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

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Not in a business or most public events or places, but you sure as hell can in a church or a private club. Knock yourself out.

 

[Flash]

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

A law was passed to appease a despicable Liberal special interest group. To quote Hillary Clinton "what difference does it make" if it was passed by direct vote or by representative government? The distinction is not important in this case. The Florist still had her freedom of religion stripped from her regardless of how the anti discrimination law was enacted.

Stop being an idiot. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

These RWnuts are living in 1963.

1863 actually, and many of them are 400 years before that!

 

[bodecea]

[

She can do pretty much whatever she likes in church, but businesses are required to follow Man's laws, not God's.

But you left out the part about the Bill of Rights protecting the right of the people to have freedom of religion and that right is not restricted to within the walls of a church.

You Libtard are always confused about things like this, aren't you?

Show us the part of her religion where she gets to lie about following the business laws she signed up for.

 

[bodecea]

Everything a true believer does is serving God. If you would go to church every once in a while you would understand that. Our Founding Fathers understood that and that is why they said that the state should not interfere with religion.

Baking a cake and selling it is not worship.

Of course it is to a believer.

The Church of Betty Crocker.

 

[bendog]

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."

Well, here in Miss, the modern gop party began in the early 60s. It explicitly did not include support for segregation in it's platform, and was denounced by segregationists. However, it leaned Goldwater and opposed the civil rights acts.

Wirt Yerger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Imo all this stuff about which party has the racists is bullshite. They both do.

 

[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

A law was passed to appease a despicable Liberal special interest group. To quote Hillary Clinton "what difference does it make" if it was passed by direct vote or by representative government? The distinction is not important in this case. The Florist still had her freedom of religion stripped from her regardless of how the anti discrimination law was enacted.

Stop being an idiot. You are embarrassing yourself.

Her business isn't a church. She has to follow different rules. Stop being a child and accept what has been true for centuries, capitalism is regulated.

 

[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.

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

Really?

 

[bodecea]

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.

There it is. Bedfellows.

 

[Ravi]

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

^more lies

 

[Katzndogz]

[

She can do pretty much whatever she likes in church, but businesses are required to follow Man's laws, not God's.

But you left out the part about the Bill of Rights protecting the right of the people to have freedom of religion and that right is not restricted to within the walls of a church.

You Libtard are always confused about things like this, aren't you?

Show us the part of her religion where she gets to lie about following the business laws she signed up for.

She followed all the laws. This was a long time customer of nine years. Certainly if she refused to sell them flowers it would have been an issue before now.

 

[kaz]

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

^more lies

Here you go sweetheart. Sucks to be you

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to force someone to bake you a cake? I can't find that part.

Where in the constitution does it say they CAN'T require you to bake a cake?


Actually, what requires you to back a cake is when you took out an ad that says, "I bake wedding cakes" In short, your advertisement was half of a written contract.

 

[bodecea]

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

Nope. They were and always will be Democrats. When the Civil Rights act passed, a couple of Democrats, namely Strom Thurmond switched parties because he so strongly believed in segregation and the inferiority of the black man.

By the way, that would make a good sig line for someone. Too bad I don't bandy about people's stupidity on my sig line.

Only a couple.....that's why the South is still Blue today, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[

She can do pretty much whatever she likes in church, but businesses are required to follow Man's laws, not God's.

But you left out the part about the Bill of Rights protecting the right of the people to have freedom of religion and that right is not restricted to within the walls of a church.

You Libtard are always confused about things like this, aren't you?

Show us the part of her religion where she gets to lie about following the business laws she signed up for.

She followed all the laws. This was a long time customer of nine years. Certainly if she refused to sell them flowers it would have been an issue before now.

You seem to be having trouble understanding that she could have sold them flowers 1,000 times before, but if she refused, and she did, on time 1,001, she broke the law, which she did.

 

[bodecea]

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.

It doesn't matter that you don't believe the sacraments are holy.

Christians do feel they are holy, and you can't force them to participate in freak show travesties of them. Sorry!

