Judge Rules Florist May Be Sued Personally for Declining to Provide Flowers for ‘Gay Wedding’

stutzman adfRICHLAND, Wash. — A judge in Washington has ruled that the state may hold a florist personally liable for declining to provide flowers for a regular customer’s same-sex “wedding,” thus authorizing authorities to go after her personal assets should she lose the legal battle.

As previously reported, Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit March 2012 by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claimed that she violated the law by not fulfilling the order. Stutzman had been approached by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event.

“I just took his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told reporters.

After Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue—both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments.

“It blew way out of proportion,” Stutzman explained. “I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.”

Weeks later, Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued Stutzman a letter advising that she must accommodate homosexual ceremonies or be subject to a lawsuit and heavy fines. He included with his letter a form that offered Stutzman the opportunity to recant and agree to comply with the law. She refused, and was subsequently met with a discrimination suit.

But the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) contended that Ferguson’s actions were inappropriate since he never received a complaint, but rather filed on his own volition.

  • Connect with Christian News

“This Court should reject the Attorney General’s illegitimate claim of authority to bring this action,” the motion states. “Accordingly, this Court should dismiss the Complaint filed by the State of Washington for lack of primary jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by law, and lack of standing.”

It also filed a motion asking that Ferguson and the ACLU—which filed a separate suit—be prohibited from attacking Stutzman on a personal level.

“Washington law does not allow someone to attack a business officer personally rather than just sue the business ‘absent such exceptional circumstances as when the officer knowingly engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or theft,’” it explains.

But on Wednesday, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Eckstrom—while throwing out a charge that accused Stutzman of directing her business to violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws—ruled that the florist may be held personally responsible for the incident.

“[T]he clear language” of the Consumer Protection Act and state anti-discrimination law “supports both individual and corporate liability,” Eckstrom stated.

The Family Policy Network of Washington outlines that this means that “the government can go after both the business assets of Arlene’s Flowers and personal assets of Barronelle Stutzman to collect attorney’s fees should their lawsuits prevail.”

“The narrow question of personal liability in a specific lawsuit is not itself a conspiracy against conscience rights and religious freedom,” Director Joseph Backholm stated. “However, there is little doubt that the government’s ability to go after the personal assets of business owners who prefer not to be part of certain events will continue to chill the free exercise of religion that until recently was celebrated and protected in America.”

A trial is set for March 23.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Gary

    Another example of the corruption of the courts and the law. If the government continues to abuse the religious rights of Christians, something drastic and very unpleasant will have to be done.

    • Fundisi

      It will, but God says we are to love even our enemies and He will judge them, He will pour out His wrath upon them, He will repay them for their sins. We can protest, we can pray, we can and should serve God, but we should never act violently or militantly or we can suffer His discipline as His children.

      • Gary

        Then there should be no USA. We should still be a British colony. We also should have let the Germans and the Japs have their war in the 1940’s. As you can see, I disagree with you.

        • Fundisi

          Gary, my friend and dear brother in Christ, there is a great difference between those things you mentioned and spiritual warfare, the latter is what we are facing in the gay movement and the liberal attacks on the Constitution. The battle here is the Lord’s, vengeance is His, he will repay, we are only to stand on His Word and see His deliverance.

          • Gary

            Our enemies have the law on their side. We cannot fight this in the law. We either have to do what they want, or let them sue us and take our possessions, or jail us, or find another way to fight it.

          • Fundisi

            Just be careful how you “fight” it that you do not take things out of God’s Hands.

        • BarkingDawg

          “Japs?”

          Seriously?

          • Jeff Varney

            Yes, Dawg…seriously!

  • Fundisi

    First, let us be clear, this woman did NOT refuse to serve gays, this gay customer was a long standing customer know by her to be gay, she just refused to compromise her faith by doing something that made her shop a participant in a gay marriage, which she has every right under the Constitution to refuse.

    Next, Washington is one of the most pro-gay, pro-drugs and anti-Christ states in the nation. This judge is a pro-gay liberal and she is a conspirator with gays to, by the cheap thuggery of approving a civil suit, destroy any business owned by Christians that do not submit to cheap gay thuggery. The Attorney General is just another co-conspirator, as he made threats before a complaint was made, trying to force this woman to surrender her Christian faith or else.

    Do not be shocked Christians, this will get much worse, either you will submit to liberal and gay thuggery and compromise your faith or lose your business or job and be denied the right to make a living. We are at a moral/spiritual crossroads in America and Satan and his liberal and gay allies will win many more battles and almost the war for a season, until God judges the world in horrors beyond our imagination. So, we should not only pray for each other, for spiritual strength, but for every one of these atheists, liberals and gays, yes even social/moral liberals among conservatives as, unless they repent, they will suffer the most during the Great Tribulation and eternity.

    • Bob Burke

      Sorry, the Washington state constitution and Civil Rights Act doesn’t allow religious discrimination of customers like this. If the owner didn’t want to serve people of all beliefs they shouldn’t have offered something for sale to the public they wouldn’t sell to people of all beliefs, even those whose beliefs include marriage regardless of sexes.

      There is no right to whip out a religious test the customer must pass when making a public offering, the customer’s right to religious freedom shields them from blatant religious discrimination like this.

      • Fundisi

        What religion is being discriminated against? Only the rights of the Christian. She served gays without prejudice, she only refused to do something that made her violate her faith by participating in a gay wedding. No law may deny Christians their protections under the 1st Amendment of free religious expression.

        • dark477

          Her faith is irrelevant. the law say she can’t turn someone away because of their sexual ordination. EVER.

          • Fundisi

            She did not turn anyone away because they were gay, read the article, she knowingly served this gay guy often over the years; but, only refused a special order that clearly violated her faith and by the 1st Amendment that is her Constitutional right.

          • dark477

            That’s still turning someone away because of their ordination. Laws don’t become invald because they confilct with your religion.

          • Fundisi

            Do you mean orientation?

            No law may be passed that denies any person of faith their 1st Amendment rights, any such law is unconstitutional.

          • dark477

            And this law isn’t

          • Fundisi

            That is only your atheist and liberal opinion, not fact. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religious expression and no one may pass any laws that force anyone to compromise their faith to own a business or hold a job. They are free, absent a threat to life, to discriminate even in business. A Muslim business cannot be forced to sell non-Halal food, a Jewish business may not be forced to sell pork or non-kosher food. A Muslim or Jewish business may not be forced to create a special product that violates their faith.

            You, like all atheists and liberals hate the First Amendment and are willing to pervert it to support your sexually deviant fellow travelers.

          • dark477

            your examples are about asking for something that the business doesn’t provide. if a business provides a service then they must provide it to anyone who can afford it. no exceptions. and that according to the supreme court.

          • Fundisi

            There is no difference. The Halal store and the Kosher store and the florist do not offer products that violate their faith. The florist does not offer floral arrangements for gay weddings that violates her faith. Exactly the same!

          • dark477

            But they do for weddings and as far as the law is concerned there is no difference between a gay wedding and straight one.

          • Fundisi

            There is a difference based on her faith, which is protected by the Bill of Rights. She is protected in expressing her faith in word or her actions, as long as it does not deny a gay person essential emergency health care and as long as they might reasonably get their requested product/service elsewhere.

            Now lets stop it, you are against the 1st Amendment and I defend it, we will never agree.

          • jmichael39

            It isn’t? You do know that it has not been challenged or ruled upon by any court, right? Unless you know something none of us do, I don’t think the constitutionality of this law has been decided. Unless you’re silly enough to believe that any law passed by any legislature is constitutional automatically?

          • dark477
          • jmichael39

            Excuse me, but what do those cases have to do with THIS law being ruled constitutional? Read my question again before jumping the gun.

          • dark477

            One is about the ruling that determined that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional and the other determined that you can’t use religion to avoid following them.

          • jmichael39

            so what? They have nothing to do with this specific law. It can be challenged on its constitutionality…and likely that doesn’t even matter. What does matter is the application of the law in this particular instance.

          • dark477

            Those cases set precedent.

          • jmichael39

            FOR WHAT? READ WHAT I WROTE STUPID.

          • TheBBP

            No, it has nothing to do with him being gay. It is because her faith does not support a gay marriage. I am fairly certain that if a straight man walked into her shop and wanted flowers for his satanic ritual that she would also choose to pass on his business.

          • dark477

            And she can turn a satanist away either.

          • jmichael39

            BS, Dark…the US Constitution says her faith IS relevant. This case, or one like it, will end up in the SCOTUS…and just like Hobby Lobby did with ACA, it will finally be settled how far a person’s individual religious beliefs extend in business. Like Hobby Lobby, I am pretty sure the Court will decide that so long as the customer still has options…that the plaintiff’s refusal to perform certain acts for religious purposes did not remove all options available to that customer, that the business owner does have a right to refuse to perform a service or provide a product that violates their religious conscious.

            You’re welcome to disagree. That’s just where I think it will end up.

          • dark477

            SCOTUS. can only get involved if there is a disagreement in the lower courts.

          • jmichael39

            that’s not true at all. Both parties have a right to take any case to the next level of appeal. The final place being the SCOTUS. They don’t have to take the case. But there is no inherent requirement that there be a conflict from the lower courts.

        • Bob Burke

          The customer’s beliefs. The business freely invited them to do business. And other employees would have been glad to fill the order.

          • Fundisi

            It was her business, what they did would reflect on her and her faith and no matter the outcome, she was right and while the courts may rule against her, the 1st Amendment would defend her.

          • Bob Burke

            First amendment is what protects the customer. Don’t make offers to the public if they aren’t avsilsble to all beliefs.

          • Fundisi

            Show us the words and how it protects the customer.

          • Bob Burke

            Free exercise. The customer has a right to believe in same-sex marriage and accept the business’s invitation. Don’t make invitations to people of all faiths, their right to free exercise prevents discrimination after the invite.

          • Gary

            Then businesses should be allowed to post signs as to who they want as customers. It is not fair to force businesses to accept as customers those they would rather not accept.

          • Bob Burke

            Gary, both state and federal statutes clearly explain how a business can operate NOT as a public accommodation, the business just has to both to do it. What isn’t ‘fair’ is making a general offer and then sorting the people after the offer has been made.

