Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

[koshergrl]

Lol. Follow the law or go to jail Fatty. I can't believe that I had to tell you that

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

You have the right to keep Homosexual's out of your church, but not your business.

Nobody kept homosexuals out of any business. They just refused to create artwork and place it for a ceremony they consider sacrilegious.

 

[koshergrl]

You know they've lost when they start making up things.

1. The couples were not degraded or humiliated. The florist has had a loving and vibrant relationship with her customers for 9 years and says she still loves them. The couple did not file the complaint. The STATE did, when they heard about it.
2. Nobody was evicted from a shop, nobody was discriminated against for being gay. The artisans simply did not want to create works of art to be used to showcase and endorse an event they consider an affront to God.

 

[koshergrl]

""The attorney general's targeting of Barronelle was unprecedented," Waggoner said. "He has had 18 months to end the threat to our client's freedom and livelihood. It is interesting that this offer only materialized after his crusade to ruin this 70-year-old grandmother was exposed nationally."

Florist Who Refused to Do Flowers for Gay Wedding to Appeal - ABC News

There are a lot of very bigoted Leftist attorneys general across the country, the Duke Lacrosse scandal being a good example. Most attorneys general use prosecutorial discretion to avoid witch hunts and the application of the law where no real harm was done. But then there is a special kind of asshole who uses every power of their office to crucify people they consider to be ideological foes. This is one of them.

No real harm? The gay couple was humiliated and degraded because of the relationship they engage in. Harm does not have to be physical.

Right. They were immediately seen by someone else. They are real martyrs alright.

They still were discriminated by the Florist and they suffered damages from that interaction. That's the law buddy.

No, they weren't discriminated against, and the couple didn't suffer damages. The couple didn't even file a complaint.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

""The attorney general's targeting of Barronelle was unprecedented," Waggoner said. "He has had 18 months to end the threat to our client's freedom and livelihood. It is interesting that this offer only materialized after his crusade to ruin this 70-year-old grandmother was exposed nationally."

Florist Who Refused to Do Flowers for Gay Wedding to Appeal - ABC News

There are a lot of very bigoted Leftist attorneys general across the country, the Duke Lacrosse scandal being a good example. Most attorneys general use prosecutorial discretion to avoid witch hunts and the application of the law where no real harm was done. But then there is a special kind of asshole who uses every power of their office to crucify people they consider to be ideological foes. This is one of them.

No real harm? The gay couple was humiliated and degraded because of the relationship they engage in. Harm does not have to be physical.

Right. They were immediately seen by someone else. They are real martyrs alright.

They still were discriminated by the Florist and they suffered damages from that interaction. That's the law buddy.

No, they weren't discriminated against, and the couple didn't suffer damages. The couple didn't even file a complaint.

Hey Kosher, how do you feel about the Christians lying so they don't have to bake cakes for *** weddings? Perfectly okay right?

 

[bodecea]

I think that post #2101 sums up why the East sees us as the infidels. It's because we seem very willing and rapidly so of late, to completely chowder core values of our society as if we were taking off an old pair of good work overalls and swapping them for yoga pants. It's the ease and the speed with which Americans are abandoning key moral principles...oh, and while being the most heavily armed nation conventionally and with nukes on the planet.

If you have even a modicum of ability to put yourself behind the eyes of an objective onlooker, you would see that even the most tolerant of perspectives might see this runaway freight train here as a huge global threat. Sure, right now we're keeping a lid on the simmering pasta pot of hedonism, but as with any pot at that threshold, it stands ready to overboil the minute you turn your back.

We must not argue to redact basic values of decency. Men using other men's anuses as pretend vaginas is not a decent or right or moral or sane thing to do. Neither is overeating where you weigh 300lbs or more. Neither is rolling in opulence while your neighbors house falls apart and their kids go hungry. Neither is violently beheadding people. Neither is ...well...you all know instinctively what is right or wrong. Or you should. And if you don't it's because the core of your society has gone rotten and there's no more frame of reference for you to see what is right or wrong.

And hence the unforgivable, unmitigatable and permanent sin of incorporating homosexuality as "the core of society's values" (via marriage, the core of society's values)..

Like "lying" as a bad thing.

 

[bodecea]

So in order to avoid this "sin" of yours, you'll lie? Got it. Really Jesus, stop crying, we know they have nothing to do with you, nothing at all.

And little one, there is only one unforgivable sin, Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Look it up.

As you know, I don't lie about homosexuality. You are heavily engaged in lying about it. I am not. And that's what pisses you off about me.

How do we know you aren't lying now?

 

[Syriusly]

No American is obligated to follow unjust laws.
.

True- but American's who dont' follow the law by calling them unjust can look forward to going to jail.

Just look at those who claim the income tax is 'unjust'.

So, are you implying someone who 'discriminates' against a gay couple based on their religious beliefs should be sent to jail?
\.

No.

Then why is it so hard for you to accept that there are religious business owners who would much rather not serve people who engage in practices they deem sacrilegious?

