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

[PaintMyHouse]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

the cult of anal sex. God, you're freaking killing me here. LOL

It is a cult.

 

[Silhouette]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

She's appealing, so her "loss" is no more of a loss than those gays in the 6th circuit federal court of appeals until the Fat Lady sings. Or is justice only a one-sided affair now that the 4th Reicht is rolling into the 1940s?

 

[PratchettFan]

Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol

Be sure to read the comments on this loony blog.

The stupidity of RWs never ceases to amaze me. Or how many believe 'equality for all, except those you arbitrarily decide to hate'.

Just one question: why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who does not approve of gay marriage? Why would they want to contribute to the profit of a business that does not approve of their lifestyle?

Try to answer honestly.

You DO know that couple did business with that florist just fine for 9 years and were shocked when she stated that suddenly Jesus didn't want her to provide them with flowers for their wedding. Right? You knew that, right?

The fact that she serviced those gay people for 9 years proves that she can sell gay people flowers and it won't harm her religion. It shows that she knows that her religion has nothing to do with her business. It shows that she knows that she has to follow the state's PA laws.

It also shows that she only wanted to play the "victim" and give the far right another thing to ***** and whine about.

If anyone is claiming to be the victim it's the homos. If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

It would appear that is not the case.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

She's appealing, so her "loss" is no more of a loss than those gays in the 6th circuit federal court of appeals until the Fat Lady sings. Or is justice only a one-sided affair now that the 4th Reicht is rolling into the 1940s?

The SC has already rejected claims against PA laws like this. She has nowhere to go to win in the end.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Be sure to read the comments on this loony blog.

The stupidity of RWs never ceases to amaze me. Or how many believe 'equality for all, except those you arbitrarily decide to hate'.

Just one question: why would a gay couple want to do business with a florist who does not approve of gay marriage? Why would they want to contribute to the profit of a business that does not approve of their lifestyle?

Try to answer honestly.

You DO know that couple did business with that florist just fine for 9 years and were shocked when she stated that suddenly Jesus didn't want her to provide them with flowers for their wedding. Right? You knew that, right?

The fact that she serviced those gay people for 9 years proves that she can sell gay people flowers and it won't harm her religion. It shows that she knows that her religion has nothing to do with her business. It shows that she knows that she has to follow the state's PA laws.

It also shows that she only wanted to play the "victim" and give the far right another thing to ***** and whine about.

If anyone is claiming to be the victim it's the homos. If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

It would appear that is not the case.

Hence the appeal

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

The SC has already rejected claims against PA laws like this. She has nowhere to go to win in the end.

 

[Syriusly]

[
We will call this case "the commandment of Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament vs the cult of anal sex" case. And yes, it will go before the Supreme Court as such. .

Well if it were to go to the Supreme Court exactly like that I would just love to watch how fast it was ignored.

 

[Syriusly]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

You know what- if the Supreme Court decides that this state law is unconstitutional- well then I will accept that the Supreme Court decision is binding on state law, and that the law is unconstitutional.

When the Supreme Court decides that state marriage law is unconstitutional- what will your position be about the Supreme Court and State law then?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

The SC has already rejected claims against PA laws like this. She has nowhere to go to win in the end.

You have no idea what the Supreme Court will do. It always catches you Leftists by surprise when they side with the Constitution like they did with Hobby Lobby.

 

[PratchettFan]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

She's appealing, so her "loss" is no more of a loss than those gays in the 6th circuit federal court of appeals until the Fat Lady sings. Or is justice only a one-sided affair now that the 4th Reicht is rolling into the 1940s?

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

Then she should appeal and take it all the way. Of course, that is counter to the concept of state's rights. The feds are going to step in and tell a state what laws it can or cannot have?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

You know what- if the Supreme Court decides that this state law is unconstitutional- well then I will accept that the Supreme Court decision is binding on state law, and that the law is unconstitutional.

When the Supreme Court decides that state marriage law is unconstitutional- what will your position be about the Supreme Court and State law then?

