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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The florist did not refuse service to gays.

Wait....so this is much ado about nothing. She provided her services to their wedding and this is a fantasy story like on "Dallas".

These gays have been customers for nine years. Obviously she did not refuse them service. What she refused was her artistry. She sells flowers. They could have bought flowers. What they wanted was her talent.

Artists are being punished for not producing political art. Just like every other totalitarian government has done since Pharoah chained sculptors to blocks of stone.

She also refused to endorse their marriage.

You can't yank someone's business license because they refuse to ENDORSE an event. Businesses are allowed to pick and choose who they want to publicly support.

Nonsense.

 

[g5000]

The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government,[1] and supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Members were called Dixiecrats. (The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat.)

Dixiecrat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The willful ignorance of most conservatives concerning this issue is truly amazing.

They aren't Conservatives, they are Reactionaries. And yes, their ignorance is profound but it is also willful. Just children with their fingers stuck in their ears.

They're both, actually.

I have never found a Conservative here, not a one.

 

[Pop23]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

 

[Carla_Danger]

Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans did. Yes they did. While Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans worked for civil rights.

Apparently KOS is slow in uploading your programming. Can a business discriminate based on bathing? Why or why not? (I'll wait while you log on to KOS to have the answer programmed into you..)

Did the florist discriminate on the basis of bathing, or did she discriminate on sexual orientation?

 

[koshergrl]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

 

[g5000]

Before 1948, southern Democrats believed that their party, with its respect for states' rights and appreciation of traditional southern values, was the defender of the southern way of life. Southern Democrats warned against aggressive designs on the part of Northern liberals and Republicans and civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

Politics of the Southern United States

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly what is Holy about a public courthouse wedding? Oh right, you can't answer that because that's the end of your argument.

 

[g5000]

Here is George Wallace connecting the anti-war movement to Communism:

 

[g5000]

George Wallace for President 1968 Campaign Brochure

ON STATES RIGHTS

I recommend that the states of the Union continue to determine the policies of their domestic institutions themselves and that the bureaucrats and theoreticians in Washington let people in Ohio and New York and California decide themselves... what type of school system they are going to have. I recommend states rights and local government, and territorial democracy...

ON VIETNAM

...I think the first thing we ought to do in this country is to impress upon Hanoi and Peking and Moscow the resolve of the American people. These few people today who are out advocating sedition and raising money and clothes and supplies for the Viet Cong -- these college professors who are making speeches advocating victory for the Viet Cong Communists -- I would deal with these people as they ought to be dealt with, as traitors.

And you guys thought the neocons under Bush invented this kind of talk.

The Southern Democrats like Wallace are their political ancestors.

 

[koshergrl]

The florist did not refuse service to gays.

Wait....so this is much ado about nothing. She provided her services to their wedding and this is a fantasy story like on "Dallas".

These gays have been customers for nine years. Obviously she did not refuse them service. What she refused was her artistry. She sells flowers. They could have bought flowers. What they wanted was her talent.

Artists are being punished for not producing political art. Just like every other totalitarian government has done since Pharoah chained sculptors to blocks of stone.

She also refused to endorse their marriage.

You can't yank someone's business license because they refuse to ENDORSE an event. Businesses are allowed to pick and choose who they want to publicly support.

Nonsense.

So anyone who walks up to Nike and says "You have to put your swoosh on my ads because I'm going to give you money" can force nike to endorse them?

Really? Is that how you think business works?

Lol.

You're on ignore now too. Boring. It was fun for a while. But one of you black morons is enough, and Schlep has more entertainment value. At least he can dance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which "facts"? When did these democrats become right wing conservatives?

It's the big lie technique. Jake5000's masters over at ThinkProgress think that if the drones lie about New Deal democrats like Trent Lott and Robert Byrd, they can rewrite history to their advantage.

The Dixicrats were far left, big government, tax and spend democrats. staunch supporters of Roosevelt and the New Deal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The florist did not refuse service to gays.

Wait....so this is much ado about nothing. She provided her services to their wedding and this is a fantasy story like on "Dallas".

These gays have been customers for nine years. Obviously she did not refuse them service. What she refused was her artistry. She sells flowers. They could have bought flowers. What they wanted was her talent.

Artists are being punished for not producing political art. Just like every other totalitarian government has done since Pharoah chained sculptors to blocks of stone.

She also refused to endorse their marriage.

You can't yank someone's business license because they refuse to ENDORSE an event. Businesses are allowed to pick and choose who they want to publicly support.

Nonsense.

So anyone who walks up to Nike and says "You have to put your swoosh on my ads because I'm going to give you money" can force nike to endorse them?

