Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

The best solution would be if homosexuality will be prohibited again. Otherwise faggots are getting more and more impudent.



Lawyers for a Christian florist vow a vigorous appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a state supreme court ruled unanimously Thursday that their client violated anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.

All nine justices ruled for the state of Washington and plaintiffs Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed and against Baronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts.

“Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” wrote Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud in the court’s opinion.

The court further stated that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not infringe upon Stutzman’s freedom of religious expression.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Stutzman, begs to differ.

“They’re wrong,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued Stutzman’s case before the Washington state Supreme Court.

“We’re deeply disappointed with today’s court decision,” Waggoner told WND and Radio America. “The First Amendment protects Baronelle’s rights as a small business owner and a creative professional. She has loved and respected everyone who has walked into her store. She served this gentleman (Ingersoll) for nearly 10 years and simply declined an event, one ceremony that was a religious ceremony because of her religious convictions.”


Read more at Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war
Entrepreneurs invest their own cash flow and time into their business. Should be able to refuse anyone.
 
Should florists be forced to accommodate booger-eaters and booger-eating?
Same exact thing.


Are booger-eaters and booger-eating listed in Public Accommodation laws.

You equate booger-eating with being black (Race), Jewish (Religion), French (National Origin), old (Age), female (Sex) or gay (Sexual Orientation)?
Booger-eating should be now that homosexuality is. Booger-eaters need only to generate a lobby and point to homosexual acceptance as an exclusion, discrimination.
Or would you rather use Dred Scott as a precedent, an example of your logic?
 
Booger-eating should be now that homosexuality is. Booger-eaters need only to generate a lobby and point to homosexual acceptance as an exclusion, discrimination.
Or would you rather use Dred Scott as a precedent, an example of your logic?


"My logic" is what the law is, not what it should be.

Current (including all local, state, and federal) Public Accommodations law that apply to private entities should be repealed and rights of property and association returned to private business owners. They should be allowed to discriminate based on any reason they choose including race, religion, national origin, sex, age, and sexual orientation. Remaining Public Accommodation laws should only apply to the functioning of government entities and restrict their ability to enter into contracts and procure goods and services from businesses which operate in a discriminatory manner.

What the law is and what the law should be are two different things.


>>>>
 
Booger-eating should be now that homosexuality is. Booger-eaters need only to generate a lobby and point to homosexual acceptance as an exclusion, discrimination.
Or would you rather use Dred Scott as a precedent, an example of your logic?


"My logic" is what the law is, not what it should be.

Current (including all local, state, and federal) Public Accommodations law that apply to private entities should be repealed and rights of property and association returned to private business owners. They should be allowed to discriminate based on any reason they choose including race, religion, national origin, sex, age, and sexual orientation. Remaining Public Accommodation laws should only apply to the functioning of government entities and restrict their ability to enter into contracts and procure goods and services from businesses which operate in a discriminatory manner.

What the law is and what the law should be are two different things.


>>>>
And Dred Scott used to be law.
 
And Dred Scott used to be law.


Actually slavery was the law (in some states) and a Constitutional Amendment after the Scott case barred States from having slaves. Dred Scott was a court case during the period slavery was legal. Slavery was even acknowledged before the Amendment with the 3/5's compromise in Article 1 Section 2 of the unamended Constitution.



>>>>
 
And Dred Scott used to be law.


Actually slavery was the law (in some states) and a Constitutional Amendment after the Scott case barred States from having slaves. Dred Scott was a court case during the period slavery was legal. Slavery was even acknowledged before the Amendment with the 3/5's compromise in Article 1 Section 2 of the unamended Constitution.



>>>>
You just reaffirmed my point.
 
Booger-eating should be now that homosexuality is. Booger-eaters need only to generate a lobby and point to homosexual acceptance as an exclusion, discrimination.
Or would you rather use Dred Scott as a precedent, an example of your logic?


"My logic" is what the law is, not what it should be.

Current (including all local, state, and federal) Public Accommodations law that apply to private entities should be repealed and rights of property and association returned to private business owners. They should be allowed to discriminate based on any reason they choose including race, religion, national origin, sex, age, and sexual orientation. Remaining Public Accommodation laws should only apply to the functioning of government entities and restrict their ability to enter into contracts and procure goods and services from businesses which operate in a discriminatory manner.

What the law is and what the law should be are two different things.


>>>>
doing business in public accommodations is a privilege; and must conform to our supreme law of the land. you may want to read the preambles, sometime.
 
Booger-eating should be now that homosexuality is. Booger-eaters need only to generate a lobby and point to homosexual acceptance as an exclusion, discrimination.
Or would you rather use Dred Scott as a precedent, an example of your logic?


"My logic" is what the law is, not what it should be.

Current (including all local, state, and federal) Public Accommodations law that apply to private entities should be repealed and rights of property and association returned to private business owners. They should be allowed to discriminate based on any reason they choose including race, religion, national origin, sex, age, and sexual orientation. Remaining Public Accommodation laws should only apply to the functioning of government entities and restrict their ability to enter into contracts and procure goods and services from businesses which operate in a discriminatory manner.

What the law is and what the law should be are two different things.


>>>>
And Dred Scott used to be law.
politics interfering with the "performance" of the judiciary?
 
And Dred Scott used to be law.


Actually slavery was the law (in some states) and a Constitutional Amendment after the Scott case barred States from having slaves. Dred Scott was a court case during the period slavery was legal. Slavery was even acknowledged before the Amendment with the 3/5's compromise in Article 1 Section 2 of the unamended Constitution.



>>>>
States' authority to "manufacture new slaves" ended in 1808 when they ceded their former, States' sovereign right, to control immigration into the State in favor of the general government for the Union.
 
No, he reaffirmed my.point and you're as dumb as he is.
It's about bad law and the selective objection thereof.

actually, the law is perfectly fine.

If you are a bigot who wants to use the bible to hide your bigotry, you have a remedy.

Don't be a business a gay person might want to use.
This has nothing to do with the Bible.
This is about left wing fascism forcing irrelevant behavior onto others. This is about bad law allowing for fascism.
 
Booger-eating should be now that homosexuality is. Booger-eaters need only to generate a lobby and point to homosexual acceptance as an exclusion, discrimination.
Or would you rather use Dred Scott as a precedent, an example of your logic?


"My logic" is what the law is, not what it should be.

Current (including all local, state, and federal) Public Accommodations law that apply to private entities should be repealed and rights of property and association returned to private business owners. They should be allowed to discriminate based on any reason they choose including race, religion, national origin, sex, age, and sexual orientation. Remaining Public Accommodation laws should only apply to the functioning of government entities and restrict their ability to enter into contracts and procure goods and services from businesses which operate in a discriminatory manner.

What the law is and what the law should be are two different things.


>>>>
doing business in public accommodations is a privilege; and must conform to our supreme law of the land. you may want to read the preambles, sometime.
Which is exactly how slavery was justified.
 
This has nothing to do with the Bible.
This is about left wing fascism forcing irrelevant behavior onto others. This is about bad law allowing for fascism.

Uh, no. it's about public accommedations being available to the public.

All of the Public.

So just like I can't refuse service to Christians, (which would be a bad idea, anyway, because their money is as green as anyone else's) the Christians can't refuse service to gays.

Simple how that works, no?
 

Forum List

Back
Top