Flower arrangements for money are now sacraments. Fascinating.

 

[koshergrl]

So a florist can deny service to a Catholic....because behavior is not a race.
Nope....sorry. They would still be breaking the SAME law.

IF the 13th actually has meaning, a florist can refuse to serve anyone they please, for any reason.

For the 13th amendment to apply the florist would have to not be paid.

Slavery or involuntary servitude is when someone works for another person against their will and it's paid.

The gay couple would have paid the florist so it's not slavery or involuntary servitude.

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

If you want to discuss this silly crap then be aware that a greater percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the Democrats.

I personally think it was the wrong thing to do to pass the Act but both the Republicans and Democrats disagreed with the concept of personal liberty and voted for the thing anyhow.

If you're going to "discuss this crap" then you should realize that the vote went down on regional lines, not political ones. It was the racist South against the progressive North, period.

Nonsense. Racism has always been the cancer of the left. Always.

Wow.....talk about revisionist history.

Wow that person is not a very good liar.

I guess according to that right winger it was the republicans who elected Barak Obama.

Not the democrats.

Nonsense. Meaningless gabble from an ignoramus. Let's not dicker over the "proper definition" of slavery. You loons did this with "life" and "marriage"..now you're doing it with "slavery".

We know what slavery is. And you are not the modern day romans, and you will not enslave modern day Christians. Get over it.

 

[Dana7360]

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

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

That all said, shes a despicable bigot. **** her

I agree completely. I think that discriminating against homosexuals should not only be legal, but protected!

The only catch is that they should have to post big signs by the entrance and include a clearly visible "non fine print" disclaimer in all their advertisements that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

But what if all business in their area did that? What if there was no business in their area who would do business with them?

Where would gay people shop? How would they get food to live? How would they have a place to live?

I guess their only option is to move to a place that doesn't discriminate against them. Why should a person have to leave their home, family, friends and job just so that someone will sell goods and services to them?

That's the problem with such an attitude. You're allowing business to force someone to starve to death or not have clothes or a roof over their heads.

And what about our constitution? It clearly says everyone is equal under the law. Do you now just want to trash the constitution to be able to starve people to death?

 

[Ravi]

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

^more lies

Here you go sweetheart. Sucks to be you

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to force someone to bake you a cake? I can't find that part.

Where in the constitution does it say they CAN'T require you to bake a cake?


Actually, what requires you to back a cake is when you took out an ad that says, "I bake wedding cakes" In short, your advertisement was half of a written contract.

That doesn't even remotely say that gays shouldn't have to deal with Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

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

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

That all said, shes a despicable bigot. **** her

I agree completely. I think that discriminating against homosexuals should not only be legal, but protected!

The only catch is that they should have to post big signs by the entrance and include a clearly visible "non fine print" disclaimer in all their advertisements that they refuse to serve homosexuals.

But what if all business in their area did that? What if there was no business in their area who would do business with them?

Where would gay people shop? How would they get food to live? How would they have a place to live?

I guess their only option is to move to a place that doesn't discriminate against them. Why should a person have to leave their home, family, friends and job just so that someone will sell goods and services to them?

That's the problem with such an attitude. You're allowing business to force someone to starve to death or not have clothes or a roof over their heads.

And what about our constitution? It clearly says everyone is equal under the law. Do you now just want to trash the constitution to be able to starve people to death?

Then they would have to go into business themselves.

Christians aren't going to cater to sacrilegious ceremonies, and the homo lobby can't force them to. It isn't going to happen. They don't have a "constitutional right" to cake baked by Christians.

 

[koshergrl]

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

^more lies

Here you go sweetheart. Sucks to be you

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to force someone to bake you a cake? I can't find that part.

Where in the constitution does it say they CAN'T require you to bake a cake?


Actually, what requires you to back a cake is when you took out an ad that says, "I bake wedding cakes" In short, your advertisement was half of a written contract.

That doesn't even remotely say that gays shouldn't have to deal with Christians.

Wow. You don't make sense even when you try really, really hard.