Of course, I would go above and beyond the call to see to it that it was a "wedding day" they would never forget...
Damned straight!
Posted on 01/07/2015 5:13:30 PM PST by steve86
The owner of a Richland flower shop being sued over her refusal to provide services for a same-sex wedding can face claims in her personal capacity, a Benton County Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday.
Barronelle Stutzman and her Arlene’s Flowers are being sued by the state Attorney General’s office and a same-sex couple. Stutzman, a Christian, declined to provide services for the couple’s wedding because of her religious beliefs.
Her attorneys argued the claims against her personally should be dropped, describing them as unprecedented and unjust.
Attorneys for the state and the couple argued Stutzman can be held personally liable under the law.
In a decision Wednesday, Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled that “the clear language of the CPA (Consumer Protection Act) and WLAD (Washington Law Against Discrimination) supports both individual and corporate liability.”
However, he did toss out one of the couple’s claims — that Stutzman aided her business in violating state anti-discrimination law.
Ekstrom also dismissed some of Stutzman’s arguments dealing with the state’s standing to bring its lawsuit.
Ekstrom hasn’t yet ruled on some other summary judgment motions in the case. At this time, trial is set for the spring.
Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/01/07/3346717_judge-denies-motion-to-toss-out.html?sp=/99/177/&rh=1#storylink=cpy
Gay bakers and gay flower shop owners can do the same thing to Christians without worrying about legal ramifications.
Thanks FRiend.
I understand the issues, just trying to get to fact.
I’ll do some more research.
Ah yes, the hissy fits will disturb the peace if we don’t do that.
Homosexuals are compelled to project their self-hatred onto others.
You know very well that they wouldn't develop self-hatred without society's help. s/
Than that would be different. The person in question is not just suing the company and the judge ruled that, through her incorporated company that her assets were on the line. She is also.being sued personally.
I don’t agree with the lawsuit and the liberal agenda is making it necessary for Christians to fight back, and we will.
...and now that we have the Federal House and Senate, can’t a law be passed allowing for religious objection to a certain endeavor?....afterall, she is not a public employee, she’s a private person with her own business....why can’t she serve who she wants....
In that case the prosecutor has to prove (show-how) the action actually does impact the Peace and safety of the state
— in fact, if it were argued that the protections do not extend because of it, her defense could consist solely of the legal equivalent of prove it!
— The prosecution has failed to demonstrate how the action of refusing to sell flowers constituted a danger to the peace and safety of the entire state of Washington; ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is obvious that this is precisely the harassment, the molestation, that the State Constitution prohibits! That this travesty of a case has gotten this far is exactly the disgrace and and shame that section 2.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mentions! — Ladies and gentelemen of the jury, my client has done nothing wrong in standing by her religious beliefs and the State itself wants you to punish her for that. Are you going to stand with your fellow-citizen, or are you going to kowtow to the State's evil whims of punishing the innocent!?
The judge is allowing it. That seems wrong to me. I hope the defense attorneys play this well.
" more so than the actual defendants plaintiffs (with respect to the actions by the state)."
A quick two click of the mouse check of the Washington Secretary of State's website shows an Arlene's Flowers, Inc., Chartered December 18, 1989, with BARRONELLE STUTZMAN as president and chairman.
Try a little harder next time to defend the fascists persecuting her.
It appears to be the only one incorporated with her as president. I guess this is going to turn into a ‘smoke out the liberaltarians thread.
She should have taken the job....and delivered dead, rotting flowers.
If I were interested in defending those using the courts to attack this woman, I’d have to try harder, a lot harder.
Many articles about this are stating she refused to serve gays. That is not true. Basically she refused to enter into a contract that would violate her religious beliefs. If the state can force you to enter into a contract the logical extension of that power is to force you into servitude at their pleasure. How that does not violate your rights is beyond me.
Actually, lawyers have been doing this (get at the personal assets of company owners), or attempting to, for many years. It's called "piercing the corporate veil". If you do not do a good job of keeping your business and personal accounts separate, it's not tough to "pierce the veil".
(There are other ways to establish the connection from the business to the person, but that is the most common.)
(That link was from the Muslims killing French cops thread... I guess I didn’t copy the post I was replying to. Mods, feel free to fix, if necessary.)
Of course, I would go above and beyond the call to see to it that it was a "wedding day" they would never forget...
Damned straight!
Sounds like a State Attorney Generals Office is in bad need of an Enema. Maybe one of the “extra special rights citizens” they shill for will oblige them.
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.