There are all kinds of things I would rather or rather not do, but it would be against the law. If the citizens of the state don't like the law, they should petition their government to change it. But it is still the law.

Or do like gay couples and gun owners have done- go to court to argue that the law is unconstitutional.

Both are perfectly acceptable ways to respond to any law that any American feels is unjust.

 

[Syriusly]

So in order to avoid this "sin" of yours, you'll lie? Got it. Really Jesus, stop crying, we know they have nothing to do with you, nothing at all.

And little one, there is only one unforgivable sin, Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Look it up.

As you know, I don't lie about homosexuality. You are heavily engaged in lying about it. I am not. And that's what pisses you off about me.

You lie constantly about pretty much everything.

 

[Seawytch]

Lol. Follow the law or go to jail Fatty. I can't believe that I had to tell you that

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

No American is obligated to follow unjust laws.

There is no end to the examples down though history where 'I was just following the law', turned out very, VERY bad for people who were disinclined to use the mind God gave 'em, to use their means to reason to reject subjective law.

But in their defense, they did so because they reason subjectively, thus reject the objectivity that is required to be a decent human being.

Not quite. You are obligated to follow the law whether you consider it just or not. You may choose to not follow the law, but that does not remove the consequences of that decision.

Obligated to follow the law even when it's unjust? I'm sure the Nazis would have loved to have you on the panel of judges during the Nuremberg trials. You might have prevented a few hangings.

Mmmmm, hyperbole flakes.

Public Accommodation laws (which have been "on the books" since 1964 and have withstood Constitutional challenge) are "just like Nazis".

 

[bodecea]

""The attorney general's targeting of Barronelle was unprecedented," Waggoner said. "He has had 18 months to end the threat to our client's freedom and livelihood. It is interesting that this offer only materialized after his crusade to ruin this 70-year-old grandmother was exposed nationally."

Florist Who Refused to Do Flowers for Gay Wedding to Appeal - ABC News

There are a lot of very bigoted Leftist attorneys general across the country, the Duke Lacrosse scandal being a good example. Most attorneys general use prosecutorial discretion to avoid witch hunts and the application of the law where no real harm was done. But then there is a special kind of asshole who uses every power of their office to crucify people they consider to be ideological foes. This is one of them.

No real harm? The gay couple was humiliated and degraded because of the relationship they engage in. Harm does not have to be physical.

Right. They were immediately seen by someone else. They are real martyrs alright.

They still were discriminated by the Florist and they suffered damages from that interaction. That's the law buddy.

What damage did they suffer? They had to go to another florist? They targeted this florist intentionally. Only on the immoral Lefts is the aggressor turned into a "victim".

They "targeted this florist intentionally" by going to her for 9 years. Listen to yourself lie.

 

[Seawytch]

Lol. Follow the law or go to jail Fatty. I can't believe that I had to tell you that

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

You have the right to keep Homosexual's out of your church, but not your business.

Nobody kept homosexuals out of any business. They just refused to create artwork and place it for a ceremony they consider sacrilegious.

They refused to provide the same exact product to a gay couple they would provide a straight couple. (Which is where the law breaking occurred)

 

[bodecea]

""The attorney general's targeting of Barronelle was unprecedented," Waggoner said. "He has had 18 months to end the threat to our client's freedom and livelihood. It is interesting that this offer only materialized after his crusade to ruin this 70-year-old grandmother was exposed nationally."

Florist Who Refused to Do Flowers for Gay Wedding to Appeal - ABC News

There are a lot of very bigoted Leftist attorneys general across the country, the Duke Lacrosse scandal being a good example. Most attorneys general use prosecutorial discretion to avoid witch hunts and the application of the law where no real harm was done. But then there is a special kind of asshole who uses every power of their office to crucify people they consider to be ideological foes. This is one of them.

And if you read the wording of the attorney's statements..it's very much a power trip.

For this woman because she's getting her 15 minutes of fame on FOX.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Lol. Follow the law or go to jail Fatty. I can't believe that I had to tell you that

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

No American is obligated to follow unjust laws.

There is no end to the examples down though history where 'I was just following the law', turned out very, VERY bad for people who were disinclined to use the mind God gave 'em, to use their means to reason to reject subjective law.

But in their defense, they did so because they reason subjectively, thus reject the objectivity that is required to be a decent human being.

Not quite. You are obligated to follow the law whether you consider it just or not. You may choose to not follow the law, but that does not remove the consequences of that decision.

Obligated to follow the law even when it's unjust? I'm sure the Nazis would have loved to have you on the panel of judges during the Nuremberg trials. You might have prevented a few hangings.

Mmmmm, hyperbole flakes.

Public Accommodation laws (which have been "on the books" since 1964 and have withstood Constitutional challenge) are "just like Nazis".

Yes. The Civil Rights Act created a narrow field in which discrimination could not happen, but otherwise left intact the right for businesses to refuse service to anyone. Now that "lifestyle choice" has horned its way in, it's getting to the point in which businesses are slaves, having to serve ANYONE, which was NOT the intent of the CRA. And yes they are just like the Nazis that attempted to overtake Mercedes Benz to directly force them to make war implements when Mercedes wanted to opt out.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Lol. Follow the law or go to jail Fatty. I can't believe that I had to tell you that

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

You have the right to keep Homosexual's out of your church, but not your business.

