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

[PaintMyHouse]

Stutzman never objected to selling flowers to homosexuals and had always sold flowers to homosexuals.

But not for their wedding, which was none of her business. See the court's decisions. She lost, and that's a good thing. You will too one day, if you keep going as you are.

 

[Katzndogz]

No, what liberals on this thread are saying is that if you're a Christian you will be fined by the state if you refuse to participate in rituals you don't want to participate in.

Selling a cake is not a religious ritual.

A civil marriage ceremony isn't either.

So there is no violation of religious freedom here.

Can someone else maybe get this through this dense person's head?

Maybe the judge?

Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs. [...]

Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”​

Judge To Anti-Gay Florist Religion Is Not An Excuse To Defy Anti-Discrimination Laws ThinkProgress

If this is the judge's ruling it might well be overturned on appeal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you that stupid?

Nope. Unlike you, I don't succumb to stereotypes.

I guess you are that stupid. The subject was specifically Southern Democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.

And you, retard, somehow heard "everyone from the South".

Isn't that what Boo said? Or do you not know a blanket statement when you see one?

I said, "the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers", and Boo completed the statement with, "and from the South." So the totality of the statement became, "The Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers and from the South."

Exactly, it doesn't mean everyone in the south was a conservative or a racist either. But Southern Republicans, by percentage, were even more against the Civil Rights Act than the Southern Democrats were.

You might want to rethink that statement.

 

[Katzndogz]

Stutzman never objected to selling flowers to homosexuals and had always sold flowers to homosexuals.

But not for their wedding, which was none of her business. See the court's decisions. She lost, and that's a good thing. You will too one day, if you keep going as you are.

Nope. I am untouchable. Which is what artists and Christians make of themselves.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't know why this is so difficult for you people to grasp. If you sell a product to person A, you cannot refuse to sell the same exact product to person B because they are gay, or black, or Christian, etc.

I don't sell to people who are rude to my staff, jerk us around about paying their invoices and for a bunch of other reasons. I also don't sell to people I don't think will buy enough. I don't sell to people for a bunch of reasons, they are all good reasons, but they are up to me, not you. Your hostility doesn't change that

None of those are protected by anti-discrimination law.

True. But what most liberals are arguing is that just by being in a business I am creating a contract I will do business with anyone. If that were true, I would be required to deal with those customers and I am not

No, what the liberals on this thread are saying is that to operate a business you must abide by local anti-discrimination laws.

You need to read more of the discussion

Ravi doesn't read.

Does being in the south automatically make us racist?

No, believing your race is superior to another make one a racist. But here is the vote on the Civil Rights Bill 1964, by region. You decide.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• 
  
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

So eager to hide the sins of your party that you throw up the voting record of the party regarding the Civil Rights Act, especially that of the Southern branch. It's just like you not to see the bigger picture:

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Oh, and check this out, coming straight from Obama's mouth:

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker PolitiFact Texas

It took him 20 years to come around, he was a 'right winger' by your standards, who ironically, turned right around and drove through the Civil Rights act. Whoops.

It was the second civil war of sorts. Look at how the Confederate states voted. Even Southern Republicans voted against it.

"Second civil war?" There was only ONE southern Republican who voted against the bill in the South. One. Look at your argument starting to fall apart. You think that just because one southern Republican voted against it means Republicans and right wingers are racist.

Give me a break, man.

That's the only way they can justify using the race card.

CC and Schlep maintain that because the Southern Dems were white during Jim Crow, then Republican Christians are a threat to blacks today. It makes absolutely zero sense, and it's just a justification for their racism.

 

[kaz]

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

Um...so Christians who don't want to be forced to do business with gays would object to gays they don't want to do business being forced to do business with them.



Say what?

My point is that most people, most of the time, view most issues mostly in terms of what they stand to get out of it, or lose. There are bigots on both sides.

There are certainly bigots on both sides. A lot of liberals have through the discussion tried to make the Christian argument though that they would object if the reverse (as you did) was proposed and they all said no, gays should not have to deal with them either

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you that stupid?

Nope. Unlike you, I don't succumb to stereotypes.

I guess you are that stupid. The subject was specifically Southern Democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.

And you, retard, somehow heard "everyone from the South".

Isn't that what Boo said? Or do you not know a blanket statement when you see one?

I said, "the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers", and Boo completed the statement with, "and from the South." So the totality of the statement became, "The Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers and from the South."

Exactly, it doesn't mean everyone in the south was a conservative or a racist either. But Southern Republicans, by percentage, were even more against the Civil Rights Act than the Southern Democrats were.

Look at the caveat "by percentage."

 

[Flash]

Democracy sucks all the time, according to the Founders, which is why we don't have one. And the people didn't get a vote on PA laws, nor should they have gotten a vote on gay marriage. Now you know.

Don't give me that silly shit on the difference between a Republic and a Democracy because that distinction is not applicable in this case.

The fact of the matter is that the US Bill of Rights and the Washington State Constitution guaranteed the Florist the freedom of religion including religious conscience and the filthy ass extreme far Left idiots that dominate Washington State politics took that away from her to appease a butt ******* /carpet munching minority and that is not right. We should be better than that.

Libtards never believe in Constitutional freedom when it conflicts with their despicable far Left agenda and that is the main reasons our country ain't worth a shit anymore.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Stutzman never objected to selling flowers to homosexuals and had always sold flowers to homosexuals.

But not for their wedding, which was none of her business. See the court's decisions. She lost, and that's a good thing. You will too one day, if you keep going as you are.

Nope. I am untouchable. Which is what artists and Christians make of themselves.

