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

[Iceweasel]

Business's however are subject to the public accomodation laws- no a Christian cannot legally refuse to sell to a Jew or a Jew to a Muslim or a Muslim to a Christian- based upon their religion.

Yep, just like fags were subject to sodomy laws. Which I learned recently was alright since it was the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I guess the only way you can make some kind of "point" is to make stuff up, eh?

What am I making up?

 

[Kondor3]

If we're going to have a functioning, successful society, people with one set of values and beliefs and values should not seek to persecute people who have different values and beliefs.

I agree, those businesses should stop persecuting them gays.

Hurting someone's feelings isn't persecuting them. You don't even know what the word means. We're talking about gays going somewhere else, not being strung from trees.

There's been many times I realized a business didn't want my money. I just left, I didn't get a puckered anus and look for a lawyer.

That was your right. Its also your right to sue them if the discriminated based on any public accommodation laws.

And you keep ignoring the point. We shouldn't have those laws. and some states are still holding out. Even if I knew I was covered I'd take my money elsewhere instead of making someone serve me like I was their master.

How do you know those gays aren't getting a little something extra in their cakes?

Or missing a little something... like sugar?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh please.

The homo brigade is so incredibly stupid, they think they will win this battle.

They won't. They are a TINY minority...and the VAST majority of Americans has absolutely ZERO desire to accommodate their increasingly oppressive demands.

Actually, I suspect the vast majority simply DOES NOT GIVE A RAT ****!

You suspect wrong. Small business owners ALONE outnumber the homo lobby.

Well if that is the case, changing the law should be simple.

 

[Iceweasel]

Who says we shouldnt have these laws? The point is not to spend your money there but make them suffer for not allowing you to spend your money there.

I said so many times. It's about control. Tyranny by a minority group. Based on sexual preferences. It's stupid.

 

[Syriusly]

A gay couple's desire to force a Christian florist to service their wedding should not take precedence over the Christian florist's constitutional rights of freedom of religion, freedom of association, and private property.

Where in the world do gay get off thinking they have some kind of "right" to force religious business people to service their ceremonies against their will?

Because Washington State laws says that business's are required to do business with customers regardless of race, creed, gender, and other things, including sexual identity.

Where do gays get off thinking that they should be protected by the law like Christians are? Where indeed.

One, the law should not include "sexual identity."

Two, why oh why oh why would anyone want to force someone to attend, much less service, their wedding against their will? Decent, respectful, tolerant people don't do that, even if they thorough disagree with their reasons for not wanting to attend. That's just common courtesy and tolerance for the beliefs of others.

They are depraved, progressive pigs. .

So you are jealous because you think that homosexuals are acting like your?

 

[Kondor3]

Shortbus, you are a leftist and thus have never read the 1st Amendment. The Constitution on leftists is like salt on slugs. But the 1st actually protects a business owner who refuses to do business with another based on religious principle.

A Mosque is not obligated by law to hire a Rabbi, and can refuse to hire Christians or Hindus. It's called "freedom of religion." You should at least know what it is you seek to revoke.

Thats interesting. Where does it say it protects a business owner?

You can't penalize a business owner for refusing to take part in sacrilegious ceremonies. Particularly when they are specifically targeted because the homos KNOW they view participation as sacrilege.

I didnt ask your opinion. I asked where it specifies protection of a business owner?

I didn't give you an opinion. I stated a fact, loser.

I don't know that you have ever stated a fact.

The fact is that this business owner is being penalized for violating Washington State law.

And the point is that Washington State Law is wrong in forcing a citizen to deal with people whom 3,000 of Judeo-Christian dogma and teachings inform her are evil or engaged in sinful ebhaviors.

 

[Syriusly]

Who says we shouldnt have these laws? The point is not to spend your money there but make them suffer for not allowing you to spend your money there.

I said so many times. It's about control. Tyranny by a minority group. Based on sexual preferences. It's stupid.

Who says we shouldnt have these laws? The point is not to spend your money there but make them suffer for not allowing you to spend your money there.

I said so many times. It's about control. Tyranny by a minority group. Based on sexual preferences. It's stupid.

Under Washington State law prohibit discrimination by business's based upon the following:

• Race
• Honorably discharged veteran or military status
• Color
• HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C status
• National Origin
• Pregnancy or maternity
• Sex • Sexual orientation or gender identity
• Creed
• Use of a guide dog or service animal by a person with a disability
• Disability

Do you object to the entire law- or only one specific part of the law?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Oh please.

The homo brigade is so incredibly stupid, they think they will win this battle.

They won't. They are a TINY minority...and the VAST majority of Americans has absolutely ZERO desire to accommodate their increasingly oppressive demands.

Actually, I suspect the vast majority simply DOES NOT GIVE A RAT ****!

You suspect wrong. Small business owners ALONE outnumber the homo lobby.

So what? So do pickup truck owners, coin collectors, and mystery novel readers. Were you trying to stumble upon a POINT here?

 

[Asclepias]

Who says we shouldnt have these laws? The point is not to spend your money there but make them suffer for not allowing you to spend your money there.

I said so many times. It's about control. Tyranny by a minority group. Based on sexual preferences. It's stupid.

