Posted on 03/28/2015 9:12:06 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
A judge in Washington state on Friday fined a florist $1,000 after she refused to sell flower arrangements for a gay couple's wedding, officials said.
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who along with the couple - Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed - sued florist Barronelle Stutzman in 2013, applauded the ruling in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at ottawasun.com ...
and so it begins, even after the homosexuals swore up and down that they ‘just wanted to get married’ and that they would ‘never go after religious groups or churches’- We see once again that was just another bald-faced LIE
Most flowers are bisexual. I don’t see why they’d object to being at a gay wedding.
But if I’m this lady, I would pay the $1,000 fine then file a harassment suit against the couple for making public a private business negotiation which led to significant emotional and monetary damages.
I mean, that's the modus operandi of the Left.
I don’t follow your argument.
Are you saying the purposeful targeting is a violation of the First Amendment? How.
maybe she should sub her order out to westborrow ‘baptist’ church, and the flower arrangement could be spraypainted with the line “God Hates Fags” and “This message Brought to you by the westborrow ‘baptist’ church”- Judges have been upholding the scum westborrow church vile statements for quite some time now- so it’d be interesting to see what the judge has to say about that
[[Does a T-shirt printer have to print stuff for ISIS? ]]
As long as they are gay- yes
Do the religious freedom laws like the one Indiana just passed (and 19 other states have almost verbatim) prevent lawsuits like this?
Dang! They went from demanding tolerance to demanding acceptance to demanding celebration to demanding servicing in short order.
One Solution: Find a florist run by a homosexual (especially one run by an outspoken homosexual for “gay rights”) — shouldn’t take much effort — order a floral arrangement that spells out “protect traditional marriage” or something similar, then sue the business if they refuse to process the order.
Or he couldn’t convince himself, so he tried to bury her under 60 pages of legal hodge podge. Guess it worked.
She is standing her ground and said she wouldn’t succumb to unGodly pressure.
Here is her letter:
Attorney General Bob Ferguson
1125 Washington St. SE
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504
Re: State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman
Dear Mr. Ferguson,
Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.
As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.
Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.
I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.
Sincerely,
Barronelle Stutzman
Available here: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFlowersSettlementOfferResponse.pdf
There are many florists and bakers in Washington and Oregon states who will gladly provide services to homosexuals. If one or two of either services won’t provide satisfaction, there are many who will do so. There are more bakeries than just one, in Eugene, Oregon, for example.
The florist in the article, the baker I mentioned from Eugene, were no doubt known for their religious beliefs. I believe they were targeted in violation of their Constitutional rights. The Progressive laws citing non-discrimination, both in Oregon and Washington, violate First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States IMO, and I believe those two states can have their laws negated in the USSC.
OK, I follow.
I think what the guy from Castle rock CO is doing is probably faster.
He shopped around until he found a baker who refused to bake him a cake with a Christian message on it. He has sued, it’s now before the CO department that drove the Christian baker in Denver out of the business of wedding cakes.
The department graciously granted themselves another 90 day to consider, because the one year time they’ve already had was too short for such a difficult decision, and a decision is expected in about a month or so.
Can the state sue if my dog bites a gay?.
I’d do it. No way I’d get fined $1000 instead of making a bunch. I’d do it ,but I’m afraid my skills would slip badly. Oh no.
I know. If we each sent $1, we’d pay this off in nothing flat. Even I could afford a dollar.
That won’t work any more as there are now religious orders of the Christian nature that have now accepted doing homosexual weddings.
You’re free not to accept this or that sect’s interpretation of holy matrimony. If you disagree with it, you don’t have to bake the cake. There’s nothing in the law that defines holy matrimony, only marriage. Holy matrimony is purely a religious concept and is distinct from the state sanctioned legal arrangment of marriage.
I wonder if this would hold up in court or if it would be deemed a frivolous evasion.
Send them dead flowers in the morning...
Somebody or organization needs to come to the defense of these folks and file a lawsuit against the state (the US Constitution does take precedent over state laws, right?) to overturn this discriminatory law and restore the rights we all enjoy in this country.
But, in the meantime, if I was a business in Washington, I'd be packing up and moving to friendlier climes than this Marxist state in the northwest.
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.