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

[PaintMyHouse]

She sounds like an old crank.

I'd be cranky also if the homos and state attacked my business

So don't open one since they are required to follow Man's laws, not God's.

Bleh, you're annoying

No, I'm both very honest and very right in this case.

 

[Uncensored2008]

She sounds like an old crank.

You should throw a brick through her window and beat her, Rati the racist rodent. People who have opinions not assigned by the party deserve what they get.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A Christian florist who was sued and found guilty of discrimination after refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding isn’t planning on backing down, recently issuing a defiant letter rejecting a settlement agreement and revealing plans to appeal her case.

After Barronelle Stutzman, 70, declined a $2,001 settlement offer in a letter to the state’s attorney general on Friday, her attorney, Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, told TheBlaze on Monday that a judge’s decision that Stutzman violated anti-discrimination law will be challenged in the state court system.

As previously reported, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom decided last week that Barronelle Stutzman violated Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act when she refused service to Robert Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed.

The state subsequently offered a settlement in which Waggoner would only need to pay a $2,000 fine and $1 in legal fees and commit to offering flowers for gay and straight weddings, alike, if she continues providing matrimony services, the Daily Mail reported.



But the florist declined the offer, with Waggoner telling TheBlaze that nothing new or protective was afforded to her client.

“Attorney General [Bob Ferguson] has relentlessly pursued her personal and professional ruin because she will not celebrate same-sex marriage. His settlement proposal offered nothing new,” she said. “The attorney general continues to pursue her business and personal assets unless she agrees to stop designing wedding arrangements and providing wedding support services for all weddings.”

Waggoner said that the government continues to send a message that artists like Stutzman will be punished if they do not embrace gay relationships.

“The government’s message is the same: as an artist, you must use your heart, mind, and hands to promote same-sex marriage or you will lose everything,” Waggoner said.

The attorney’s comments come after Stutzman penned a response letter to Ferguson, rejecting his offer and defending her religious beliefs. In it, she wrote that it has been “exhausting” to be at the center of the controversy over the past two years and said that she never imagined that her “God-given talents and abilities” would become illegal if she refused to use them to serve same-sex weddings.

“Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs,” she wrote.

Stutzman specifically took aim at Ferguson’s settlement offer, claiming that it shows that he truly doesn’t understand her intention to defend her religious liberty.

“Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money,” she wrote. “I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important.”

Stutzman continued, “Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.”

Read the letter in its entirety below:

Dear Mr. Ferguson,

Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.

As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.

Sincerely,

Barronelle Stutzman

Waggoner said that the letter was meant to affirm that Stutzman will not be giving up by surrendering her freedom for money.

“In what world is $2,001 a good deal for surrendering your freedom?” Waggoner said.

Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov t Settlement Offer and Her Attorney Reveals What s Next TheBlaze.com

GOOD FOR THEM! Reject the idiocy Advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality for the deviancy that it is.

No American is obligated to be governed by such absurdity.

 

[Ravi]

She sounds like an old crank.

I'd be cranky also if the homos and state attacked my business

No one has attacked her business.

Ugh...yeah right. The homos couldn't find a homo florist? Yeaaahh right

Once again, this was a case of a couple who spent money for years at a business only for the business to suddenly pull the religion card on them.

The business owner is a bigot and she is welcome to be a bigot but that doesn't excuse her from following local business laws. If anyone was attacked, it was the gay couple.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No American is obligated to be governed by such absurdity.

Make the lawyers happy, try it and find out...

 

[G.T.]

Im not sure im into businesses serving people they dont want to by force of the government.

If the theyre known bigots and enough people decide not to shop there as a result, theyll fail.

Thay all said, shes a despicable bigot. Fuck her

Yeah the homos sure showed Chik Fil La, eh? You idiots never win with that "boycott" BS. There isn't enough of you

I never EVER underestimate the will of fat fucks to get their sloppy food

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

She sounds like an old crank.

I'd be cranky also if the homos and state attacked my business

So don't open one since they are required to follow Man's laws, not God's.

Bleh, you're annoying

No, I'm both very honest and very right in this case.

ROFLMNAO!

Imagine an irony SO SWEET, that a Relativist is claiming itself 'honest'?

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.​

​

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth. ​

​

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.​

​

Thus, given that the Ideological Left rests ENTIRELY upon Relativism... there can be no such thing as an 'honest' Leftist, because their species of reasoning REJECTS the elements essential to TRUTH, thus prohibiting a Leftist from possessing any sense of 'HONOR'.​

 

[Dot Com]

Segregationists and slave owners felt the same way.

They were just following the bible.

True. This person needed to be made an example of. Justice served.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Im not sure im into businesses serving people they dont want to by force of the government.

If the theyre known bigots and enough people decide not to shop there as a result, theyll fail.