          • Gary

            That is what I meant about plainly telling people, with a sign in your window, or with other means, who you do not want for customers. Is that allowed by the federal gov., or the states?

          • Bob Burke

            No, you can’t do the sorting after the invitation to do business has been made, it has to be done before. Cull a group of ‘right’ believers first, then make just them offer. If they have advertising outside, phone book, the web, they are making offers to the general public.

          • Gary

            Not if they post their restrictions in their ads. But the government won’t allow them to do that?

          • Bob Burke

            No more than they could post the only serve blacks in the back room. Again just make a private club and offer services only to members, easy peasy.

          • Gary

            And what if a homosexual wanted to become a member? Will the government allow her to reject them?

          • Bob Burke

            Yep, a private club can have any admission requirements it wants – look at the boy scouts, it was freedom of association of this private religious group that the Supreme Court ruled with.

            The pro shop at a whites only members only golf course can refuse service to anyone not a member, no law broken.

          • Gary

            Then that might be a way around these unfair civil rights laws. Very small membership fee to be applied to your purchase. You can join at the same time you make a purchase. Exclude whoever you wish.

          • Bob Burke

            ‘Unfair’. I think that particular dodge has been tried and there might have to be a more realistic club required but yeah if discrimination is that important try it. I think it would be a great cottage industry, someone set up a private club of ministers they know will not marry anybody that’s’wrong’ and then only provide floral services for The clients of that club’s members. Easy peasy.

          • Gary

            Wouldn’t even need to do that. Open a shop. Write something like “Flower Club” on the front window. When someone comes in who wants your products, explain the club concept to them, ask if they are GLBT, or an enabler. If they are not, take their $1 membership fee, apply it to their purchase, get their name, and off they go. Rinse and repeat.

          • Bob Burke

            Give it a whirl though many people won’t join a ‘restricted’ club. But such a club would be legal.

          • Gary

            The government really forces her to do business with who they choose, instead of who she chooses. Customers are free to do business with her, or reject her in favor of another business, but she does not have the same freedom as the customer does. That is unfair.

          • Bob Burke

            Nope no one forced her to associate with the general public, that’s all on her.

          • Gary

            The general public is treated differently than the business owner. That is what is unfair about it.

          • Bob Burke

            I don’t understand why this is so hard for people to see. It’s not like the customer walked into a random house on the street and asked them to make wedding floral arrangements. They walked into a business that had actively sought out the general public to come in and buy their products! The business made an invitation to the public, it’s too late to suddenly go “oh no no I didn’t want to sell this to people like you.’

            The order is:
            1) find the group you want to sell to first,
            2) THEN make just them the offer of sale.

          • Gary

            That would not be necessary but for the unfair laws.

          • Bob Burke

            Well actually the inability to discount someone else’s beliefs is a first amendment issue not a law one. Still give it a try.

          • jmichael39

            that’s an interesting point, Bob. How did you feel about the situation with the company who advertised making Christian based t-shirt who was asked to make t-shirts for a pro-gay rally and refused?

          • Bob Burke

            You mean the t-shirts that said ‘Fayetteville’ ‘Pride’ ‘Festival’ and the number 5? Yeah that’s discrimination – shoot we had a gay t-shirt printer in town that printed them up for the Westburo Baptist Church.

            We all play by the same rules – no religious discrimination by a public accommodation.

          • jmichael39

            and how did you respond when those people went to gay owned shops and requested clearly anti-gay marriage products be produced and those shop owners refused? Should they be sued?

            BTW, the owners of that gay bakery would sincerely disagree with your stance on this issue. They, too, suggest that there is no justifiable reason for forcing any business to perform a service far outside their personally and sincerely held beliefs. BTW, I’m being generous here because at least there is a fundamental constitutional and SCOTUS upheld element to a Christian and his/her sincerely held religious beliefs. There is no religious basis to the Cakes by Cupcakes’ refusal to do business with WBC. But I still agree with their right to not do business with an organization that clearly stands in defiance to who they are.

          • Bob Burke

            Do those businesses offer putting derogatory or discriminatory messages on any of their products? Most don’t in my experience and specifically spell out what they will and won’t put on a cake.

            So if they do offer derogatory messages – if they would make a cake that said ‘marriage is only 1 man + 1 man’ but won’t the same for ‘1man + 1 woman’ they yeah they could be sued. But if they wouldn’t do either, then no they can’t – at least not successfully.

            And you do realize that incident you are referring to was fictional, right? It never happened? It was a fantasy by Matt Barber?

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…you’re so sickening naïve. You see that people from both sides of this who are business owners don’t agree with you and yet you’re adamant to push this BS. Do you not see what you’re doing. You’re essentially arguing for carte blanc for any group with the desire and the finances to attack business owners of any persuasion…to force them to change their beliefs or go out of business. And as I write this I can already predict that you’re perfectly fine with that.

          • Bob Burke

            No, no one needs change their beliefs, it is the business with the obligation to not illegally discriminate not any particular person. We know for a fact that there was an employee of Arlene’s Flowers LLC that would have been happy to handle every aspect of the customer’s order.

            And again, if straw men and putting words in my mouth is all you’ve got, then you got nothing and the rising emotions in your answers makes me think you know this yourself.

          • jmichael39

            Can you think of a better way to contradict yourself? I don’t think so. That was a good one. No, no one has to change their beliefs so long as they behave the way we want them to. I don’t know whether to think you’re just a fool or whether you’re actually that arrogant.

          • Bob Burke

            Who is changing their beliefs? The employee would gladly make the floral arrangements – it is the business with the obligation to not discriminate not any particular employee and the business had an employee that would have been delighted to make the arrangements and anything else that was required. Why is that difficult to understand?

            The arrogance would be if one person thought they could make others act as if they shared their desire to religiously discriminate.

          • jmichael39

            Its not the employee’s business, is it? OH wait, you don’t care.

          • Bob Burke

            It’s an employee with their own right to religious freedom. If the complaint is an individual doesn’t want to fill the order and another individual will, exactly what is the excuse to disobey the law after that?

          • jmichael39

            an employee who has no right to decide how her employer conducts business….but you honestly don’t care, do you?

          • Bob Burke

            An employer has no right to religiously discriminate in a public accommodation. This is a way for the law to be obeyed with no one working on the order other than those who wanted to. Yes, I realize this woman wanted to not only personally illegally discriminate but force her employees to do so also. Not a nice woman by pretty much any standard. Pride, hubris and self-righteousness all wrapped up with a nice floral bow.

          • jmichael39

            she didn’t religiously discriminate. Being gay isn’t a religious stance. Besides which, she didn’t even refuse his business because he’s gay. She refused to perform a particular service for him. She would have refused to provide the same service no matter who requested it.

          • Bob Burke

            But believing in same gender marriage is a religious stance. My religion fully supports marriages regardless of the genders involved. And when things are linked they are the same as per the SCOTUS, how did Scalia put it? ‘A rule against yamhakas is a rule against Jews’. Not selling identical arrangements regardless of the genders involved is orientation discrimination in its most literal sense.

          • Gary

            You and your religion are just as wicked and perverted as the homosexuals you support. I would discriminate against you with equal conviction and enthusiasm as I discriminate against GLBT.

          • Bob Burke

            And its unAmerican talk like that which convinces court after court about the need for them to act to protect other citizens from such blatant religious discrimination.

            And in this case the state constitution and statutes are clear, this business owner doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on and has been duped by the ADF to be another sacrifice on their agenda’s altar.

            Again, the Attorney General offered a complete dropping of the case for what the business owner has already done – stopped religiously discriminating in doing business as a public accommodation.

          • jmichael39

            Sorry Bob, but the Constitution protects BOTH the customer and the business owner. You don’t surrender your fundamental rights when you put up a business sign. And when there are such occasions when the fundamental rights of two individuals clash, that’s when the Courts enter the picture. The Courts will, first validate the constitutionality of the law in question. Then they will determine who’s individual rights take precedence in this particular case.

          • Bob Burke

            And as you probably know when the business has invited the public to do business, they have used their freedom of association to market to people then knew had a constitutional right to not share anyone at the business’s beliefs. And therefore it is the customer that ends up being protected from the ‘after-the-invite’ attempt at religious discrimination by the business.

            That’s the whole point about this – its settled law, that’s why the SCOTUS turns down these cases. Shoot, if you sell goats for slaughter you can’t refuse to sell to someone who is going to ritually sacrifice it in a 9-0 ruling including Scalia. Once the offer to do business has been made its too late to religiously discriminate, the customer’s right to religious freedom shields them from it.

          • jmichael39

            You’re going to have explain what you’re talking about because the right to association does not revoke one’s other fundamental rights. But you go ahead and argue that before the courts. I’d love to see how they respond.

          • Bob Burke

            I think you are being combative for fun. Rights are’t revoked, but if we freely associate with a group with certain qualities its too late to then take exception to those qualities. The business freely associated with those with a right to religious freedom, they can’t then say ‘well I didn’t mean associate with that member or this member because of their beliefs.

            Don’t invite the public to buy something that isn’t available to all beliefs, their right to free exercise won’t permit it – won’t even allow a law that could permit it.

          • jmichael39

            You come to a Christian news site to argue against Christian beliefs and your call ME combative? LMAO

            You certainly have just as much right to disassociate as you do to associate. You don’t surrender your right to disassociate once you agree to associate.

            Besides which, the argument here is not about association but about action to perform. The shop owner has already shown a willingness to associate through business with homosexuals. What she has refused to do is perform an action requested by a homosexual. If the mother of that young gay man came in to buy these flowers and the store owner would still refuse. She’s not basing her decision upon association but upon action requested. And thus the action requested is at play here, not the association.

          • Bob Burke

            If this was about Christians we wouldn’t be having the discussion, a Christ-like person would have sold the flowers. I’m a Christian and gay people marry just fine.

            And again, you must know that Civil Rights statutes are about full access to all services, saying they almost treat them equally is like the hotels that would rent rooms to blacks but they couldn’t use the pool. And no, there is no right to religiously discriminate against an invited customer, their right to free exercise protects them. That’s why things like the New Jersey vs Boy Scouts of America were decided on freedom of association, there is no right to religious discrimination as this business tried to do.