Well they've certainly touched her, and several others, so your argument is DOA. We'll get you in time as well, or you'll go out of business which is just fine by me.

 

[Ravi]

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

Um...so Christians who don't want to be forced to do business with gays would object to gays they don't want to do business being forced to do business with them.



Say what?

My point is that most people, most of the time, view most issues mostly in terms of what they stand to get out of it, or lose. There are bigots on both sides.

There are certainly bigots on both sides. A lot of liberals have through the discussion tried to make the Christian argument though that they would object if the reverse (as you did) was proposed and they all said no, gays should not have to deal with them either

That is not in the least bit true. I have not seen one such post. Why lie about something like that?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well those racist Southern States are now red. Times, they have changed.

Times have changed indeed - solid democrats like Hollings, Wallace, Faubus, Gore, et al. are gone.

My suggestion for anyone getting a business license, is to familiarize themselves with the State laws on discrimination, which apparently, the florist did not do.

So, a business license instantly strips one of any and all civil rights?

And now the racist Southern states are Red.

I thought Republican's were for "States' Rights?" Again, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Washington Constitution, along with the laws concerning business.

http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/RCWArchive/Documents/2013/2-13SuppWAConAmd.pdf

RCW Archive 2013 RCW Supplement Archive

 

[kaz]

Are you that stupid?

Nope. Unlike you, I don't succumb to stereotypes.

I guess you are that stupid. The subject was specifically Southern Democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.

And you, retard, somehow heard "everyone from the South".

Isn't that what Boo said? Or do you not know a blanket statement when you see one?

I said, "the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers", and Boo completed the statement with, "and from the South." So the totality of the statement became, "The Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers and from the South."

Exactly, it doesn't mean everyone in the south was a conservative or a racist either. But Southern Republicans, by percentage, were even more against the Civil Rights Act than the Southern Democrats were.

That's a very misleading stat since southern blacks were Democrats

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Don't give me that silly shit on the difference between a Republic and a Democracy because that distinction is not applicable in this case.

Your ignorance is profound in this case. Work on it. Start with: Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

Only if you violate non-discrimination laws. The same would apply in reverse. A gay florist could not refuse to provide flowers for a Christian couple's marriage.

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

Um...so Christians who don't want to be forced to do business with gays would object to gays they don't want to do business being forced to do business with them.



Say what?

My point is that most people, most of the time, view most issues mostly in terms of what they stand to get out of it, or lose. There are bigots on both sides.

There are certainly bigots on both sides. A lot of liberals have through the discussion tried to make the Christian argument though that they would object if the reverse (as you did) was proposed and they all said no, gays should not have to deal with them either

That is not in the least bit true. I have not seen one such post. Why lie about something like that?

Oh, well, you haven't seen it, I must be lying then. JoeBigot131 and PaintMyHouse for examlpe have argued that incessently. Given their post count, you are as KosherGirl said obviously not reading

 

[BlindBoo]

There was only ONE southern Republican who voted against the bill in the South

Right, right, as long as you don't count the other 10 Southern Republicans who voted against it!

 

[koshergrl]

Imagine the great gnashing of teeth that would ensue from the very same bible thumpers....

Um...so Christians who don't want to be forced to do business with gays would object to gays they don't want to do business being forced to do business with them.



Say what?

My point is that most people, most of the time, view most issues mostly in terms of what they stand to get out of it, or lose. There are bigots on both sides.

There are certainly bigots on both sides. A lot of liberals have through the discussion tried to make the Christian argument though that they would object if the reverse (as you did) was proposed and they all said no, gays should not have to deal with them either

That is not in the least bit true. I have not seen one such post. Why lie about something like that?

Oh, well, you haven't seen it, I must be lying then. JoeBigot131 and PaintMyHouse for examlpe have argued that incessently. Given their post count, you are as KosherGirl said obviously not reading

Told ya so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democracy sucks all the time, according to the Founders, which is why we don't have one. And the people didn't get a vote on PA laws, nor should they have gotten a vote on gay marriage. Now you know.

Don't give me that silly shit on the difference between a Republic and a Democracy because that distinction is not applicable in this case.

The fact of the matter is that the US Bill of Rights and the Washington State Constitution guaranteed the Florist the freedom of religion including religious conscience and the filthy ass extreme far Left idiots that dominate Washington State politics took that away from her to appease a butt ******* /carpet munching minority and that is not right. We should be better than that.

Libtards never believe in Constitutional freedom when it conflicts with their despicable far Left agenda and that is the main reasons our country ain't worth a shit anymore.

You don't get the religious freedom to discriminate against others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

These RWnuts are living in 1963.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democracy sucks all the time, according to the Founders, which is why we don't have one. And the people didn't get a vote on PA laws, nor should they have gotten a vote on gay marriage. Now you know.

Don't give me that silly shit on the difference between a Republic and a Democracy because that distinction is not applicable in this case.

The fact of the matter is that the US Bill of Rights and the Washington State Constitution guaranteed the Florist the freedom of religion including religious conscience and the filthy ass extreme far Left idiots that dominate Washington State politics took that away from her to appease a butt ******* /carpet munching minority and that is not right. We should be better than that.

Libtards never believe in Constitutional freedom when it conflicts with their despicable far Left agenda and that is the main reasons our country ain't worth a shit anymore.

You don't get the religious freedom to discriminate against others.

Muslims do it all the time. No one can stop them either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a truly ignorant fool would not know the Democrats of the 50s and 60s who opposed the civil rights movement were right wingers.

The Democrats and Republicans who opposed the civil rights movement back then referred to themselves as

the Conservative Coalition.