Skip to comments.[WA] Supreme Court to hear Arlene’s Flowers case Tuesday [Homosexual Agenda]
Posted on 11/16/2016 2:51:09 PM PST by steve86
Its a case thats inspired intense news coverage, one thats led to fierce debate about religious freedom versus protection from discrimination, and one that could have far-reaching legal implications.
And on Tuesday, more than 3 1/2 years after it was set in motion by an interaction in a Richland floral shop, the Arlenes Flowers case heads to the Washington State Supreme Court.
Oral arguments start at 9 a.m. at Bellevue College.
Attorneys for both sides will be on hand, along with supporters, journalists and the three people at the heart of the case Barronelle Stutzman, who owns the shop on Lee Boulevard, and Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, the same-sex couple who wanted flower arrangements for their wedding.
Stutzman was not available for an interview Monday, but Kerri Kupec, one of her attorneys, said her team is optimistic.
The First Amendment so clearly protects freedom of religion. This is a very clear-cut constitutional case, said Kupec, whos with Alliance Defending Freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at tri-cityherald.com ...
I have talked to Baronelle and we bought a nice memorial arrangement from her early in the summer.
She is a great gal.
Leviticus 20:13 makes so much sense these days.
The Constitutional Chickens are all coming home to roost this week!
Gay Wedding Cake Lawsuit:
didn’t this woman lose her home due to legal fees from the case or something?
No, not yet. Are you thinking of the Oregon or Colorado cases?
I’m not sure- it was an elderly florist if i am recalling right- but perhaps i have my facts mixed up- could be- I thought an elderly woman lost her business and home because she refused service to a gay couple
Liberals should ask themselves these questions:
1) Should a black baker be forced by law to bake a cake for a KKK picnic?
2) Should a Jewish florist be forced by law to provide flowers for a Nazi group?
You notice these homosexual militants ALWAYS go to Christian businesses.
You NEVER see them harass Muslim businesses.
The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to peacefully assemble. That is both a “positive” right and a “negative” right. Just as you have the right TO assemble, you have the right to NOT assemble.
Peaceful assembly is unrestricted and as a result one of the peaceful assemblies can be for the purpose of business. And again, just as you have the right to assemble and conduct business, you also have the right to NOT assemble and conduct business.
Any law which forces citizens to assemble AGAINST THEIR WILL is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Im not trying to be mean to Arlene, or other business owners with religious convictions in similar situations. But noting that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect LGBT rights, please consider the following.
As a consequence of citizens with religious convictions evidently not knowing their 14A protections, misguided, low-information, pro-LGBT agenda state officials are getting away using politically correct, constitutionally unprotected LGBT agenda rights to justify hate harassment against such people.
By doing so, these state officials are unthinkingly violating citizens constitutional protections imo, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech in these cases, the states ratifying 14A partly to prohibit themselves from doing such things.
Once again, the way around a problem like this in the future is for Christian businesses that provide services for weddings to continue to offer all non wedding services “to the public”, but only offer wedding services under the following conditions.
1) How many orthodox and conservative churches are in your area? That is, how many can and will *legally* discriminate by not marrying homosexuals?
2) Contact these churches and make a contract with them that you will *only* provide wedding services (of whatever kind) *exclusively* by contract with these churches. In exchange, you will provide a small discount for these couples referred by these churches, if they choose to get your goods or services, and a small fee for the churches themselves.
This kind of contract is very legal, and it is a very hard contract to break in court. It has the essential element of “consideration”, and it is also exclusive.
3) This does mean that wedding goods or services cannot be offered to couples from liberal churches, or for secular weddings. If someone is a “walk in” and do not have a church reference, ask them to arrange their marriage from the list of churches. If they refuse, or the church refuses to marry them, you can legally deny them those goods or services.
4) Other Christian providers can piggy-back on the contract as well. So wedding cakes, bridal gowns, flowers, photography, catering, all could be protected.
And the STATE can ONLY promote NATURAL RIGHTS FROM GOD. There are NO “natural rights” to sodomize anyone, nor a right to force Christians to glorify such irrational, vile behaviors.
There is no “Just Law” that can promote the vice of sodomy as a “Right” or “Natural” and sodomizing others is always irrational, (removea Reason from Just Law (can’t do that) and it is promotion of Vice (can’t do that either in a Just Law). Promoting evil makes the law “Null and Void”.
This “homosexual” marriage “law is unconstitutional and not only does it destroy the meaning of the word “marriage” (can’t do that legally), it destroys the moral formation of children by flipping 2000 years of ethics back to Satanism (paganism)-—a religion.. It is irrational, vile, dehumanizing behaviors that can’t be condoned in a civil society.
Just Laws have to be rational, and have to promote “public virtue” (Montesquieu, Justice Marshall, Founders, John Locke). Those are the ONLY constitutional “Laws”. Nuremberg Trials stated as much, as did MLK, Jr.
There are SCOTUS members who need to be put in prison for Treason.
Discrimination isnt acceptable in the state of Washington. Using
religion homosexuality as a way to (discriminate) is not acceptable, Ingersoll said.
You can bet your last dollar that the leftist state SC justices couldn’t give a rat’s @$$ about the first amendment rights of the Christians here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.