          • jmichael39

            “a Christ-like person would have sold the flowers. I’m a Christian and gay people marry just fine.” – That’s laughably sad. While I will never question a person says they are saved by the blood of Jesus from the penalties for their sins, I will stand in complete defiance to you if you even remotely want to suggest that homosexual behavior is not a sin. And yes, feel free to throw all your post-modern arguments at me about what the Greek and Hebrew texts say. I’m well versed in ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek.

          • Bob Burke

            Not running down this rabbit hole. Like it or not gays marry just fine – if your sect says no that’s your choice, but we all have free exercise and my faith is just as protected as yours. I’ll let God set you straight.

          • jmichael39

            He already has set THINGS straight, Bob. Try reading the Bible instead of making things up to suit your personal tastes. By your way of thinking, God should just let the “Christians” who think its perfectly okay to exercise their faith by stealing or screwing their neighbor’s wife or killing defenseless unborn children to just keep doing it because God will ‘set straight’ those who disagree later.

          • Bob Burke

            And if straw men are all you got, then you’ve got nothing. Again, your sect thinks differently that’s fine, but there are lots of Christians filled with Grace and exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit on this side of the issue and lots of venomous tongues and people lacking all trace of Grace on the other. I’m happy where I am and so is God.

          • jmichael39

            So YOUR sect disagrees with the bible calling homosexual behavior sin? And you think that makes God happy? Wow…arrogant and foolish…I should have guessed.

          • Bob Burke

            We disagree with your misinterpretation of the Bible, yes. But that is our choice and yours in America, correct? There’s one answer to this, only the arrogant and foolish would get it wrong. 😉

          • jmichael39

            Ah, my misinterpretation? You wish to debate what the scriptures say on the topic, do you? Shall we?

          • Bob Burke

            No need, I’ve done it dozens of time – its a pointless exercise, casting pearls before swine. If you are interested we can exchange emails not subject everyone else to the long boring debate with no one changing their minds.

          • jmichael39

            well, which is it, Bob? You don’t want to debate the topic (swine…is that honestly how you wish to approach this? fair enough…thanks for the warning) because its a ‘pointless exercise’ or you DO want to debate it but in email?

            Well, I’m here and I have no problem ‘subject[ing]’ others on here to a debate about sin. The people here are grown ups….when they get bored, they’ll stop reading. Take your shot at it, Bob. Come on. I REALLY want to see how you justify homosexual behavior in the scriptures.

          • Bob Burke

            the reply went to pending – this isn’t the place for serious discussions beyond soundbites.

          • jmichael39

            baloney …make your case.

          • Bob Burke

            Already did, wait for them do de-pend it.

          • jmichael39

            last I knew, Christian News dot net doesn’t pend posts. Try again.

          • Bob Burke

            Not worth it. Pray they de-pend it.

          • jmichael39

            as I suspected…just another troll.

          • Bob Burke

            Right, I won’t work to go off topic because you want to and I’m the troll. Heh.

            Look in the mirror guy.

          • jmichael39

            lmao…yeah, keep going, boob…you’re digging a hole. Make your case or get lost.

          • Bob Burke

            Yeah, that’s the way to motivate me to have a serious discussion, talk like your 5.
            I’ve made my case about Arlene’s Flowers and you’ve floundered there and so I guess I will take your kind offer and just not take you seriously anymore, ok?

          • jmichael39

            HAHAHA… That’s funny. You had plenty of opportunity to make a case. You’ve proven the obvious point that you’re a troll. You have an agenda and even if God doesn’t agree with you, you’re gonna foist your view upon him and anyone else who dares to suggest your lifestyle is a sin.

          • Bob Burke

            I’ve already made my case about Arlene’s Flower and that’s what this thread is about and you have failed on that topic every which way.

            As to your obsession with my views on homosexuality, find a thread about it on a message board that will actually let you use the word __x without having the message disappear never to return and maybe, just maybe I’ll give you a chance for enlightenment.

          • jmichael39

            in other words you have no case to argue about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and are too much of a coward to admit it. Stop making pathetic excuses and make your case or piss off.

          • Bob Burke

            I have made my case about Arlene’s and you can’t refute it so you are trying to save face by changing the subject. Sorry gay Christians marry just fine, that you can’t figure out why isn’t surprising at all.

          • jmichael39

            I’ve rebutted every argument you made about Arlene… I’m sorry you’re too full of yourself to see that. Now present you case for why homosexual behavior isn’t a sin or move along and let the adults have the floor.

          • Bob Burke

            Not even close, your whole case rests on giving the business owners special rights and ignoring the same rights in everyone else. Doesn’t work here or in court. And I don’t need to present my case because I honestly don’t care what you think anymore. youve made it clear why Christ told us not to waste our pearls.

          • jmichael39

            Yeah, I heard you the first fifteen times you argued this. Its quaint. Wrong, but quaint. You’ve seen my rebuttal.. Pleasant dreams. Come back when you’re ready to show you have the brain power to support your argument that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Until then, piss off.

          • Bob Burke

            oddly you’ve yet to show it is, but then is is just all a big fat red herring to distract from your inability to justify the illegal discrimination by the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, that’s been obvious from the start.

            You go have a nice night and come back when can handle abject failure with a bit more class.

          • jmichael39

            not so oddly, you’re once again showing yourself to be both arrogant and foolish… along with a smidgeon of stupidity. Now make your case for why homosexual behavior isn’t a sin. Come on, little man. Make your case.

          • Bob Burke

            Sad to see someone of moderate intelligence be reduced to childish insults. And of course homosexual behavior can be a sin, just as heterosexual behavior can be. I’m a Christian, sin is comes from the reason we do things, any act can be sinful no matter what the act is. Gay Christians marry just fine for there is no male or female in the body of Christ and the marriage bed is undefiled. Simple as that.

          • jmichael39

            how’s that log in your eye, Bob?
            The REASONS we do something? So if I rob the local bank so I can use to money to help some poor people, that’s not a sin?
            Show me one place in Scripture where homosexual behavior is acceptable to God. One place.

          • Bob Burke

            Since you are stealing from people to give to people, no that probably is still a sin. I can see why you prefer the yoke of the Old Law, you can’t make measured decisions well.

            Its accepted by God when He opened marriage to people of the same gender for the marital bed is undefiled. Remember we aren’t talking about promiscuous behavior, or such outside of marriage. Gay Christians marry just fine.

          • jmichael39

            You should apply to become God’s successor. You seem to have it down pat how make up your own rules regarding sin and such. When did God open marriage of the same gender? Show us where in the scriptures He did this.

          • Bob Burke

            Being deliberately obtuse won’t help you, you know that God said there is no male or female in the body of Christ, two males and two females marry just fine. And no, Jesus told us that it isn’t what we put in our bodies that is sin, it is what comes out – its ourselves that defines our sin which are all failings in the Two great commandments for us under the New Covenant. Again, you have yet to show that two people of the same gender can’t marry – I’ve shown you mine show me where in Galatians it says “but this doesn’t apply to marriage.”

          • Gary

            According to the New Testament, marriage is heterosexual only. (1 Cor. 7:2, Mark 10:6-8). There is no such thing as a “gay Christian”. And people who contradict the New Testament cannot be considered Christians either. And you contradict it. Simple as that.

          • Bob Burke

            And in Galatians we find there is no male or female in the body of Christ – people of either gender can fill either role. Same reason women can preach, and masters can wed slaves. You are just picking and choosing to justify your misunderstanding you’ve invested in. And yes, there are many gay Christians, there is no sin in being gay, or being married, or having relations while married.

            Again, this is a thing only of this world, in the next there is no marry or marriage, we will be as the angels in heaven. Worrying about marriage is putting way too much concern about this world, when a Christian lives in the next and merely walks in this one.

          • Gary

            Every marriage that God approves of has both a husband and a wife. A husband must be a man, and a wife must be a woman. God does not approve of homosexuality, or ssm.
            I do not believe your claim that you are a Christian. I don’t think God does either.

          • Bob Burke

            Since I know you don’t know all the marriages that God has approved of I’ll just chock that up to pride and arrogance on your part. God has approved many same gender marriages, go and attend a few and you will see it for yourself.

            And I sincerely pray that God doesn’t judge you as harshly as you judge others. Remember the Lord’s prayer is a contract – you ask Him to forgive you your trespasses in the same manner as you forgive others. You’ve leaving lots of room for some harsh judgment on God’s part with your statements.

          • Gary

            I am looking at marriage the way it is defined in the Bible, which is always as the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. In a ssm, there is neither husband nor wife.
            If you want to find out what God thinks of homosexuals, and of you as their supporter, read Romans chapter one. After reading that, you should understand what deep trouble you are in with God. But, you probably won’t understand.

          • Bob Burke

            Romans 1, idolators punished by God with same gender lusts that went against their natures. Talking about trendy promiscuity, not married folks and not gay ones. Nothing about Gay married Christians there.

          • Gary

            It is interesting that God punished them by giving them over to homosexuality. Not exactly an endorsement of homosexuality. Just the opposite.
            If God approves of homosexuality, there should be some indication of that somewhere in the Bible. Instead, every time homosexuality is mentioned, it is condemned. We find no homosexual marriages in the Bible. All the marriages found in the Bible involve a woman being married to a man. If God approves of homo-marriages, there ought to be some indication of that in Scripture. But no, only condemnation.
            The truth is, you are a lost sinner, still under the curse of your sins, and headed for Hell. That is the reason you endorse homosexuality.

          • Bob Burke

            No He made them go against their natures, which as anyone who has, is a horrible way to live. And same gender marriage isn’t ever condemned, you are seeing what you want to see. Your reasoning would mean that wearing two fiber cloth is a sin since it is only condemned when mentioned.

            Sorry, Gay Christians marry just fine as per the Word of God and as witnessed by those filled with the Spirit and Grace. That’s enough for me. That you fret about it is your burden to bear, not mine, I prefer the light yoke of Jesus.

      • SteveN

        How about an Elevating Rights test.

        • Bob Burke

          For the customers? The business is the one that invited them to do business.

          • SteveN

            Equal rights is equal rights.