Really? Is that how you think business works?

Lol.

You're on ignore now too. Boring. It was fun for a while. But one of you black morons is enough, and Schlep has more entertainment value. At least he can dance.

The way business works a is a ****** walks into a Nike store, and walks out 20 minutes later in new shoes. it's not complicated, and shouldn't be.

 

[Ravi]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly what is Holy about a public courthouse wedding? Oh right, you can't answer that because that's the end of your argument.

Good point. There is nothing holy about it at all. I wonder if these dopey florists sell to people of other religions instead of The One True Religion. Or God forbid, atheists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's a scenerio for you all to chew on.

Washington Business A sells flowers. Customer B comes in and orders flowers for a wedding that will take place at a Catholic church. Business owner A tells Customer B that they don't sell flowers nor flower arrangements to Catholics because of their personal belief system.

SO.....
1) Has Business A broken the law?

2) Does Customer A have the right to report them to the state if they have broken the law?

3) If the state finds that Business A has indeed broken the law, has the state the right to fine Business A based on the law?

4) Does Business A have the right to ignore the law and ignore the fine because they don't like it?

IF the 13th Amendment is in tact, the business has every right to refuse the sale - they are free people.

If the business owner is a slave, then their master has the right to force them to sell to whom the master pleases.

 

[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


>>>>

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.

Which has nothing to do with your claim, that Public Accommodation laws were a violation of the 13th Amendment.

The SCOTUS already addressed that issue.


>>>>

I believe you are confused as to the case at hand. The State of Washington has ordered a Florist to serve a homosexual couple in violation of her religious objections, thus violating both 1st and 13th Amendment protections.

I believe you are confused about what you said, which was "Time for the ACLJ to take up the case on grounds of violation of the the 13th."


I showed you where the SCOTUS has already addressed the 13th as it pertains to Public Accommodation laws - they dismissed them.


Now you are attempting (badly) to move the goal posts and say I'm confused about the 1st and 13th when the 1st had nothing to do with my response.


>>>>

 

[Flash]

[

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the 1st amendment applied to the states. Rather elegantly kacking that argument.

That is great news. I always wanted to own a Negro slave so it is good to hear that slavery is not prohibited by the federal government and the 13th Amendment here in Florida.

Have you ever heard of the 14th Amendment, you moron? It made the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

There are some things you can argue but to suggest that the Bill of Rights does not protect the right of freedom of religion in the US is very stupid.

However, here is the passage from the Washington State Constitution that guarantees freedom of conscience in religious matters.

The Florist in this case was molested by the queers and disturbed on her property because of her belief.


SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony. [AMENDMENT 88, 1993 House Joint Resolution No. 4200, p 3062. Approved November 2, 1993.]

 

[Pop23]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Then pay the fines imposed.

Anyone who has read my posts know that I am opposed to same sex marriage.

I've posted a way to accomplish two christian precepts.

Of course, you CAN serve you're religion by taking this up through the courts. I have no problem with that. I think it's less productive then the alternatives, that being ELECTING THOSE THAT ARE LIKE YOU. That takes cash.

Informing a gay couple of your intent with the profits might make them think about procuring these services elsewhere.

Win/Win

 

[g5000]

George Wallace on states rights. Note he goes after liberals.

 

[Ravi]

Look, the solution is simple

If you truly believe that homosexual unions are against Gods will, and the participants are sinners........

Take the job, charge for your services and let the sinner know that the profits will be donated to groups fighting against their sin.

You then are giving unto Ceasar what is Caesars while at the same time fulfilling your faiths calling (I don't say the following to inflame) to cure the sick.

Win/Win

It's a matter of participating in what you consider a sacrilegious act.

It isn't just about disapproving of the union or nobody would ever interact with them at all. It's participating in the bastardization of what we consider a SACRAMENT. Christians aren't going to do it. We consider a marriage a RELIGIOUS ritual, and not just a ritual, but a SACRAMENT, a COVENANT BEFORE GOD.

We aren't going to participate in any way, shape or form nor are we going to endorse a disgusting, sacrilegious travesty that insults God. It isn't going to happen.

Then pay the fines imposed.

Anyone who has read my posts know that I am opposed to same sex marriage.

I've posted a way to accomplish two christian precepts.

Of course, you CAN serve you're religion by taking this up through the courts. I have no problem with that. I think it's less productive then the alternatives, that being ELECTING THOSE THAT ARE LIKE YOU. That takes cash.

Informing a gay couple of your intent with the profits might make them think about procuring these services elsewhere.

Win/Win

That's just too sensible and too Christian for fakes like the woman in the OP to go along with.