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

[Syriusly]

Otherwise, painter will send a strongly worded and creepy fax to the Vatican, and a bunch of dyke lawyers will sue the parrish.

Or blackmail a Pope...oh, wait, they already unseated a Pope...a couple of governors and now the 4th Reicht is after a popular conservative TV entertainer's career.

You are delusional.....seriously delusional.

 

[Syriusly]

"I choose to make this priest attend my homosexual lover's "baptism" and hand out towels as we step naked out of the Jacuzzi, then perform ritual fellatio. After all, he belongs to a religion where nuns participate in selling hand stitched linen..."

That's the prog fascist concept of homo choice.

Sorry, your fantasy baptism would not force a priest in attendance since the church doesn't allow homosexual's to be members.

Good luck with it, though.

But according to the homo lobby, the priest is an employee of the church, and the church makes linens for profit...so the priest is legally bound to hand out towels to naked queers, and to smile while he does it.

Nah- that would just you be lying again.

Why do the homophobes feel that their bigoted position is so weak that they feel a need to lie to support it?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

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.

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

 

[Silhouette]

Otherwise, painter will send a strongly worded and creepy fax to the Vatican, and a bunch of dyke lawyers will sue the parrish.

Or blackmail a Pope...oh, wait, they already unseated a Pope...a couple of governors and now the 4th Reicht is after a popular conservative TV entertainer's career.

You are delusional.....seriously delusional.

So who is the Pope now? Benedict or Francais?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

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.

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

Of course they should be able to. Like the Elaine Photography case however, they don't have to take it up.

 

[Syriusly]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Otherwise, painter will send a strongly worded and creepy fax to the Vatican, and a bunch of dyke lawyers will sue the parrish.

Or blackmail a Pope...oh, wait, they already unseated a Pope...a couple of governors and now the 4th Reicht is after a popular conservative TV entertainer's career.

You are delusional.....seriously delusional.

So who is the Pope now? Benedict or Francais?

Wow you are even more delusional than I thought- you don't even know who the Pope is.

 

[koshergrl]

Otherwise, painter will send a strongly worded and creepy fax to the Vatican, and a bunch of dyke lawyers will sue the parrish.

Or blackmail a Pope...oh, wait, they already unseated a Pope...a couple of governors and now the 4th Reicht is after a popular conservative TV entertainer's career.

You are delusional.....seriously delusional.

So who is the Pope now? Benedict or Francais?

Who are you talking to? I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about..and it looks like you're responding to yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

If heterosexuals want to have unions, go for it. You want the name changed, the onus is on you to change it. BTW, civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights is the epitome of separate but equal.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

If heterosexuals want to have unions, go for it. You want the name changed, the onus is on you to change it. BTW, civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights is the epitome of separate but equal.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Freewill]

From the Washington state consitution:

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.]

Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution

How does the courts ruling jive with the state constitution?

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "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."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

 

[koshergrl]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

 

[Syriusly]

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

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

If heterosexuals want to have unions, go for it. You want the name changed, the onus is on you to change it. BTW, civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights is the epitome of separate but equal.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Best written post you have ever made.

 

[PratchettFan]

From the Washington state consitution:

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.]

Laws and Agency Rules Washington State Constitution

How does the courts ruling jive with the state constitution?

Good question. You should bring that up to the judge. I suspect he will respond "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."

Thanks, I was waiting for you to quote that.

Here is the defintion:

Licentiousness
Acting without regard to law, ethics, or the rights of others.

The term licentiousness is often used interchangeably with lewdness or lasciviousness, which relate to moral impurity in asexual context.

Which is obviously what is meant in the Constitution of Washington state.

I don't believe what the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state.

As for the judge, unless you are the judge I can't argue it nor can I make him not ignore the Constitution of Washington which is pretty plainly written. Unless of course, absolute doesn't mean absolute.

It would appear the state legislature, state governor and the state courts say you are wrong. State's rights.... remember? You don't like it, don't live there.

You can read and you can make a decision. Just because theirs were obviously made to meet their ideology and not what the constitution actually does say that is not my fault and not something anyone can convince them otherwise.

I did read and I agree with them. What the florist did is inconsistent with peace and safety of the state. The state is the people, all of the people.

 

[Seawytch]

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

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

If heterosexuals want to have unions, go for it. You want the name changed, the onus is on you to change it. BTW, civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights is the epitome of separate but equal.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh look, Irishlass can't even deflect on that one.

 

[Syriusly]

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

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

What a fantastic strawman!

Christians and Muslims are both subject equally to the law.

A Muslim caterer cannot refuse to cater a Christian wedding simply because the customers were Christian or because he doesn't believe in Christian weddings.

 

[PratchettFan]

The homo lobby has had their fit and insisted that marriage is not religious....but that's not going to stop people from seeing it as a sacrament.o.

Civil marriage is not religious.

Religious marriage is.

The bigot lobby keeps insisting that Christians should not have to follow the law- when it comes to homosexuals.

We tried to explain this to you before, but you insisted you didn't care.

MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS. Whether or not YOU believe so is immaterial. Those of us who DO see it as a sacrament CANNOT BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SACRILEGIOUS TRAVESTY OF A HOLY EVENT.

Get it?

To Christians, *marriage* is a sacrament. And as such, you can't force them to participate if they don't want to. It doesnt' matter if you're religious or not. If we could force people to participate in rituals based on the fact that WE think the ritual is a load of shit, then we'd be able to force you to go to confession.

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

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

Why should they? Seriously. Why should they accept anything less than what you expect for yourself?

Christians don't have to get involved if they don't want to. If I sell you a cup of coffee, to what extent have I gotten involved in your life?

When was the last time Christians demanded Muslim buffet workers serve kebobs at the neighborhood pig slaughter party?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?

 

[Seawytch]

I think the government gets involved in things they shouldn't and the result is the homo mess

So you don't think the store owner should be able to take this to the SC then?

I think that if homos want to have unions go for it (just call them Unions and not marriage), if Christians want to refrain from getting involved that is their right. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so courts get involved and we end up with the mess we have. The homos should have just went to a gay florist or one that has no issues with SSM. That's part of the problem, some of these "suits" are by design and the result of targeting, I'm not saying this one is but some are

If heterosexuals want to have unions, go for it. You want the name changed, the onus is on you to change it. BTW, civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights is the epitome of separate but equal.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Best written post you have ever made.

Certainly the most cogent.