          • Bob Burke

            It is and the government couldn’t even make a law that allowed one citizen’s religious freedom to be above another’s. So that means we look at the actions – the business is the one that made the invitation of sale, freely associating with the general public knowing each member had a right to beliefs of their own, and the business had other employees that would have gladly made the floral arrangements. The only citizen who’s rights are being trampled on is the customer’s.

          • SteveN

            Much better to ruin this woman’s life than just respect her views and choose another florist.

          • Bob Burke

            Please. The AG offered to completely drop the suit for the simple promise of the owner to obey the law in future. She could have taken the deal and done what she has already done, stop offering wedding floral services. More mercy than she showed her customers or employees, when she starts respecting their religious freedom get back to me. This is a bed entirely of her own making.

          • SteveN

            Please. Militant. Radical. Fascist.

          • Bob Burke

            No reply just a string of ad hominems you don’t know the meaning of. Washington state hasn’t allowed religious discrimination since 1889, before the term fascism even existed, and the business is the one being militant and radical wanting their rights to matter more than their customers or employees. But isn’t that the real issue, special rights for the people you like and ignoring the rights of the ones you don’t?

          • SteveN

            You sound frustrated. Haven’t you heard? Anything goes in America now……anything.

      • ssgncng

        So a black florist should be required to fill orders for a wedding of Klan members then? Somehow we both know the politicized “law enforcement” organs of the state would have a never ending litany of excuses as to why they would NOT treat the black florist the same way this woman is getting treated.

        To suggest that private businesses have no right to refuse service is itself a grossly totalitarian belief. It seems strange to see so many leftists gleeful at the prospect of sending the state out on witch hunts against those who are non-conforming to the governing leftwing paradigm.

        I guess all that First Amendment, let a thousand flowers bloom stuff was just a bunch of [email protected]

        • Bob Burke

          Hyperbole I see. The KKK is an ideology and not in a protected class. And, of course, there is a right to refuse service, there are just reasons why it can’t be rejected, the beliefs of the customer being just one.

          • Gary

            There are no just reasons why anyone should be forced to do business with anyone they don’t want to do business with. Justice demands that all business transactions be voluntary by all concerned.

          • Bob Burke

            Repeal the civil rights laws and get back to us.

          • Gary

            They should be repealed. They will be someday. But as long as wicked people are making the laws, they will remain.

          • ssgncng

            That is an incredible piece of mental gymnastics you engage in to rationalize using turning the state into Orwellian Thought Police.

            Be careful what you rationalize pal, it will come back to rip you a new one in ways you cannot anticipate. Much like when your party abolished the filibuster rule in the Senate. Oooopps. They disarmed themselves.

            Disrespecting others rights to Speech, Association, and Religion is a marker that you are a part of the problem.

          • Bob Burke

            You mean the customers and other employees of Arlene’s Flower? The budiness freely associated with the public by their invitation to do business.

          • ssgncng

            That does not give you the moral right to stick your nose into any business arrangement the florist may make with any potential customer, or not make. I realize that that fact will not stop you fascists from seeking to impose yourself into affairs that are none of your concern and in which you have no interest. You are using the state as a weapon in your political game playing pal. Nothing more.

          • ssgncng

            By the way, are you sure your party/allies will always the ones choosing who gets to be a “protected class”??

            If not, I’d be particularly worried about that little Orwellian exercise.

          • Bob Burke

            Not worried religion will always be. Again don’t offer to sell something to the public that isn’t available to people if all beliefs, 1st amendment protects the customers.

          • ssgncng

            No, you’re an authoritarian intent on imposing your own narrow mindedness on others. What arrangements a private business owner may or may not make with a potential customer is, frankly, none of your concern. That nation is humoring authoritarian busybodies bodes ill for the Bill of Rights. You are not trying to “protect” anyone, there is no “right” to not have your feelings hurt. What you are doing is supporting the use of the state to punish and destroy persons/businesses that don’t behave as you prefer.

          • Bob Burke

            Again, repeal the Civil Rights Acts, federal and state and get back to me. Washington’s constitution says that religious conscience isn’t an excuse to ignore the rights of others and has had a civil rights act that prevented such religious tests by businesses since 1949.

          • Bob Burke

            Again, when you get rid the first amendment, the Washington state constitution section 11 changed, the federal and state Civil Rights Acts repealed, get back to me. Until then this is just a lala land fantasy you’re talking about.

          • ssgncng

            So there are no rights/freedoms to association or private property or anything else that rises to the level, in this case, of a homosexual’s right to not have his feelings hurt?

            Essentially, that is all you are arguing for, be honest.

          • Bob Burke

            Straw men is all you got? Of course there are ways for a business to not act as a public accommodation, Washington has two defined, but the owner in this case decided to act as a public accommodation knowing full well how they dealt with customers and employees was regulated. That this owner was too ignorant, lazy or greedy to be bothered isn’t the customer’s fault.

          • jmichael39

            Are you saying, Bob, that ‘protected classes’ deserve special rights and treatment over people with merely constitutionally protected rights?

          • Bob Burke

            We are all in protected classes! Have a race? a creed? a color? an orientation? A gender? A marital status? (See how that works)

    • BarkingDawg

      Er, nope.

      She refused to accommodate a business arrangement based on her discriminatory beliefs.

      in other words “She broke the law.”

      • Fundisi

        She may have broken state law, but state law cannot abridge our rights under the Constitution; and, she cannot be forced to violate her faith when asked to “participate” by her work in a gay marriage. She served gays, she knowingly served this gay fellow many times, but when it crossed the line into asking her to participate in and thus give her approval to a gay marriage, she was well within her Constitutional rights to refuse.

        • BarkingDawg

          making a flower arrangement for compensation is by no means “participation.”

          Sorry.

          • Vito Zabala Halasan

            you are right, but she has a right also…even the criminal has the right to remain silence until his attorney what to do so..

          • Fundisi

            That is your subjective atheist opinion, but she must walk by faith in God’s Word and not compromise that faith and she is thus supported by the 1st Amendment.

          • SFBruce

            And you’ve just offered your subjective believer’s opinion, something you’re entitled to do, but the courts will ultimately decide if your legal theory holds up. For myself, I don’t think she has a case. What limits are there on the exercise of religion? Do you think religious liberty would be a successful defense for murder?

          • Fundisi

            No, God will ultimately decide the case.

            No I do not think murder could be defended on the basis of liberty, but that includes the 55+ million murders by those on the Left of helpless, innocent babies in the womb either.

          • SFBruce

            It’s possible you’re right about God ultimately deciding this case, but here in the earthly realm, the courts will make a determination in the meantime, something we will all have to live with. While I disagree with you that abortion is the same as murder, I’m glad we agree that, indeed, there are limitations to the fundamental right to religious freedom.

          • Fundisi

            We “the people”must resist the tyranny of the courts when they trample on our Constitutional rights. When they went along with slavery and blacks only being 2/3 of a person they were wrong, but if “the people” tamely submitted it would still exist.

            I only agree that if it endangers life there is a limitation, but beyond that there is danger as it becomes arbitrary and capricious, depending on which party is in power.

          • Gary

            I refuse to obey immoral court decisions. Or unconstitutional court decisions. I won’t obey them, or consider them valid.

          • Clem Brulee

            That must be a hell of a bank account you got………..

          • SharGL

            wrong

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            It is indeed a form of participation by way of enablement. You know that a man is celebrating an immoral act and you provide him a service essential to it, and you are taking part by way of being an accessory to the crime.

            Of course, under the perverse reasoning of some, having another employee make a sign celebrating the Holocaust absolves the owner of responsiblity.

            But here it is the State whose reasoning is also skewed.

        • Clem Brulee

          I have yet to see a flower speak up and to object to a marriage when asked if anyone objects to this marriage. Nor have I ever seen a flower perform the ritual.

  • Galaxy Cat

    Eventually, to defend themselves, homosexuality will be sought to be made a religion with religious protections. When this occurs it will be Sodomy and Gamhorrism, pure rebellion against God, as in those days of Faithful Lot and his house!

    • Galaxy Cat

      Statements like this reveal the abominations in the hearts of men!

    • BarkingDawg

      I bet you just can wait for the “Sodomy and Gamhorrism” shop to open up in the local mall.

  • Frank

    If she moves her monitory assets to certain states here in the US.. That judge will never be able to get his greedy perverse grubby little hands on it.

    • Gary

      Then she should. She needs to relocate.

      • Frank

        Something. But this is the USA. She shouldn’t have to. The judge is obviously not a Christian.

        • BarkingDawg

          Being a Christian has nothing to do with the application of the law in this case.

          • Frank

            It absolutely 100% does. But having seen your posts I am not surprised you do not understand this simple truth.

        • Gary

          The law is corrupt. The courts are corrupt. Can’t fight this legally. Have to find other means.

          • Frank

            Well use the law to your advantage in defense.

          • Gary

            Very hard to do. The laws are stacked against Christians, or anyone who wants to choose their own associations.

          • Frank

            Yes and no. And depends on where you live and diverse range of things depending on each situation. There is a push to stack it against real Christians. The ones who are running to win. The ones that are on Satan and his minions’ radar. The ones who are destined to be victorious and not have their names blotted out of the Book of Life.

      • BarkingDawg

        feel free to pony up the case for a morning van.

    • BarkingDawg

      That would all depend on what sort of “monitory” assets she has.

      • Frank

        Nope. It would depend on the state she moved into. There are many states that do not honor judges rulings from other states for things such like this.

    • SammySeattle

      It’s too late for that tactic.

      • Frank

        Maybe maybe not. Depends on what God does. He can make a way where all seems impossible.

        • SammySeattle

          Will the attorneys for the defendant be calling a deity to testify?

          • Frank

            Not quite

  • haroldcrews

    It’s never a question of whether there will be discrimination or no discrimination. It is always instead a question of what forms of discrimination will be permitted or required by the state. This is the result of the “Civil Rights” movement and its destruction of the right of the freedom of association. Once association becomes a legal matter it necessarily becomes a political matter.

    • Gary

      I agree. Everyone discriminates daily. Everyone chooses with whom they wish to associate. Now the government is involved in trying to take the decision out of the hands of the people.

