Posted on 02/23/2015 7:38:22 AM PST by wagglebee
RICHLAND, WA, February 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Washington State Superior Court judge ruled this week that politicians have the power to restrict religious actions and expression.
Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not.
Stutzman is the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Washington. A business owner for nearly 40 years, she was sued twice for allegedly violating the state's "Consumer Protection Act," because she refused to furnish flowers for a homosexual “marriage” service. The Act denies business owners religious liberty when it comes to sexual orientation, regardless of the owner's sincerely held beliefs.
In his decision, Ekstrom said that the 2006 law is constitutional. "For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," he ruled.
He said that "in trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations," legislatures are allowed "to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory." Ekstrom ruled that this applies "even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."
The case goes back nearly two years ago, when Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed asked Stutzman to provide flower arrangements for their "marriage." Stutzman, who had an existing professional relationship with Ingersoll, said in a deposition that “I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ I couldn’t do that, couldn’t do his wedding."
The former customers are seeking $7.91 in damages, to cover the cost of driving to another floral shop, and Stutzman faces up to $2,000 in fines plus the cost of legal fees because of charges filed by the state of Washington.
"Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said when he filed charges nearly two years ago. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
Stutzman, who is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, has said she will appeal Ekstrom's decision.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is backing Ingersoll and Freed, declined to comment to LifeSiteNews.
In a public statement, the legal director for the secularist advocacy group's state chapter said that "religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or to harm others because of who they are. When gay people go to a business, they should be treated like anyone else and not be discriminated against."
However, conservative blogger Erick Erickson decried the decision, telling LifeSiteNews that "the judge should have allowed free expression of religion by allowing the florist to opt out, particularly since it was well established she would otherwise serve gay customers."
Erickson, who compared extreme gay rights activists to Islamic extremists in a post about Stutzman's case, also said that "states should allow Christians to opt out of having to provide goods and services to gay weddings."
Judges today for the most part could not care less about the law, they are activists who took the position of judge in order to pass an agenda.
When you see Kagan clapping fairy boy during the SOTU then you know they are not fair or non biased.
See my #37. To understand the totalitarian mindset on the Left, you need to recognize that the principal motivation for wanting to create a new social order--whether you call it Communism, National Socialism, or an American "Liberalism" that seeks some form of humanist or egalitarian uniformity--is a deep & actual hatred of the cultural values which that "ism" attacks. To understand an organization like the ACLU, look not at their rationalizations--their specious verbal arguments that seek to make "tyranny" a "civil liberty";--but at what their successes actual mean to the basic rights of a people--including a people's right to enjoy the spiritual & cultural achievements of their forebears.
Understood on the anvil of experience, the ACLU is more like Ernst Roehm's Brown Shirts--albeit with a silk glove rather than a bludgeon--than anything remotely American. Note that they never stand up for the Second Amendment; even as they distort the First; never for the property rights of the people, even as they work with other Leftist groups to encourage the sort of attack on property owners, such as the subject of this thread.
A few judges have developed a novel definition of ‘marriage’ that has never been recognized by any major society, and has been specifically and repeatedly rejected by the people of the United States, and have imposed this novel definition on the people of the United States. These same judges now claim that if you do not follow their diktat that you are being discriminatory, thus applying legitimate law to illegitimate and illegal judicial diktats. And other judges ignore law and follow these judges.
The word for these people is TYRANT.
The only fail safe is 'have to check you schedule, and get back to' the prospective client. Where this lady went wrong is being honest with a long time client.
People have been artificially conditioned to accept more and more limitations on their rights to make their own free choices in their own affairs. It is by this step by step imposition of limitations, that freedom is lost.
There is a major difference between doing something mischievous, intended to harm another; and simply preferring to do business with one person, rather than another.
Being honest is NEVER wrong. But perhaps you meant that she should have kept silent?
You prefer the lie by omission route.
However as the construction of the cake is a contract the lady should agree to make the cake, in exchange for the repayment of the national debt in cash.
It is foolish to assume that one of the parties in a contract is obligated to accept the contract unilaterally as dictated by another. The business owner has an equal right to not join in the contract. Ignoring the obvious to make a Constitutional ruling on homosexual marriage is illegal in any real court of justice.
This is WHY homosexuality was illegal, it is a mental illness that consumes the focus of the afflicted on reality.
Homosexuals are insane.
Because the whole “Christ vs everything else” is coming to a head.
Churches you better be prepared to lose you 501c3 tax status, then when you loose that and still refuse to marry homosexuals, then you will loose your church building and may end up in jail.
This is coming. The powers of darkness are way more committed than the children of light.
Nice try at mischaracterizing my post. To keep your mouth shut is an instruction found in the Bible, and if you are seriously trying to pin that idiocy of your post on me, try it with Jesus before Pilot and then before Caiaphas. Read your Bible more ...
I DO agree but this judge is confirming the same decisions reached in the other bakery case and the flower case: that your beliefs LOSE to their veliefs.
That’s why I think ,,,or would like to see someone...raise the argument that you cannot force a person to engage in speech.
But who knows...I thought there was no way they could coerce me to buy something I didn’t want....
Agree and the latest example was the TX judge who ordered for two homosexual women to marry yet the judge knew it is against TX law.
I don’t know about how judges should be removed enough to comment but surely some of these judges should go as well time limits on federal judges.
You can chalk that one up to the treachery of a man easily blackmailed, who was placed in a position of high authority. John Roberts is a dead-soul bitch of the oligarchy.
That’s what reprobates do, devoid of right thinking.
Agree . Right now we have those who call themselves Christian and yet vote Democrat, . We have the media, the Government for the most part, those who claim they are republicans or conservatives but are for drugs, open borders, homosexuality etc and then the left are all out waging war against Christians.
Christians who vote Democrat have fallen for the whole “collective salvation” BS. I don’t know where they can scripturally justify it, but it’s how they justify their political leanings - as if it is part of their “good works”.
The judge is an ass.
The communists did the same type of action in Soviet Russia. “You are free to be a Christian, but if you are then clearly you are not a very smart person and should not be allowed to be succesful by owning a business, being a doctor, etc.”
We are on a dangerous path and one that is going to be rough to abandon....
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.