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

[PaintMyHouse]

Were they demanding the florist get married to them? That's the only way they could be trying to force her to participate.

Do you think that you own the florists shop? Or do you just demand that the party is the rightful owner of all people so has the right to dictate who may or may not trade with who?

Did your GLORIOUS PEOPLES party repeal this?

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

Since the servitude of the florist is involuntary. Again recognizing that you view the party as the rightful owner of all subjects.

Your argument died, right here, decades ago. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Read the decision, it will do you good. Having to service customers isn't slavery, it's business, and here we regulate that, for good reason.

 

[Syriusly]

Were they demanding the florist get married to them? That's the only way they could be trying to force her to participate.

Do you think that you own the florists shop? Or do you just demand that the party is the rightful owner of all people so has the right to dictate who may or may not trade with who?.

If you don't like the law, then change the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But she didn't refuse for another reason. She refused to serve someone specifically because they were gay. That's a protected class, and serving them would be the decent thing to do anyway.

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

You Communists have a serious hostility toward the Constitution. Time for the ACLJ to take up the case on grounds of violation of the the 13th.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm teaching my four children to stand against the bigotry of the *** militia, absolutely.

You teaching them to use the word *** too? Just like Jesus would...

Westoboro fans through and through

No, wife won't let me. But they know the difference between the conscientious gay people who are our friends and the faggots who shove their lifestyle in everyone's faces and demands not just acceptance but unqualified submission to the gay agenda.

And that's a difference my wife and I both teach them.

Yep- just like the difference between blacks who know their place and those who are uppity.

I wonder his word for straight sluts of both sexes, always showing off who they just fucked is? Those jerks always thinking with their junk and shoving it in everyone's face.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Were they demanding the florist get married to them? That's the only way they could be trying to force her to participate.

Do you think that you own the florists shop? Or do you just demand that the party is the rightful owner of all people so has the right to dictate who may or may not trade with who?

Did your GLORIOUS PEOPLES party repeal this?

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

Since the servitude of the florist is involuntary. Again recognizing that you view the party as the rightful owner of all subjects.

Arlene's Flowers violated consumer protection laws.

 

[Flash]

The way it should be:

The florist has the right to do business with whoever he/she wants to do business with.

The customer has the right to spend their money elsewhere if they are not welcome at this one.

The government stays out of it.

Maximum freedom for everybody. It ain't rocket science.

Of course the Libtards hate the concept of freedom. They want the government to force the florist to do the will of the state. Of of course that "will" was defined by corrupt bureaucrats elected by special interest groups.

 

[Katzndogz]

Were they demanding the florist get married to them? That's the only way they could be trying to force her to participate.

Do you think that you own the florists shop? Or do you just demand that the party is the rightful owner of all people so has the right to dictate who may or may not trade with who?

Did your GLORIOUS PEOPLES party repeal this?

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

Since the servitude of the florist is involuntary. Again recognizing that you view the party as the rightful owner of all subjects.

Your argument died, right here, decades ago. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Read the decision, it will do you good. Having to service customers isn't slavery, it's business, and here we regulate that, for good reason.

The florist never refused to serve these customers and in fact did serve these customers for nine years.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But she didn't refuse for another reason. She refused to serve someone specifically because they were gay. That's a protected class, and serving them would be the decent thing to do anyway.

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

You Communists have a serious hostility toward the Constitution. Time for the ACLJ to take up the case on grounds of violation of the the 13th.

There's no case to take up, it was decided long ago. Now it's just how to apply the laws.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your argument died, right here, decades ago. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Read the decision, it will do you good. Having to service customers isn't slavery, it's business, and here we regulate that, for good reason.

You do realize that the current court has members who support the United States Constitution, right?

Time for Title VII to be overturned.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you don't like the law, then change the law.

The way your leftists changed the Constitution?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The way it should be:

The florist has the right to do business with whoever he/she wants to do business with.

The customer has the right to spend their money elsewhere if they are not welcome at this one.

The government stays out of it.

Maximum freedom for everybody. It ain't rocket science.

Of course the Libtards hate the concept of freedom. They want the government to force the florist to do the will of the state. Of of course that "will" was defined by corrupt bureaucrats elected by special interest groups.

We already tried the No ******* gas station. it didn't work so we tossed it. Sorry, you are beating a dead horse. Time to put down the Ayn Rand and grow up now.

 

[Syriusly]

I believe that SaintMichael and SassyIrish don't like the Westboro Church today. I also believe they didn't even care about the Westboro Church or maybe even privately supported them..............UNTIL they started protesting at military funerals. Then, and only then, they didn't like what they were doing.

You and a couple of others give a shit what you "believe", you're really not that important

Uh huh...and yet you yourself stated right here that it was because your family members were military that you got pissed off at Westboro......nothing about you being pissed off at them because your family members were gay.