      • SFBruce

        The kind of discrimination you describe is a guaranteed right by the First Amendment. However, those who own a public accommodation are not permitted to turn certain classes of people away: race, age, gender, and in some localities, sexual orientation are among these protected categories. These laws have helped expand freedom for marginalized groups, and the country is better off for them.

        • Gary

          I disagree. I think the country is MUCH worse off because of those laws. Those laws deprive people of their rights to freedom of association, and that is WRONG!

          • SFBruce

            So far, the courts disagree with you, as do the people of Utah. According to UtahPolicy.Com, 65% of Utah residents support banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The poll was taken in October 2014, and showed a 6% increase in support for such legislation over the previous poll.

          • Gary

            The courts are wrong. The people of Utah are wrong. And you are wrong. And I will not stop discriminating against whoever I please.

  • SteveN

    So sad, too bad she isn`t a Muslim.

  • Truthhurts24

    America is a house divided it will not stand long because it is only the Christians who are keeping this country from total oblivion and when you have a government that is fully sold out to Satan there is not much which can be done no matter how much powerful prayers Christians plead to God the government will not change its ways and the wickedness will get worse. Judgement is coming upon America for turning against Christ.

    • Frank

      Judgement is coming to the whole world because of this.

    • BarkingDawg

      Self aggrandize much?

    • ssgncng

      The first half of the first sentence is eminently true. This nation has become, simply, the largest banana republic in the western hemisphere.

  • gregkliebigsr

    ON THAT DAY , THE UNJUST JUDGE WILL STAND BEFORE THE JUST JUDGE AND HE WILL GIVE ACCOUNT AS TO HIS JUDGEMENTS!!

    • BarkingDawg

      You are a bit unhinged.

      How many guns with ammo have you stockpiled so far?

      • Gary

        Did he say he was stockpiling guns and ammo? Then how did you come to that conclusion?

  • gregkliebigsr

    THIS IS THE COMMISSION THAT OUR CREATOR GOD (YAHWEH) HAS PUT ON ME TO DO, TO WARN HUMANITY !! THIS IS NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION !

    REPENT OF YOUR HOMOSEXUALITY! FOR THE BLOOD OF YESHUA (JESUS) WILL DELIVER YOU OUT OF ALL YOUR SIN!

    “Thou shalt NOT lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination!” says the LORD GOD.

    LEVITICUS18: 22. SO, LET ME MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR , HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION!!!

    The sin of homosexuality is a forgivable sin, but a person must confess and repent of their sin to the LORD JESUS; I John 1:8-9

    —————-

    HOMOSEXUALTY ROBS GOD OF NEW HUMANS TO LOVE AND FELLOWSHIP WITH AND DWELL IN! THAT, IS WHY YAHWEH (GOD) HATES HOMOSEXUALTY!

    IT IS A demon spirit from satan and he does not want more CHRISTIANS BORN FOR GOD TO INHABIT!

    —————-

    Deuteronomy 23:17. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel.

    18. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a DOG , into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

    NOW, the term dog here means male prostitute: AND , YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WHY GOD WOULD CALL THEM DOGS!!!

    NOW, LET US SEE WHAT THE LORD JESUS SAID ON THE SUBJECT:

    Revelation 22: 15. For without are DOGS, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    NOW, SO AS NOT TO LEAVE OUT :

    ROMANS CHAPTER 1: 16 – 32

    WELL JUST READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!!

    ROMANS CHAPTER 1: 16 – 32

    WELL JUST READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!!

    Deuteronomy 23:17. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel.

    18. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a DOG , into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

    NOW, the term dog here means male prostitute: AND , YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WHY GOD WOULD CALL THEM DOGS!!!

    NOW, LET US SEE WHAT THE LORD JESUS SAID ON THE SUBJECT:

    Revelation 22: 15. For without are DOGS, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    NOW, SO AS NOT TO LEAVE OUT :

    ROMANS CHAPTER 1: 16 – 32

    WELL JUST READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!!

    ROMANS CHAPTER 1: 16 – 32

    WELL JUST READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!!

    I am a servant of the MOST HIGH GOD and YAHWEH IS HIS NAME , THESE ARE HIS WORDS, PLEASE , DO NOT ARGUE WITH ME, TALK TO HIM ABOUT THIS !!

  • gregkliebigsr

    To the homosexual persons and ( SEXUALLY PERVERTED), please understand, I mean you no ill will.

    THIS MESSAGE ALSO APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SIN OF MANKIND! You are a fellow human being just like me, you have been created by a very LOVING GOD! You see, GOD made each and every one of us, GOD loves each and every one of us and our purpose in life is to have this LOVING GOD come live in us and through us!

     

    By faith in His Son Jesus we can have That peaceful , loving life that we all seek! Yes, I/You/We, as humans sin and have sinned , THAT IS WHY WE NEED THE BLOOD OF JESUS TO CLEANSE US SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT FELLOWSHIP WITH THE LOVER OF OUR SOULS, GOD (YAHWEH)!

     

    Let’s face tha facts , ain’t none of us gettin’ off this planet alive , we are going to live somewhere in eternity forever! So, I really don’t care a thing about what sin has enslaved you, I just want to see you, my fellow human, set free from sin and fall in love with the one who made it possible for us ALL TO LIVE WITH HIM IN ETERNITY!

     

    SO, IN CLOSING , DO NOT IGNORE THE LORD JESUS, HE DON’T DESERVE THAT ! Remember, it was HE who went to the cross FOR ALL OF US, TO REDEEM US FROM SIN (DEATH, SEPARATION FROM GOD) SIN WAS THE PROBLEM, JESUS IS THE ANSWER! YES, I DO LOVE YOU IN THE LORD!

  • BarkingDawg

    My fellow Christians, read the posts by gregkliebigsr below and ask yourself this question:

    If you liked next door to Greg and knew that he was stockpiling guns and ammo, would you be concerned?

    • Gary

      Your “fellow Christians”??? Who are you pretending to be? ?

      • BarkingDawg

        I realize, Gary, that I might not meet your particular standards, but there are many aspects of belief out there, and no one really cares much what you think. (Since no one, not even Christ himself, could possibly meet your particular set of standards).

        • BarkingDawg

          Oh, and btw, my question above still stands.

        • Gary

          You don’t meet Christ’s standard to be a Christian. You are a promoter of sins, and a hater of holy things.

          • BarkingDawg

            Says you.

            You are not Christ.

          • Gary

            Says the Bible. There is nothing about what you believe that is Christian. You are a wicked sinner headed for Hell.

  • Gary

    If she had posted a sign on her business that said “We do not serve GLBT, or their promoters.” Would the government allow her to do that?

    • BarkingDawg

      No.

      The state anti-discrimination law is explicit in that she can not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

      • Gary

        I expected that. Washington is not a state that is fit for human habitation.

        • BarkingDawg

          then don’t live there.

          • Gary

            I won’t.

          • SammySeattle

            Thank you.

  • ScottRC

    Screw the AG and state. If she declines to sell to these libtard fanny-packin’ homo’s, that’s her business. “We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone”. How many time have you seen signs like that?

    • BarkingDawg

      Said signs mean nothing. The state of Washington has anti-discrimination laws.

      She can move to a state that allows discrimination.

      Then again, as a woman, she might get discriminated against.

  • BarkingDawg

    Oh, BTW, a judge in South Dakota just ruled that that state’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

    • Gary

      Another judge who either does not understand the Constitution, or is lying about it.

      • BarkingDawg

        Wow. All those judges in all those states and all those circuits who don’t understand the U.S. Constitution. . . . .
        including the majority of the Supreme Court.
        Of, course, you understand it, Gary. You know everything. You are perfect. you should be the ultimate authority. Whatever Gary says is the law has to be followed everyone. All hail Gary.

        • Gary

          I think they understand that the Constitution does not say what they claim it does. That makes them liars.

          • SammySeattle

            Maybe you should try explaining the Constitution.

          • Gary

            To who?

  • http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com Glenn Chatfield

    This comment string really shows how ignorant people are, and what horrible intolerance the left has for personal rights.

    The woman did NOT discriminate against anyone. She discriminated against an activity. There is no law against that, but they have to claim it was against people in order for it to be brought to a court. This is the methodology of the intolerant gaystapo. I’m sure a “gay” wouldn’t want to be forced to bake cakes for an event at Westboro Baptist “Church”, nor would a black person want to provide flowers for a KKK rally. By the attitude of the leftists and gaystapo posting here, that is precisely what these people would have to do.

    This woman is being persecuted for only one reason – failure to give her approval to an activity by participating in it. And, yes, making floral arrangements and baking cakes is indeed participating in the event.

  • John Watson

    If this is allowed to stand, what is happening here California is these Homosexual Mafia Facists are now walking into churches and DEMANDING to be married. Of course with their Lawyers in tow.
    This is not about equality, it’s about the devils attack against God fearing people and the church of Jesus Christ. Maybe they should go into a Muslim business or Mosque and see what happens.

    • Gary

      If that should happen at the church I attend, the homosexuals, and their lawyers, would be physically removed from the property.

    • Bob Burke

      where in California did that happen?

      • John Watson

        it happened directly to my pastor here in San Diego. He had a very unique way of handling it. Told the Homosexuals that he would marry them, ONLY after they finished the same 16-week premarital counseling course that every else was required to take.. They walked out.. had no reply for that one.

        • Bob Burke

          sounds unlikely to me. And asking a minister to marry you and him having premarital counseling criteria is hardly unique. Straight couples look else where too. My husband has told people after they completed counseling he won’t marry them.

          Non-news.

          • Gary

            OH! So you have a “husband” do you? Not many women are named Bob. And you would have to be a woman in order to have a husband.

          • Bob Burke

            No, men have husbands just fine, a husband is just the name for a male spouse.

          • Gary

            No, you don’t. You are not going to be allowed to change the definition of words to suit yourself. We are not going to let sodomites change the definition of words, or marriage, or morality, or theology.

          • Bob Burke

            Hmmm a husband being defined as s male spouse IS the traditional definition. And agsin gay Christians marry just fine.