Nobody kept homosexuals out of any business. They just refused to create artwork and place it for a ceremony they consider sacrilegious.

They refused to provide the same exact product to a gay couple they would provide a straight couple. (Which is where the law breaking occurred)

We're going to see how constitutional this nazi law is. Hobby Lobby is going to continue to haunt the demonic Left as a harbinger for how the Supreme Court is going to handle issues of religious conviction in business.

 

[bodecea]

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

No American is obligated to follow unjust laws.

There is no end to the examples down though history where 'I was just following the law', turned out very, VERY bad for people who were disinclined to use the mind God gave 'em, to use their means to reason to reject subjective law.

But in their defense, they did so because they reason subjectively, thus reject the objectivity that is required to be a decent human being.

Not quite. You are obligated to follow the law whether you consider it just or not. You may choose to not follow the law, but that does not remove the consequences of that decision.

Obligated to follow the law even when it's unjust? I'm sure the Nazis would have loved to have you on the panel of judges during the Nuremberg trials. You might have prevented a few hangings.

Mmmmm, hyperbole flakes.

Public Accommodation laws (which have been "on the books" since 1964 and have withstood Constitutional challenge) are "just like Nazis".

Yes. The Civil Rights Act created a narrow field in which discrimination could not happen, but otherwise left intact the right for businesses to refuse service to anyone. Now that "lifestyle choice" has horned its way in, it's getting to the point in which businesses are slaves, having to serve ANYONE, which was NOT the intent of the CRA. And yes they are just like the Nazis that attempted to overtake Mercedes Benz to directly force them to make war implements when Mercedes wanted to opt out.

This is PA laws.....not the Civil Rights Act. But you are just like those who were shocked...simply shocked...that the Civil Rights Act also applied to women. GASP!

 

[Dot Com]

The rw socon logic in this thread is making me dizzy.

 

[Syriusly]

If you have to lie to have your faith, don't bother. And if you believe lying is allowed, don't call yourself a Christian since you aren't one.

All Christians are sinners. They come to that faith with that as the requirement. That requirement never leaves them; or very rarely. You may have heard of saints? They are the uber-rare exception to the immense-rule.

The rest of them are sinners...ALL of them! Their sin however does not submit the Christian New Testament to democratic revision. There is no power of redaction via numbers. In the New Testament there are prescriptions of all types for this type of sinful behavior and that type of sinful behavior. Homosexuals are no different. Christians are urged to reach out to them with compassion "making a difference".

Venial sins vs mortal sins are what's being discussed particularly with respect to so-called "gay marriage". Being a homosexual is a venial sin; its mendable, forgivable, deserving of tolerance and compassion. HOWEVER, enabling a homosexual to call what he does "normal" or to spread that idea to others, particularly an entire culture or settlement of people is UNFORGIVABLE. The prescription for that is the eternal death in the pit of fire..

Both Venial sin and mortal sins are Catholic concepts- and the florist in question would be horrified at the idea of her promoting such Catholic concepts.

The bible never says that marriage between two people of the same gender is a sin. Jesus never said that homosexuality is a sin. But yes- the bible does say homosexuality between men is a sin- just like adultery.

And Jesus does condemn adultery- which Jesus says includes someone who remarries after a divorce- like Newt Gingrich.

A gay couple marrying is no more 'sinful' than Newt Gingrich marrying for the third time.

 

[Syriusly]

So you acknowledge it to be a made-up story.

I didn't say that at all.

Stop lying, Leftists!

Oh, so lying is an issue for you now? Since when, the last 8 seconds?

I never misquote anyone. Perhaps you don't understand so let me put it this way...you Leftists lied up and down about Obamacare because you thought it was justified in order to pass a law that you felt America needed. EVERYONE feels that some lies are justified, even lying hypocrites like you.

Where did I lie about Obamacare?

I am a 'leftist'- and you say we all lied about Obamacare.

Prove it....otherwise yes- you are a lying hypocrite- like you pretend to denounce.

 

[bodecea]

Lol. Follow the law or go to jail Fatty. I can't believe that I had to tell you that

Not if the law violates our rights. I'm not at all surprised I had to tell you that.

You have the right to keep Homosexual's out of your church, but not your business.

Nobody kept homosexuals out of any business. They just refused to create artwork and place it for a ceremony they consider sacrilegious.

They refused to provide the same exact product to a gay couple they would provide a straight couple. (Which is where the law breaking occurred)

We're going to see how constitutional this nazi law is. Hobby Lobby is going to continue to haunt the demonic Left as a harbinger for how the Supreme Court is going to handle issues of religious conviction in business.

And that's ok....because the Hobby Lobby ruling will also help businesses with other than christian rules to live by.

 

[bodecea]

The rw socon logic in this thread is making me dizzy.

Can you believe the justifying of lying here? As if it were NOT one of the Big Ten?