None of my family members are gay, just normal

So far as you know.

I have a good friend who lives in the South- highly successful, professional, and deeply closeted.

As he has said many times- if he ever 'comes out' he would be rejected by his family and his church- he would lose everything.

Because there are despicable people who judge others based only upon who they are sexually attracted to.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Were they demanding the florist get married to them? That's the only way they could be trying to force her to participate.

Do you think that you own the florists shop? Or do you just demand that the party is the rightful owner of all people so has the right to dictate who may or may not trade with who?

Did your GLORIOUS PEOPLES party repeal this?

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

Since the servitude of the florist is involuntary. Again recognizing that you view the party as the rightful owner of all subjects.

Your argument died, right here, decades ago. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Read the decision, it will do you good. Having to service customers isn't slavery, it's business, and here we regulate that, for good reason.

The florist never refused to serve these customers and in fact did serve these customers for nine years.

That is incorrect. Had that been true this would not have become what it is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

You Communists have a serious hostility toward the Constitution. Time for the ACLJ to take up the case on grounds of violation of the the 13th.

Public Accommodations and the 13th Amendment were already addressed by the SCOTUS:

The appellant contends that Congress, in passing this Act, exceeded its power to regulate commerce under Art. I, [p244] § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution of the United States; that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because appellant is deprived of the right to choose its customers and operate its business as it wishes, resulting in a taking of its liberty and property without due process of law and a taking of its property without just compensation; and, finally, that, by requiring appellant to rent available rooms to Negroes against its will, Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment.

<<SNIP>>

We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common law innkeeper rule, which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery."​

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States LII Legal Information Institute


>>>>

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I believe that SaintMichael and SassyIrish don't like the Westboro Church today. I also believe they didn't even care about the Westboro Church or maybe even privately supported them..............UNTIL they started protesting at military funerals. Then, and only then, they didn't like what they were doing.

You and a couple of others give a shit what you "believe", you're really not that important

Uh huh...and yet you yourself stated right here that it was because your family members were military that you got pissed off at Westboro......nothing about you being pissed off at them because your family members were gay.

None of my family members are gay, just normal

So far as you know.

I have a good friend who lives in the South- highly successful, professional, and deeply closeted.

As he has said many times- if he ever 'comes out' he would be rejected by his family and his church- he would lose everything.

Because there are despicable people who judge others based only upon who they are sexually attracted to.

Once again, no homos in our family...case closed, end of the nonsense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's no case to take up, it was decided long ago. Now it's just how to apply the laws.

Different circumstances entirely. Time to end Title VII as unconstitutional - which it clearly is.

 

[Carla_Danger]

But she didn't refuse for another reason. She refused to serve someone specifically because they were gay. That's a protected class, and serving them would be the decent thing to do anyway.

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

You Communists have a serious hostility toward the Constitution. Time for the ACLJ to take up the case on grounds of violation of the the 13th.

Are you forgetting about WLAD?

 

[Syriusly]

If you don't like the law, then change the law.

The way your leftists changed the Constitution?

Absolutely- the first 10 Amendments, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments.

If the law is wrong, change the law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I believe that SaintMichael and SassyIrish don't like the Westboro Church today. I also believe they didn't even care about the Westboro Church or maybe even privately supported them..............UNTIL they started protesting at military funerals. Then, and only then, they didn't like what they were doing.

You and a couple of others give a shit what you "believe", you're really not that important

Uh huh...and yet you yourself stated right here that it was because your family members were military that you got pissed off at Westboro......nothing about you being pissed off at them because your family members were gay.

None of my family members are gay, just normal

So far as you know.

I have a good friend who lives in the South- highly successful, professional, and deeply closeted.

As he has said many times- if he ever 'comes out' he would be rejected by his family and his church- he would lose everything.

Because there are despicable people who judge others based only upon who they are sexually attracted to.

Once again, no homos in our family...case closed, end of the nonsense.

I love people who live in denial. Explains your faith perfectly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

{"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."}

You Communists have a serious hostility toward the Constitution. Time for the ACLJ to take up the case on grounds of violation of the the 13th.

Public Accommodations and the 13th Amendment were already addressed by the SCOTUS:

The appellant contends that Congress, in passing this Act, exceeded its power to regulate commerce under Art. I, [p244] § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution of the United States; that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because appellant is deprived of the right to choose its customers and operate its business as it wishes, resulting in a taking of its liberty and property without due process of law and a taking of its property without just compensation; and, finally, that, by requiring appellant to rent available rooms to Negroes against its will, Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in contravention of the Thirteenth Amendment.

<<SNIP>>

We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common law innkeeper rule, which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery."​

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States LII Legal Information Institute


>>>>

A florist is not an innkeeper - behavior is not race.