Thay all said, shes a despicable bigot. Fuck her

Yeah the homos sure showed Chik Fil La, eh? You idiots never win with that "boycott" BS. There isn't enough of you

I never EVER underestimate the will of fat fucks to get their sloppy food

Has anyone ever told you you're childish? If not let me be the first

 

[Pop23]

Segregationists and slave owners felt the same way.

They were just following the bible.

These situations, photographers, bakers, florists are quite different than slave owners and segregationists though.

No one is trying to deny the couple a wedding, the business owner simply does not wish to supply their services to the couple for whatever reason.

That being said, these situations have me torn between the premis that one has certain moral codes that they wish to live under and the biblical teaching " give unto Ceasar"

Surely flowers are not an essential part of life, as is the freedoms denied a slave, or the need to be educated on a level playing field?

All in all, as bad as this may seem to her, perhaps accepting the fine and put efforts into changing existing laws would be far more productive.

 

[Dot Com]

She sounds like an old crank.

Enough about the OP. What about the woman in the story?

Seriously, why do thumpers want special treatment? Scalia already settled this and he's as conservative as they come.

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No American is obligated to be governed by such absurdity.

Make the lawyers happy, try it and find out...

Oh I LOVE lawyers... I own several. They make wonderful pets.

What I adore about them the most, is their deluded nature, which leads them to the pretense that they've intellectual capacity beyond the average melon.

But they are a necessity in modern life and as a result, they make a decent living, for idiots.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Segregationists and slave owners felt the same way.

They were just following the bible.

These situations, photographers, bakers, florists are quite different than slave owners and segregationists though.

No one is trying to deny the couple a wedding, the business owner simply does not wish to supply their services to the couple for whatever reason.

That being said, these situations have me torn between the premis that one has certain moral codes that they wish to live under and the biblical teaching " give unto Ceasar"

Surely flowers are not an essential part of life, as is the freedoms denied a slave, or the need to be educated on a level playing field?

All in all, as bad as this may seem to her, perhaps accepting the fine and put efforts into changing existing laws would be far more productive.

My problem with these cases is it's turned out the homos were targeting the business owners in some instances, when that happens it becomes tyranny and low handed

 

[G.T.]

Im not sure im into businesses serving people they dont want to by force of the government.

If the theyre known bigots and enough people decide not to shop there as a result, theyll fail.

Thay all said, shes a despicable bigot. Fuck her

Yeah the homos sure showed Chik Fil La, eh? You idiots never win with that "boycott" BS. There isn't enough of you

I never EVER underestimate the will of fat fucks to get their sloppy food

Has anyone ever told you you're childish? If not let me be the first

Im not the old bitch whining that she has to serve people that are different from her.

 

[Dot Com]

She sounds like an old crank.

I'd be cranky also if the homos and state attacked my business

So don't open one since they are required to follow Man's laws, not God's.

 

[Asclepias]

I cant believe they offered a settlement for the bigots doing something against the law.

 

[G.T.]

She sounds like an old crank.

I'd be cranky also if the homos and state attacked my business

So don't open one since they are required to follow Man's laws, not God's.

Bleh, you're annoying

No, I'm both very honest and very right in this case.

ROFLMNAO!

Imagine an irony SO SWEET, that a Relativist is claiming itself 'honest'?

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.​

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

Thus, given that the Ideological Left rests ENTIRELY upon Relativism... there can be no such thing as an 'honest' Leftist, because their species of reasoning REJECTS the elements essential to TRUTH, thus prohibiting a Leftist from possessing any sense of 'HONOR'.​

Being discriminatory against gay people is about as relativist as it gets.

 

[Asclepias]

Segregationists and slave owners felt the same way.

They were just following the bible.

These situations, photographers, bakers, florists are quite different than slave owners and segregationists though.

No one is trying to deny the couple a wedding, the business owner simply does not wish to supply their services to the couple for whatever reason.

That being said, these situations have me torn between the premis that one has certain moral codes that they wish to live under and the biblical teaching " give unto Ceasar"

Surely flowers are not an essential part of life, as is the freedoms denied a slave, or the need to be educated on a level playing field?

All in all, as bad as this may seem to her, perhaps accepting the fine and put efforts into changing existing laws would be far more productive.

My problem with these cases is it's turned out the homos were targeting the business owners in some instances, when that happens it becomes tyranny and low handed

i commend them for targeting the businesses. Smart move.

 

[Ravi]

She sounds like an old crank.

Enough about the OP. What about the woman in the story?

The woman? You're referring to the Florist, with whom the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is AT WAR?

WHEN WILL THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT CEASE THEIR COWARDLY WAR ON WOMEN!??

Your post was stupid the first time, and the fancy font didn't help.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL I love how anything anti homo gets the girl's panties in a twist. Does every leftist have underlying homosexual desires?