          • Gary

            A husband is a man who is married to a woman. That IS the traditional definition. A wife is a woman who is married to a man. Christians will not accept a change in those terms.

          • Bob Burke

            Christians already accept same gender marriage just as God does. If your sect doesn’t that’s your choice, just as some don’t accept interfaith, interracial, or divorce. Doesn’t change a thing for Christisns that do of course.

            Please never ever marry anyone you think you shouldn’t is my prayer for you.

          • Gary

            God does not accept homosexuals, their enablers, or ssm. And neither do Christians. You and your herd are not Christians. All of you will wind up in Hell. And that pleases me greatly!

          • Bob Burke

            love is the true measure of a Christian, may you someday know what that is.

          • Gary

            Encouraging you to sin is not loving you. I have tried to tell you the truth, and you have rejected it. So be it. God will give you what you deserve. And how can you complain about that?

          • Bob Burke

            And I have told you the truth and you have refused to hear. I guess the difference between us is I know I don’t know the limit of God’s Grace, and I most certainly pray that no one goes to Hell, and that that God will show them the undeserved mercy that we all depend on to step one foot into heaven.

            May He forgive all of us our trespasses as we do those who trespass us.

          • Gary

            You will never see Heaven. You are damned.

          • Bob Burke

            Right. I’m sure you’re a great fortune teller and all but I think we’re done now.

          • Gary

            I predict your future based on what is written in the New Testament. You will go to Hell as certainly as I’m typing this.

          • Bob Burke

            Ah it is s prediction! Again your understanding if what was written is flawed and making false judgements of others to Hell seems like pretty much a guaranteed way to get a ticket there yourself from what Jesus promised.

            Maybe you should get back to doing what God asked us to do?

          • 7511

            Who appointed you God?

          • pax2u

            watch out Gary thinks he speaks for God

        • Gary

          Not the way I would have handled it, but it is one way.

  • Gary

    Since the governments, federal, state, and sometimes local, have decided to restrict our rights given to us by God, Christians need to find ways of making money that allow us to escape the tyrannical rules of the government. And while we are doing that, we also need to find ways to fight back against this tyranny.

  • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

    So to be consistent, a black or Jewish baker must bake a cake for a KKK celebration, and a veteran must do so for Fred Phelps church?

    • Bob Burke

      Not the baker, the bakery is required to no violate the law. Now in Washington, the state this case is in the KKK is an ideology not a creed, and gets no protection from the civil rights statutes. And if the employee that is a veteran at the bakery where the citizen who is buying it for the church doesn’t want to make it, then let another employee, or hire temp for the day, or 3rd party contract it out.

      Just as in this case – Arlene’s Flowers LLC had other employees that would have been happy to have filled this order, Eryn Hugo to name one. But the business owner not only didn’t want to fill the order personally but declared that no employee could fill the order regardless of their beliefs. It was the owner’s instructions to operate the business illegally that made their own assets vulnerable to the lawsuits, a corporation can’t be used as a legal shield for an owner if it is only running illegally because of the owner’s instructions.

      • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

        The KKK is an ideology as is that sodomy is moral and equates to race, an amoral attribute, and that those who disagree must face economic sanctions, or worse, and in this case the state is at fault for doing so.

        I would even be opposed to a homosexual owner being fined for refusing to bake a special cake for a AFA event, which in either case should be distinguished from a non-moral service such as just selling a cake, or gas. It is one thing not to sell paint, and another thing not to make a sign.

        Certainly the bakery is operating illegally, because the State is operating under the absurd ideology that civil rights apply to preferential immoral behavior, one that (as far as MSM is concerned) is responsible for 79% of new HIV cases, and primarily responsible for over 600,000 Americans dead and 40 million worldwide, besides a greatly increased incidence of .diseases and premature death.

        Which Scripturally is wrong and detrimental regardless of the typical medical consequences.

        Thus while in the eyes of the state, refusing to bake a special cake that celebrates what the owner considers immoral is wrong, it still equates to a black baker refusing to back a cake for a KKK event.The latter just needs to claim that a gene makes them prone to being racist.

        • Bob Burke

          Ignoring all the irrelevant parts all that’s left is the error, that it is the ‘baker’ under the legal obligation. It is the bakery not the baker and no particular person need fulfill that obligation.

          Again Arlene’s Flowers LLC had several employees that would have happily filled this order. And the final question remains,why would a public accommodation be offering something for sale that wasn’t available to of people of all beliefs?

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            The issue is that the state is wrong, and the bakery is right. If you think the Founders would see Constitutional rights as meaning that a business must distinctively provide for a sodomite celebration than you have an imaginative mind.

            Your recourse to having another employee do this is also immoral, as the owner is responsible for what it sold. Having an employee sell to the KKK celebration would be immoral as would the owner doing so.

            We are really arguing what the basis should be for laws, that of the superficial emotional ever-morphing moral reasoning of those who reject the Bible and basic traditional morality and engage in deleterious social experimentation that has and is costing American greatly in lives and money, or Biblical morality under Christ.

            Do you want to argue that, and drag out the shellfish/slavery/concubine polemic. Go ahead.

          • Bob Burke

            No we aren’t because this is about secular law in a society with religious freedom as a basic constitutional right. Members of your sect has a right to believe what you want, everyone else has a right to believe something else and the law must treat everyone consistently regardless of their beliefs.

            This business owner knew they couldn’t make offers to the public and religiously discriminate against the customers, it’s unconstitutional since 1889 and illegal since 1949. And the employer’s right to religious freedom is personal, they obviously can’t project their faith on others, employees or customers, for they have a right to religious freedom of their own – doing so would be ‘perverse’ and unAmerican.

            So again the question is why was this business even offering something to the public that couldn’t be sold to customers of all faiths?

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            Members of your sect has a right to believe what you want,..they obviously can’t project their faith on others,

            Meaning religious faith must effectively largely remain in the church, and cannot effect others, which is hardly much of a right, esp. as homosexual activists with their half naked parades define it.

            And that refusing to provide for an event they consider immoral is projecting their faith on others who are projecting their faith/ideology by demanding a person violate his conscience to provide a non-essential service they could have obtained elsewhere.

            You also ignore that the judgment that forbids religiously discrimination only extended to lawful activities, not accommodating all events, from child sacrifice to consensual group suicide, and so the problem is that the state chooses to protect an immoral practice as a matter of civil rights.

            Yet i very much doubt a homosexual baker would be fined for refusing to bake a special cake for Westboro baptist church celebrating the death of homosexuals or veterans. I would not want to either.

            You must affirm that they must, correct?

            So again the question is why was this business even offering something to the public that couldn’t be sold to customers of all faiths?

            So the issue again is why should a black or Jewish owned business be fined for refusing to create and sell a cake for a KKK celebration?

            Again, you must affirm that they must, correct?

            Note again that the baker or florist was not refusing to provide any service to homosexuals, but the refusal was that of a special creation due to what it would express, which would have been the case even if done by straight people.

            Must a painter create anything a customer wants? Should any baker be compelled to even create a cake he considers pornographic or dishonoring to someone since it is against his conscience? Or does the state basically hold a gun to his head and tell him he has not right to refuse to provide any special creation someone wants?

            Again, you must affirm that they must, correct? Some freedom.

            In any case, a Polish Christian in 1939 would be punished for not supplying yellow stars/badges (a RC idea first) for the German army. So must we.

          • Bob Burke

            No, if someone wants to run a business that religiously discriminates there are 2 ways in Washington state to do so, this business owner chose to run as a public accommodation.

            But of course your religious beliefs can’t be projected on others, they have a constitutional right to beliefs of their own.

            And no one is demanding any person ‘violate their conscience’ but that the business fulfill its obligation to provide service to the public without religious discrimination. Again, there were other employees of Arlene’s Flowers LLC that would have gladly filled the order, the owner could have used a business model that allowed religious discrimination. The owner did neither.

            And no, there was no refusal of a ‘special creation’, the specifics of the order were never reached in this case or any of the ones that have it the news. Your attempt to turn this into a case that it isn’t has been tried before before the courts and it always fails. We know the conversation from the owner’s own lips – it wasn’t about what was being asked for, it was because they didn’t like the belief based use the customer was going to use their purchase for. That’s illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and unChristian to boot.

            But your examples you select show a basic misunderstanding about the issues involved. Someone asking for something the business doesn’t sell isn’t the issue. Someone asking for something and it being refused for other than membership in a civil rights protected class isn’t the issue.

            Again, you want to create a new right to ‘religious discrimination in public offerings’ that somehow doesn’t violate the first amendment, the Washington state constitution, and its civil rights statutes go ahead. But until the first amendment is repealed its just not going to happen.

            Once there is a right to religious discrimination in public offerings though, then religious freedom will sail right out the window for everyone.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            But of course your religious beliefs can’t be projected on others, they have a constitutional right to beliefs of their own.

            That remains superficial, as everything we manifests what we really believe, even if at that moments, and it is impossible not to project that faith onto others by actions or inactions that affect them.

            What we are dealing with is at what point is there a conflict with valid rights of others, and the validity of those rights.

            And no one is demanding any person ‘violate their conscie nce’ but that the business fulfill its obligation to provide service to the public without religious discrimination.

            It is not even religious discrimination. A veteran who sells flags may refuse to sell them to those who expressly want them in order to burn them. Or sign board to Phelp’s Westboro Baptist. It may be against the law, but which is the problem with the state, who even comes in with large fines and “sensitivity training.”

            Obviously this can be extended too far (an atheist – owned cab company not providing rides to a church when others are easily had) but the point is that the state has gone too far on the other side.

            And no, there was no refusal of a ‘special creation’, the specifics of the order were never reached in this case or any of the ones that have it the news. Your attempt to turn this into a case that it isn’t has been tried before before the courts..

            So an administrative law judge issuing a “cease and desist” order and commission ordering Phillips and his employees to undergo “comprehensive staff training” and to file “quarterly
            compliance reports” for two years, and to document the number of customers denied any type of product or services, with non- compliance with the order risking contempt of court means specifics of the order were never reached and been tried before before court?

            As for the rest, you just dismiss all that has been reported (a lot!) and wait till the trial? How consistent.

            That’s illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and unChristian to boot.

