOTHING that you can tell me about that subject.
Really? Please DO elaborate what you think I 'wish to ignore'.
Please block quote where in my comments that I have admitted to a bias against anything that doesn't agree with my view.
Profane!
Though I'm pretty sure your interpretation and mine are dichotomous.
Comprehensively!
Probably grossly anti-symbiotic...
In the very least we can extrapolate a symbiosis of understanding our exclusive dichotomies....
Such is the beginnings of relational understandings....