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

[PaintMyHouse]

Yo, Bodecea, I`ll tell you? Just look at your avatar?

"GTP"

I love adblock.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The attorney general never wanted to punish Stutzman. He just wanted to make her stop practicing her religion.

No one is stopping her from practicing her religion. They are trying to make her follow the law.

There is no cover provided by 'religion' to discriminate, thank God!

She didn't discriminate.

Why do you keep saying that when she so obviously did? It's just dumb to keep repeating that.

 

[Nosmo King]

If her business is open to the public, and the customers are wearing shirts and shoes and have payment in hand, her business must accommodate those customers.

And whom I sell the product of my hands to isn't my business? Ever hear of freedom of artistic expression? If I made an epic masterpiece painting, and I wanted to sell it, I could dictate who it could be sold to.

If you decide that the customer is not worthy of your efforts due to an immutable fact about said customer, you are a bigot. If you decided that said customer is not worthy of your services due to your own prejudices, youy are operating a public business and breaking the law.

 

[bodecea]

The law disagrees.

And the law is infallible, right assclown shortbus?

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Until it is repealed or declared unConstitutional. Has that happened yet? If not, why not?

 

[bodecea]

[
Why do you say that "Gay is a race!"?

Why do you and your fellow drones?

Where has anyone said "Gay is a race"......besides you?

 

[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.

A court house wedding is by definition not religiously sacred.

WEDDINGS are religiously sacred.

That's why Christians are not crazy about the state getting in the middle of them. Just because you weirdoes come along and say "Ok weddings aren't sacred anymore" doesn't mean we have to endorse it or agree with it. We told you that we considered it a perversion of a sacrament..and you will never force us to endorse or participate in it.

 

[bodecea]

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.

A court house wedding is by definition not religiously sacred.

WEDDINGS are religiously sacred.

That's why Christians are not crazy about the state getting in the middle of them. Just because you weirdoes come along and say "Ok weddings aren't sacred anymore" doesn't mean we have to endorse it or agree with it. We told you that we considered it a perversion of a sacrament..and you will never force us to endorse or participate in it.

Cool...we had a religiously sacred wedding well over a decade before we could get a legal marriage license.

 

[Katzndogz]

The attorney general never wanted to punish Stutzman. He just wanted to make her stop practicing her religion.

No one is stopping her from practicing her religion. They are trying to make her follow the law.

There is no cover provided by 'religion' to discriminate, thank God!

She didn't discriminate.

Why do you keep saying that when she so obviously did? It's just dumb to keep repeating that.

Because this gay couple were customers for nine years.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

A court house wedding is by definition not religiously sacred.

WEDDINGS are religiously sacred.

That's why Christians are not crazy about the state getting in the middle of them.

Good thing we fixed that long ago eh, where what you do in a church doesn't matter a damn to the state that way. You could get married in a church every day and it still wouldn't be legal without the license or seven years of living together as a married couple.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you decide that the customer is not worthy of your efforts due to an immutable fact about said customer, you are a bigot.

It would then be my right to be a bigot, and not your right to force a change in my beliefs simply because you don't like them, which is also bigoted within itself.

Stop being a bigot, bigot.

If you decided that said customer is not worthy of your services due to your own prejudices, you are operating a public business and breaking the law.

Any law that forces me to go against my religiously held beliefs is an intrinsic violation of my First Amendment rights. Religious preference isn't unique to just Christians, Nosmo.

 

[Seawytch]

The law disagrees.

And the law is infallible, right assclown shortbus?

Sodomy laws in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nope, it isn't. You are free to challenge these laws like this florist did. She lost. The photographer lost too...and the SCOTUS chose not to take the case.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The attorney general never wanted to punish Stutzman. He just wanted to make her stop practicing her religion.

No one is stopping her from practicing her religion. They are trying to make her follow the law.

There is no cover provided by 'religion' to discriminate, thank God!

She didn't discriminate.

Why do you keep saying that when she so obviously did? It's just dumb to keep repeating that.

Because this gay couple were customers for nine years.

Yes, but one day when they were customers she refused to treat them that way, and broke the law doing so. Just because I drive the speed limit on a road every day for a year doesn't mean I didn't break the law the day I was speeding.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, she will and should sue the State after she wins her court fight!!!

"GTP"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Any law that forces me to go against my religiously held beliefs is an intrinsic violation of my First Amendment rights. Religious preference isn't unique to just Christians, Nosmo.

Well, then you're in a lot of trouble here, so where are you planning on moving? The courts say different.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yo, she will and should sue the State after she wins her court fight!!!

"GTP"

She's already lost. Do try and keep up. She lost about keeping her personal assets out of it as well.

 

[Seawytch]

Yo, she will and should sue the State after she wins her court fight!!!

"GTP"

What part of "she lost" don't you understand?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Try reading before responding. Did I say Gay is a race? Nope! But your failure to comprehend my post put you in a particularly poor light.

While we protect race because it is not a factor in what a person is, sexual preference is a behavior and cannot rationally be protected.

By associating homosexuality with race, you offer the same logical fallacy that your party does in general.

 

[Seawytch]

Any law that forces me to go against my religiously held beliefs is an intrinsic violation of my First Amendment rights. Religious preference isn't unique to just Christians, Nosmo.

Yeah, the folks at Ollie's BBQ argued the same thing, that serving blacks violated their religious beliefs. They lost.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What part of "she lost" don't you understand?

What part of "appeals" did the hate sites fail to program you with?

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, she needs to find a judge that agrees with her, like your boy Obama does?

"GTP"