            Now you are really reaching. So its unChristian to provide services to something God never sanctions and only condemns? S No doubt it was also unChristian not to obey the German government in killing Jews either. The devil never runs out of these.

            Once there is a right to religious discrimination in public offerings though, then religious freedom will sail right out the window for everyone.

            No, as it did not before as it did not extend to having to accommodate a fundamentally perverse practice, that was unknown and unrecognized as marriage.

          • Bob Burke

            Again, your examples show you either have no interest in honest discussion or you sincerely don’t understand civil rights laws, I don’t know which one is more likely.

            Your excerpt about Phillips has nothing to do with cake creation – as far as we know they will look at the cake book and say “I want one like at the top of page 3” which isn’t special creation, anymore than my asking the bakery at Safeway for the crescent rolls. There is no such thing as a ‘gay wedding’ cake, wedding cakes are ‘one size fits all’.

            And again, if a business can’t give a service to customers regardless of their beliefs then they shouldn’t be offering to the general public, simple as that and the one a Christian would have bothered to do.

            Again, if the owner wants to run a religiously discriminating business there are 2 ways to legally do it in Washington, they just have to bother to do it rather than whine when they get caught breaking the law.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            Again, your examples show you either have no interest in honest discussion or you sincerely don’t understand civil rights laws,

            Rather, this is honest discussion, so that objection is out, and you are failing to see that this not about whether current laws can indict the persons being targeted, but the validity of these (and the basis for that) what this can extend to. Come back in 12 years.

            as far as we know they will look at the cake book and say “I want one like at the top of page 3” which isn’t special creation…There is no such thing as a ‘gay wedding’ cake,

            Wrong, as a cake is customized for that wedding according to the customers wishes, and thus the customers, who could have gone to a homosexual owned bakery (advertising itself as “sensual”), and when the perverse nature of the “marriage” was made known, then the service was refused.

            Being consistent, the bakery had also refused, among other things, to create a cake for a “Halloween-themed wedding” another stated online in 2010.

            And again, imagining that delegating another employee to serve these customers absolves the owner of responsibility for what this creation is used for is perverse moral reasoning itself.

            And again, if a business can’t give a service to customers regardless of their beliefs then they shouldn’t be offering to the general public, simple as that and the one a Christian would have bothered to do.

            Wrong, as that would even sanction providing service for customers in order to break the law. A cabbie has no mandate to accommodate a man who hails a cab to go to a bank and says he is going to it and wait outside.

            Nor should one help celebrate a gay wedding, which until recent times could be refused. While it cannot be now, the owner is correct in refusing to do so, but not to sell food period.

          • Bob Burke

            And one man’s perversion is another man’s religious mandate – sorry, you can’t sell something to people of all faiths in an offer to the public don’t make the offer in the first place.

            And that they refused a theme cake is not the same as refusing to sell any cake. Again, if the product is identical to something they’ve sold before it can be sold to this customer.
            There is no more a ‘gay’vs ‘straight’ wedding cake than there is an ‘black’ vs ‘white’ deli sandwich.

            And no, people in Washington have been protected from religious discrimination since its existence as a state.

            Again, your understanding of the legal principles involved is practically non-existence. Your reasons will be laughed out of any court and most certainly a Washington one. This owner will lose because every argument you think defends them doesn’t. The ADF helped the photography studio in New Mexico lose too, and that case was less clear cut than this one AND that state even had a Religious Freedom Restoration Act – still lost.

            But then I’m sure they’ll pay Mz Stutzman’s legal bills after all is said and done, least they can do after all the ‘legal advice’ they gave her that was so horribly wrong.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            And one man’s perversion is another man’s religious mandate…

            You tried that above.

            Again, if the product is identical to something they’ve sold before it can be sold to this customer.

            Again, it was not the same, but special service for a distinctively different event which was redefined to be what was serviced before.

            There is no more a ‘gay’vs ‘straight’ wedding cake than there is an ‘black’ vs ‘white’ deli sandwich.

            That is just the kind of obfuscation gay activists rely on A cake created for a specific event wrongly called a wedding is not just another sandwich.

            And no, people in Washington have been protected from religious discrimination since its existence as a state.

            Again, you are ignoring what that meant before, which never extended or would have to what it has in recent times. Radical redefinition.

            Your reasons will be laughed out of any court and most certainly a Washington one.

            Well at least we can agree somewhat on the likelihood of the latter, which moral darkness befits them.

            The rest of rant your glorying in the same only indicts the lack of moral judgment that continue to decline, to this countries hurt.

            Not much more need to be said.

          • Bob Burke

            The immoral is the business breaking the law, the immoral is not respecting the rights of fellow Americans to have their own beliefs, the immoral is offering something for sale to the public and then applying a religious litmus test for them to qualify.

            But its not a shock, most people calling themselves Christian in the US walk in the footsteps of the Pharisees.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            The immoral is the business breaking the law,

            And both the church and this country began in dissent from those who sat in magisterial seat of power as contrary to what you espouse they recognized a higher source of laws.

            And thus sanction of homosexual marriage is a recent thing, concomitant with the general moral confusion and declension of this country. Which will only continue as it rejects Christ and the Bible.

            the immoral is not respecting the rights of fellow Americans to have their own beliefs, the immoral is offering something for sale to the public and then applying a religious litmus test for them to qualify.

            As your basis for morality is fallacious, so is your conclusion. A man who offers rope for sale but refuses to sell it to a racist lynch mob for that purpose is not immoral even when sanctioned by the state.

            Nor is a veteran who refuses to sell a flag to those who express it is to be burned.

            Nor is a black artist who will not offer his services to make a painting for the KKK.

            Put such in jail if you will and tell them they are immoral and glory in who much the courts will side with you, but

            The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Psa 9:17)

            Thanks I collect stats , even negative ones. Yet the Lord did not criticize the Pharisees for their support of the Law of Moses, and He Himself specified that it was make and female which God joined together in the sanctified union called marriage. (Mt. 19:4-6)

            And the very Christians (evangelicals) who are attacked the most are ranked the most Christ-like (not enough), and engage in the most service and charity, much in contrast to liberals.

            And i am friendly to homosexuals i meet, and want try to help them with their car etc. as i do straight people. My former next door neighbor was a practicing lesbian until she accepted Christ.

            Meanwhile, homosexuals activists are not tested, but for decades have followed the victim mentality strategy advocated by Kirk and Madsen in “After the Ball,” demonizing whoever would not salute the flag of Sodom so to speak.

            Their strategy was based on the premise that, “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable.”

            Kirk and Madsen’s open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. “…the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not”[51] “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.” More .

          • Bob Burke

            And so this is all about you just wanting a country designed from its beginning to have freedom of religion to… well… not.

            Sorry, there is no right to religious discrimination in public offerings in the United States. How could there be when every offer made to the public is being made to individuals with their own rights to religious freedom.

            As to ‘the book’ I think every copy bought was sold to Christians that love to quote its basic marketing 101 for gay rights marketing and act like it was some master plan rather than just the way you sell any political policy.

            But now that you’ve revealed that this isn’t about the law or even the US Constitution but rather that you just wish it were different I think we are done. You haven’t had a single legal argument that would allow this religious discrimination by a public accommodation, and definitely haven’t brought up anything that is going to sway a Washington court.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            And so this is all about you just wanting a country designed from its beginning to have freedom of religion to… well… not.

            Only one who confuses civil rights pertaining to amoral aspects with right to an immoral behavior could turn freedom of religion, which is meant in a Christian context, to make economic sanctions against those who cannot sanction immoral behavior when demanded.

            s to ‘th e book’ I think every copy bought was sold to Christians that love to quote its basic marketing 101 for gay rights marketing and act like it was some master plan rather than just the way you sell any political policy.

            That’s quite a bit of sophistry. Go even try to find it online. It is exceedingly manifest that this deceptive demonic “gospel” has been followed for decades.

          • Bob Burke

            Immoral behavior? Religious discrimination is that and that is what is happening here. Sorry there is no right to religious discrimination. May it never become recognized for it would be the end of religious freedom.

            As to the book it’s the way you sell anything from broccoli to politics. Just stating the obvious. I have one of the original “Reclaiming America” books from the 1980s, fundamentalists advocating the same marketing basics.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            Immoral behavior? Religious discrimination is that and that is what is happening here.

            You sure know how to controvert things, which is consistent with homosexual unions and marriage.

            As to the book it’s the way you sell anything from broccoli to politics

            No, that is blatant false deceptive advertising:
            “It makes no difference that the ads are lies… because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.”[54]

            The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

            “In short, the gay lifestyle – if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle – it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. – Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363

            So much for “honest discussion.” I think this attempt at such must end.

            Good night anyway

          • Stephanus

            Hobby Lobby (building on Citizens United) clearly shows that a closely held corporation can express it’s religious beliefs as an act of the corporation, and expect constitutional protection for that expression. The public accommodation laws, which are both morally and legally deficient to begin with, cannot under that precedent be used to force a choice between sincerely held religious conviction and participation in public commerce.

            Furthermore, your purported distinction between ideology and creed is superficial at best. Religious people who believe in traditional marriage generally do so because they believe divine revelation establishes permanent, heterosexual marriage as the only righteous form of sexual relationship. Basing one’s actions on divine revelation is the very essence of what we mean by “creed,” and as such belongs squarely under the protection of the First Amendment.

            Furthermore, the fact that some or even the majority of the population may not like or agree with one’s creed is the very reason we protect it. We are not to be a country governed by the creed of the mob, but by the rule of law and honoring the principle of individual liberty to the maximum extent possible. Every person has a duty to their conscience, to be faithful to the light they have been given. The modern hyper-expansion of the commerce clause to impose the popular creed of the majority on private individuals is an abhorrent development, and Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, and all that follow in their progeny represent a trend in the right direction, in restoring to the private citizen the means of making a living without having to sell their soul.

          • Bob Burke

            A more articulate reply. The distinction between creed and ideology is the state of Washington. What your argument ignores is it is the creed of the customer is what under attack here and the one needing protection.

            Your argument if accepted would invalidate all civil rights laws since every prejudice can be justified with a creed and more dangerously would establish a precedence of one citizen’s creed being held more important that another’s with the force of law.