I'm eager to get a decision on that. Are you sure you are?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

She's appealing, so her "loss" is no more of a loss than those gays in the 6th circuit federal court of appeals until the Fat Lady sings. Or is justice only a one-sided affair now that the 4th Reicht is rolling into the 1940s?

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

Then she should appeal and take it all the way. Of course, that is counter to the concept of state's rights. The feds are going to step in and tell a state what laws it can or cannot have?

Why not? They are doing it with SSM

 

[Ravi]

Once again- here is Washington State law. This is the law that is being enforced.

Do you think the whole law is wrong- or only when the law is enforced regarding discrimination based upon sexual orientation?

RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.
(1)The right to be free from discrimination because of
race,
creed,
color,
national origin,
sex,
honorably discharged veteran or military status,
sexual orientation, or the
presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability

is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

The entire law is wrong no matter how it's enforced. Freedom of association is a fundamental right, to be able to interact and conduct business with whoever one wants. These attacks on businesses who don't want to accommodate perverted lifestyles is an extension of a perverse law to begin with.

why is it only one way, in your opinion? Why does the business owner get to choose who to do business with while the customer can't choose who to do business with?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

The SC has already rejected claims against PA laws like this. She has nowhere to go to win in the end.

You have no idea what the Supreme Court will do. It always catches you Leftists by surprise when they side with the Constitution like they did with Hobby Lobby.

I know exactly what they will do about a gay marriage PA versus religious claim, because they already have, they rejected it.

 

[koshergrl]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

She's appealing, so her "loss" is no more of a loss than those gays in the 6th circuit federal court of appeals until the Fat Lady sings. Or is justice only a one-sided affair now that the 4th Reicht is rolling into the 1940s?

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

Then she should appeal and take it all the way. Of course, that is counter to the concept of state's rights. The feds are going to step in and tell a state what laws it can or cannot have?

She has a case for appeal, and what is going to happen is that the law that Scalia stupidly signed a few years back is a bad law. It should never have happened, and now we have to deal with this shit.

 

[Ravi]

the cult of anal sex. God, you're freaking killing me here. LOL

That was described in one of the books not allowed into the bible. The preaching on it was deemed too racy.

 

[koshergrl]

Once again- here is Washington State law. This is the law that is being enforced.

Do you think the whole law is wrong- or only when the law is enforced regarding discrimination based upon sexual orientation?

RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.
(1)The right to be free from discrimination because of
race,
creed,
color,
national origin,
sex,
honorably discharged veteran or military status,
sexual orientation, or the
presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability

is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

The entire law is wrong no matter how it's enforced. Freedom of association is a fundamental right, to be able to interact and conduct business with whoever one wants. These attacks on businesses who don't want to accommodate perverted lifestyles is an extension of a perverse law to begin with.

why is it only one way, in your opinion? Why does the business owner get to choose who to do business with while the customer can't choose who to do business with?

The customer can choose.

They just can't force.

Force.
Choose.

They mean different things. The thing is..they're only allowed to choose from AVAILABLE options. They don't get to say "YOU HAVE TO DO THIS" and people have to do it.

You leftist pigs don't get that.

 

[PratchettFan]

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

She's appealing, so her "loss" is no more of a loss than those gays in the 6th circuit federal court of appeals until the Fat Lady sings. Or is justice only a one-sided affair now that the 4th Reicht is rolling into the 1940s?

If the florist felt supplying flowers for something that violates her beliefs she has every right to refuse

Actually she doesn't, hence why she lost in court.

And yet her lawyers believe she has a case for appeal. This will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they will strike down all your unconstitutional laws that attempt to make the Constitution void in business. Hobby Lobby was a warning, now the hammer comes down.

Then she should appeal and take it all the way. Of course, that is counter to the concept of state's rights. The feds are going to step in and tell a state what laws it can or cannot have?

Why not? They are doing it with SSM

Oh, I am all for it. I am a proponent of a strong national government. It's nice to see you are as well.