OK I thought someone important was saying it. I disagree and say they are a good thing. Sue their asses into oblivion until they get with the program and stop being bigots or close up shop.

 

[Iceweasel]

If we're going to have a functioning, successful society, people with one set of values and beliefs and values should not seek to persecute people who have different values and beliefs.

I agree, those businesses should stop persecuting them gays.

Hurting someone's feelings isn't persecuting them. You don't even know what the word means. We're talking about gays going somewhere else, not being strung from trees.

There's been many times I realized a business didn't want my money. I just left, I didn't get a puckered anus and look for a lawyer.

That was your right. Its also your right to sue them if the discriminated based on any public accommodation laws.

And you keep ignoring the point. We shouldn't have those laws. and some states are still holding out.

'some states'

The entire United States are covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Many states have their own version which extends rights even further.

You don't like them- then repeal them or go to court to argue that they are unconstitutional.

Not all states have homosexuality protected like race or religion so you're full of shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Homosexuals were targeted, rounded up and put in Concentration camps- just like Jews, gypsies,

Goring was openly heterosexual, married twice, with 1 child.

The Nazis were a murderous group of scumbags. They also were masters of the double standard. One set of laws for the victim, a very different set for the rulers.

Bit like today's democrats.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh please.

The homo brigade is so incredibly stupid, they think they will win this battle.

They won't. They are a TINY minority...and the VAST majority of Americans has absolutely ZERO desire to accommodate their increasingly oppressive demands.

Actually, I suspect the vast majority simply DOES NOT GIVE A RAT ****!

You suspect wrong. Small business owners ALONE outnumber the homo lobby.

So what? So do pickup truck owners, coin collectors, and mystery novel readers. Were you trying to stumble upon a POINT here?

I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong. You said the vast majority doesn't give a rat ****. I pointed out that you're wrong. If you don't care, you probably shouldn't post at all.

 

[Flash]

[

Here I thought it gave freedom to Americans. You got a link?

If the government dictates you have to do business with and associate with then it is taking freedom away from you. It is a despicable thing for a government to do to individual freedom.

You have a difficult time understanding freedom, don't you?

Why are you against freedom? Are you so insure that you want the government to do your thinking for you? Aren't you capable of making up your own mind on who you want to associate with?

Moon Bats have never really understood Libertarian principles. They only understand big oppressive government.

 

[Syriusly]

Business's however are subject to the public accomodation laws- no a Christian cannot legally refuse to sell to a Jew or a Jew to a Muslim or a Muslim to a Christian- based upon their religion.

Yep, just like fags were subject to sodomy laws. Which I learned recently was alright since it was the law.

Wow since that has nothing to do with my post- I will just go ahead and repost my post again

Business's however are subject to the public accommodation laws- no a Christian cannot legally refuse to sell to a Jew or a Jew to a Muslim or a Muslim to a Christian- based upon their religion.

If you don't like the law- you can do what others have done- you can try to change it legislatively or you can go to court to argue that it is unconstitutional.

But until then- you are subject to the law like every other business.

 

[Iceweasel]

Who says we shouldnt have these laws? The point is not to spend your money there but make them suffer for not allowing you to spend your money there.

I said so many times. It's about control. Tyranny by a minority group. Based on sexual preferences. It's stupid.

OK I thought someone important was saying it. I disagree and say they are a good thing. Sue their asses into oblivion until they get with the program and stop being bigots or close up shop.

Exactly! That makes you one of the assholes. Your type loves tyranny. The world is full of examples.

 

[koshergrl]

[

Here I thought it gave freedom to Americans. You got a link?

If the government dictates you have to do business with and associate with then it is taking freedom away from you. It is a despicable thing for a government to do to individual freedom.

You have a difficult time understanding freedom, don't you?

Why are you against freedom? Are you so insure that you want the government to do your thinking for you? Aren't you capable of making up your own mind on who you want to associate with?

Moon Bats have never really understood Libertarian principles. They only understand big oppressive government.

He doesn't understand freedom because he's been a dem slave all his life, and has bought every single lie they pounded into his head.

 

[BULLDOG]

If we're going to have a functioning, successful society, people with one set of values and beliefs and values should not seek to persecute people who have different values and beliefs.

I agree, those businesses should stop persecuting them gays.

Hurting someone's feelings isn't persecuting them. You don't even know what the word means. We're talking about gays going somewhere else, not being strung from trees.

There's been many times I realized a business didn't want my money. I just left, I didn't get a puckered anus and look for a lawyer.

If it didn't happen then, when exactly did you get that puckered anus?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

I have a wonderful solution.....arrange to have all businesses that SHE wants to buy from refuse to serve her due to her Christianity.....grocery store? Sorry. Bank? Nope. Clothing Store? Sorry, we don't serve your kind. Etc. Let's see how long that lasts.

About two seconds, because most people (including me) care only that their customers have money!

 

[Uncensored2008]

A mosque is not a business nor is a church.

Business's however are subject to the public accomodation laws- no a Christian cannot legally refuse to sell to a Jew or a Jew to a Muslim or a Muslim to a Christian- based upon their religion.

A business that is not incorporated cannot legitimately be subject to public accommodation laws. These laws exist, just as Georgia had sodomy laws - neither are legitimate and both should be opposed.