            No they will find the constitutional answer, that all citizens have equal right to free exercise and once an invitation to commerce has been made it can’t be rescinded because the customer or employee doesn’t pass a belief test of a beluef they have a constitutional right not to share.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            In addition, while the wedding was because the persons were gay, it was because of the nature of activity that service was denied, which would be the case even if it was two straight persons.

            That is not the same as denying service to someone because of their race or sexual preference,

            To be consistent, the State must compel a black or Jewish business to provide for a KKK event, as said above.

            The State likely would, though not with as it does not want good citizens refusing to sell paint to those who advertize something they do not like, as they can (and must here) with juveniles buying spray paint.

            And thus the problem is that the State itself has a perverse sense of morality, protecting a perversion of marriage and a deleterious lifestyle as if it was a matter of skin color.

          • Bob Burke

            And acts connected to a protected class are likewise protected. As Justice Scalia a put it “a rule against yarhmulkas is a rule against Jews”. Ditto a rule against same gender weddings is a rule against those who’s beliefs include that, and against sexual orientation. Your attempts at an exception due to pedantic evasion doesn’t work in courts.

            And there are only businesses, not black or Jewish ones. And the KKK is an ideology not a creed so the business could reject their business, the KKK isn’t in protected class.

            And you must be very young, racism isn’t rationalized because the people clash with the drapes but because people of that race are lazy, stupid, criminal, dirty, diseased etc – you know the same kind of negative stereotypes you just used and a Christian never does.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            And acts connected to a protected class are likewise protected. As Justice Scalia a put it “a rule against yarhmulkas is a rule against Jews”. Ditto a rule against same gender weddings is a rule against those who’s beliefs include that,

            Your reasoning to skewed. Again, th issue here was not that of refusing service due to the persons being of a religion or ideology, but was a refusal to provide a special creation for an event due to what it signified.

            I believe a Muslim baker should have the right in America to refuse to create a special cake celebrating the founding of the modern state of Israel (even if it is to his own spiritual hurt), but not to sell anything or provide any service, , and esp. not an essential one.

            But it seems you fail to see the difference.


            And the KKK is an ideology not a creed so the business could reject their business, the KKK isn’t in protected class.

            Rather, in both cases it is the nature of the event and the nature of the service that makes them analogous. Both require a special creation for an event which is offensive to the business owner.

            Your attempts at an exception due to pedantic evasion doesn’t work in courts.

            Meaning your attempt to evade the distinction btwn refusing to serve someone because of race or sexual preference, versus refusing to create a special work for an event, regardless of who does it, is what a court must consider.

            And you must be very young, racism…because people of that race are lazy..criminal, dirty, diseased etc

            No, i am old enough to see that if that was what was being celebrated than no one should be compelled to create a special work celebrating that event, any more than a doctor should have to do abortions since he also cuts out tumors.

          • Bob Burke

            You are obviously not up on this issue. The customer didn’t ask for a special creation, they were refused purely because their wedding didn’t pass a religious test applied by the manager/owner of the business, like a business saying they aren’t against Jews they just don’t like yarhmulkes. Sorry, the signification is of no concern in a public offer – the customer has a right to use their purchase for whatever belief based reason they want, there couldn’t even be a law that prevents it in a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court.

            Again there is no right to interfere with someone else’s free exercise – a business invites people to buy a service its too late after the invitation to apply a religious litmus test on the customer and their event. And there are 2 ways a business can operate and religiously discriminate in Washington state and this owner chose to operate as a public accommodation knowing what that involves and the limitation that puts on how they deal with prospective customers and employees.

            Again, no one asked for a special creation in any of these cases that have gone before the courts – they were all clearly and explicitly cases of religious discrimination. And no one compelled the business to advertise the service to the public, they made the offer knowing the decades old obligations of service that offer had, of its own free will.

            Does the doctor advertise the availability of abortion services? No? Then that is a silly example. This florist shop did freely advertise the availability of wedding floral services to the general public and can’t refuse a customer because of their beliefs and the wedding that allows.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            On this issue, versus the scenario of the baker had likened it to, you are correct; it is akin to a Jewish business refusing to deliver white sheets to a KKK celebration, which I yet hold the owner should be able to do for non-essentials which can be had elsewhere.

            this owner chose to operate as a public accommodation knowing what that involves and the limitation that puts on how they deal with prospective customers and employees.

            Indeed, due to a state increasingly subscribing to the specious ethos behind liberal social engineering.

            Again, no one asked for a special creation in any of these cases that have gone before the courts

            Wrong. Cake shop owner Jack Phillips politely declined to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in July 2012.

            In December 2013, an administrative law judge sided with the couple, ordering
            Mullins to “cease and desist” from discriminating against same-sex
            couples by refusing to bake wedding cakes for them. Six months later,
            the commission ordered
            Phillips and his employees to undergo “comprehensive staff training”
            regarding the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to file “quarterly
            compliance reports” for two years, and to document the number of
            customers denied any type of product or services, citing the reason for
            the denial. If Phillips does not comply with the order, he could be
            found in contempt of court.

            Likewise the state of Oregon issued formal charges against cake shop owners Aaron and Melissa Kleinfor refusing to bake a cake for Rachel Cryer’s same-sex wedding ceremony in January 2013. (http://www.worldmag.com/2015/01/forced_down_the_same_sex_wedding_aisle)

            And no one compelled the business to advertise the service to the public, they made the offer knowing the decades old obligations of service that offer had, of its own fr ee will.

            That is not in contention, and what the service should have done is defined “wedding” which might help, while the the law would not have extended to gay marriage in the past, as it was not recognized as being marriage.

            What has happened here is because it has been, and in time this moral declension will likely be extended to unions btwn man and animals (or whatever), resulting in more lawsuits against those who refuse to accommodate it, as they never presumed America could become so depraved.

            Does the doctor advertise the availability of abortion services? No? Then that is a silly example.

            Not really, as again this relates to definition. A wedding historically has been the union btwn opposite genders, but which is defined differently homosexuals.

            Similarly, pro-choice people see abortion as removing unwanted tissue growth, and if the doctor offers surgical removal of such then one who refused to extend that to abortion could be penalized due to the definition of his services not being precise enough.

          • Bob Burke

            You don’t seem to realize all your cases the owner rejected the customer before any cake selection process was done just as I said.

            And Washington state has prohibited religious discrimination since 1889 constitutionally and by statute since 1949. Or is just anything you don’t like slapped with a ‘liberal’ label?

            And you obviously have no understanding of how the law works – this has nothing to do with marriage equality in Washington, I know gay couples who have had weddings 20 years ago, weddings are not regulated by the state.

            A wedding has always been open to anyone that wants one according to their beliefs. Same gender couples have been having weddings long before there was marriage equality and it would make no difference in this case – you can’t define away a customer if the product the want is the same as other customers have bought. The photography studio case in New Mexico was about a commitment ceremony and tried the ‘we only do weddings’ excuse – that argument lost instantly – it never had a chance.

            Again, the business either sells wedding floral services or it doesn’t, pick one. If it does it can’t refuse them to people because of their beliefs OR the events those beliefs naturally lead to, i.e. same gender weddings for gay customers.

          • http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/ Peace By JESUS

            You don’t seem to realize all your cases the owner rejected the customer before any cake selection process was done just as I said.

            You don’t seem to realize that this is irrelevant as the nature of the event the cake was to celebrate was know, versus “we don’t sell to homosexual” being hung on the door, or separate bathrooms.

            Of course having honored sodomy now states are basically doing away with separate bathrooms for male and female, and an owner can be fined for refusing transgendered to use either one.

            And they think this is what America’s Founders would uphold.

            And Washington state has prohibited religious discrimination since 1889 constitutionally and by statute since 1949.

            And when did this extend to “gay” “marriage” let alone the rest that is to come (bestiality etc.)? What religious discrimination entailed or even if is sanctioned flag burning versus what it has extended to is the point.

            I know gay couples who have had weddings 20 years ago, weddings are not regulated by the state. A wedding has always been open to anyone that wants one according to their beliefs.

            But it was not recognized by the state, nor was refusal to provide services specifically for that penalized by law.

            you can’t define away a customer if the product the want is the same as other customers have bought.

            You keep trying this but again the customers were not refused because of their race, gender, national origin, or sexual preferences, and at least on 2 cases were offered products. They were only refused due to the offensive nature of the event.

            And for the Master Bake shop it was a special creation. Must an artist create anything one define as “art?”

            The photography studio case in New Mexico was about a commitment ceremony and tried the ‘we only do weddings’ excuse – that argument lost instantly – it never had a chance.

            Which is no standard of veracity, but the owner should have defined what manner of ceremonies he would cater to. One should even be able to refuse to honor marriage btwn divorced people if they judge that as wrong.

            Again, the business either sells wedding floral services or it doesn’t, pick one.

            Again, the business must sell his wedding floral services for anything that anyone defines as a wedding, or he has a right to define what his creation celebrates. I already know your pick.

            Yes you have the law on your side but so did the SS in buying yellow stars.

          • Bob Burke

            And the event that the item being offered or sale is used for is irrelevant to the business if it is based on belief – there couldn’t even be a law that allowed this kind of discrimination of the customer.

            Of course the prohibition of religious discrimination would extend to any product for a wedding. There has never been anything illegal about having a wedding what ever the sexes of the lucky couple.

            And the ‘it was only about the event’ is no more useful than the ‘we only have a rule against yahmulkes’. Sorry, one person’s offensive is another religious necessity. Again, can’t sell something to people of all beliefs don’t operate as a public accommodation.

            Yeah yeah, preventing religious discrimination by a business against the public is exactly like the SS.

            Seriously do you really not have a clue why you lose in courts with reasoning like that?

  • RedWhiteandBlue

    Forced acceptance is in full swing. The ideals set forth by our nation’s founders we have forgotten. America is in its final moments as our parents, grand parents and great-grand parents have known. The Great Generation of WWII vets shed their blood to have people today litigated to death by Saul Alinsky’s apostles, when our founders followed Christ’s apostles. May God have Mercy on the USA.

  • Clem Brulee

    I never saw a flower lead and perform a service before……………..